11–20 of 205 posts
Plus, the future isn't so clear and the markets are at all time highs and he has other company that may require liquidity in the coming years. Better be in cash.
From TFA: > The 43-year-old’s remaining stake in the ride-hailing company now constitutes about a fifth of his $3 billion fortune, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, down from about 75% before the lockup. To be fair, if I had 75% of my net worth in a single asset, I'd also try to diversify. My wife and I both have lots of stock in the companies we work for, due to RSUs and employee stock purchase programs…
Travis Kalanick and Adam Neumann should co-author a book entitled "Making Billions - No Profitability Required".
From TFA: > The 43-year-old’s remaining stake in the ride-hailing company now constitutes about a fifth of his $3 billion fortune, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, down from about 75% before the lockup. To be fair, if I had 75% of my net worth in a single asset, I'd also try to diversify. My wife and I both have lots of stock in the companies we work for, due to RSUs and employee stock purchase programs…
Although you make a good point about general portfolio diversification, the difference between a "normal" employee and a co-founder is fairly large in this instance. Co-founders are supposed to have confidence in the business they built - if they don't, why should other investors?
He’s not in charge any more so why should he have unwavering confidence?
From TFA: > The 43-year-old’s remaining stake in the ride-hailing company now constitutes about a fifth of his $3 billion fortune, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, down from about 75% before the lockup. To be fair, if I had 75% of my net worth in a single asset, I'd also try to diversify. My wife and I both have lots of stock in the companies we work for, due to RSUs and employee stock purchase programs…
Although you make a good point about general portfolio diversification, the difference between a "normal" employee and a co-founder is fairly large in this instance. Co-founders are supposed to have confidence in the business they built - if they don't, why should other investors?
The business they built and still either run or largely preside over, however Travis was ousted— I'm not sure he'd agree with their current direction as a result.
That's to be expected. He was ousted from the company, has no control now so there's little reason why he should be bullish on a stock run by other people. Plus, the future isn't so clear and the markets are at all time highs and he has other company that may require liquidity in the coming years. Better be in cash.
From TFA: > The 43-year-old’s remaining stake in the ride-hailing company now constitutes about a fifth of his $3 billion fortune, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, down from about 75% before the lockup. To be fair, if I had 75% of my net worth in a single asset, I'd also try to diversify. My wife and I both have lots of stock in the companies we work for, due to RSUs and employee stock purchase programs…
Although you make a good point about general portfolio diversification, the difference between a "normal" employee and a co-founder is fairly large in this instance. Co-founders are supposed to have confidence in the business they built - if they don't, why should other investors?
From TFA: > The 43-year-old’s remaining stake in the ride-hailing company now constitutes about a fifth of his $3 billion fortune, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, down from about 75% before the lockup. To be fair, if I had 75% of my net worth in a single asset, I'd also try to diversify. My wife and I both have lots of stock in the companies we work for, due to RSUs and employee stock purchase programs…
Although you make a good point about general portfolio diversification, the difference between a "normal" employee and a co-founder is fairly large in this instance. Co-founders are supposed to have confidence in the business they built - if they don't, why should other investors?
Travis Kalanick and Adam Neumann should co-author a book entitled "Making Billions - No Profitability Required".
There are many, many more that belong on that list. Becoming a paper billionaire without profit isn't restricted to the companies we love to hate.
I can't think of many other examples where the company is doing so poorly and the co-founders made off with $1B+, given that this was not an acquisition.
Maybe a better title would be "Getting to a Billion without Long-Term Viability or Acquisition".