41–50 of 595 posts
There was a person in the Uber thread yesterday who predicted this. I wonder if they’ll go back to hiring if this is over or they’re using as an opportunity to get rid of people they shouldn’t have hired in the first place.
I guess I'm glad I don't work there right now.
There was a person in the Uber thread yesterday who predicted this. I wonder if they’ll go back to hiring if this is over or they’re using as an opportunity to get rid of people they shouldn’t have hired in the first place.
If headcount is not directly helping that then it should not be an indefinite relationship.
Also, I'm available for hire as a CFO or board member if you think your company has challenges with adopting this market-relevant predilection and needs to make "the hard decisions".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, though the stock went up after this news, Google and Amazon could have acted faster.
That's because there is at least 17% less share dilution than there was a day before, let alone the runway being marginally extended. So speculators don't get dumped on by employees with RSUs all day every day, and the business prospects are not adversely impacted any more than they already were. Thats when you pay more for shares. Layoffs are proactive for investors, not an omen for investors, don't get that confuse…
I'd guess less than 10% of employees probably hold more than 90% of RSUs everywhere (not that different from the stock market as a whole, where 10% of Americans own over 80% of the market).
So a 17% layoff might not touch the RSU-rich employees very much at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, though the stock went up after this news, Google and Amazon could have acted faster.
That's because there is at least 17% less share dilution than there was a day before, let alone the runway being marginally extended. So speculators don't get dumped on by employees with RSUs all day every day, and the business prospects are not adversely impacted any more than they already were. Thats when you pay more for shares. Layoffs are proactive for investors, not an omen for investors, don't get that confuse…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paying people in stock and performance bonuses is ideal during a downturn. It doesn't cost the company anything to pay people in stock, since it just siphons off value from all existing stock, and nobody's getting their performance bonus!
> anything to pay people in stock, since it just siphons off value from all existing stock wait what?
Hypothetically the per share price goes down by 1/3 here and is now worth $6.67 (but the company’s still worth $10,000 total it’s just 1500 * $6.67 instead of $1000 * $10).
Generally though bonuses like this come out of a pool that’s already been allocated years ago and there’s no change to stock price
Uber/airbnb/lyft were considered in the same tier as facebook/google before corona. With google also slowing hiring, are the engineers laid off all going to be absorbed by facebook?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> anything to pay people in stock, since it just siphons off value from all existing stock wait what?
Let’s say I have 1000 outstanding shares all worth $10. I need to pay someone a $5000 bonus. I’ll just issue 500 shares of stock to them instead because, well, that’s about $5000. Hypothetically the per share price goes down by 1/3 here and is now worth $6.67 (but the company’s still worth $10,000 total it’s just 1500 * $6.67 instead of $1000 * $10). Generally though bonuses like this come out of a pool that’s alread…
Uber/airbnb/lyft were considered in the same tier as facebook/google before corona. With google also slowing hiring, are the engineers laid off all going to be absorbed by facebook?
Lyft is up 5% today, but the market (S&P 500) is generally up 2.94%.
Both uber and lyft are flying today. Most people see cutting jobs as a bad thing, market probably sees it as a cost savings and great business decision.