Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Travis Kalanick Is Exiting His Uber Holdings Uber Quickly

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 205 posts

Re: Travis Kalanick Is Exiting His Uber Holdings Uber Quickly

#111

Post by frockington1 »

ummonk wrote: post #84
aianus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has positive unit economics. Uber gets ~20% of what you spend on a ride and their per-unit expenses are basically moving a few bits around and having someone in a Filipino call center present to provide customer support.

After taking into account driver incentives (which should be classified as cost of revenue, not sales and marketing), their unit economics are unprofitable.

Now that I'm thinking of it Uber and WeWork both have 'alternative' accounting methods. Would love to see if 'alternative' accounting is a strong negative indicator for post-IPO health

Re: Travis Kalanick Is Exiting His Uber Holdings Uber Quickly

#113

Post by bblpeter »

gwd wrote: post #6

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…

You can’t diversify radically from your own company and at the same time tell investors it’s the future and it’s going to be trillion dollar business etc. If he really believed that he wouldn’t diversify. Look at Larry Ellison or the Google founders if you want examples of someone who believes financially in their stakes in their own companies.

Re: Travis Kalanick Is Exiting His Uber Holdings Uber Quickly

#115

Post by C1sc0cat »

cVwEq wrote: post #98
gwd wrote: post #6

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…

As an aside to the parent poster, an often-stated guideline for the maximum amount you should own in the companies you work for is 10% of your portfolio value [1][2]. Modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, et. al.) calculations for a bundle of assets probably would bear out that 20% in a single stock is not on the efficient frontier [3]. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-invest-in-your-compan... [2] https://www…

That not really applicable for "Directors" who are quite different to "employees /workers"

Re: Travis Kalanick Is Exiting His Uber Holdings Uber Quickly

#116

Post by fastball »

jjeaff wrote: post #94
Retric wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are realms of wealth. Even 100m is not enough to comfortably afford a private jet. Several ultra wealthy like Bill Gates diversified a billion dollars from their company which seems to be about the limit where more money mostly becomes an abstraction. One example is people who actually own mansions generally live in a relatively small space inside. You can only really use one room at a time and walking around t…

$100m can very comfortably afford a private jet. Maybe not a brand new G6, but a small to mid size jet could be comfortably purchased and maintained while barely spending more than the market appreciation of that $100m.

A new mid-size jet will run you $10-20M.

Pilots and maintenance will cost you $1M+ per year. Depending on how much you use it, that could be significantly more. Spending 10-20% of your net worth on a vehicle up front + 1% pa going forward is not "comfortably afford".

If my net worth was $2M, I would not say that I could comfortably afford a lambo.

Re: Travis Kalanick Is Exiting His Uber Holdings Uber Quickly

#117

Post by frandroid »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #99
cdmcmahon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's still on the board...

You can still want to maintain influence without having personal/financial exposure to the consequences.

But that sends a wickedly powerful statement to the market that you as a remaining board member would not hold the shares of the company you oversee... That's the discussion here.

Re: Travis Kalanick Is Exiting His Uber Holdings Uber Quickly

#118

Post by OnlineGladiator »

kjs3 wrote: post #104
williamdclt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with this logic: you can be confident but prudent. Self-confidence leads to bias, I wouldn't consider it a bad sign that the co-founder stays prudent. However, going from 75% to 20% means that something changed, and that's not a good sign

What do you think changed for the worse beyond he's no longer part of the company, no longer party to the 'inner circle' decision making, and no longer has a vested interest in maintaining the perception everything is perfect?

Uber's stock price has been steadily falling since it went public. There are many people who believe it still has a long way to fall.

Re: Travis Kalanick Is Exiting His Uber Holdings Uber Quickly

#119

Post by ptero »

bblpeter wrote: post #113
gwd wrote: post #6

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…

You can’t diversify radically from your own company and at the same time tell investors it’s the future and it’s going to be trillion dollar business etc. If he really believed that he wouldn’t diversify. Look at Larry Ellison or the Google founders if you want examples of someone who believes financially in their stakes in their own companies.

> You can’t diversify radically from your own company and at the same time tell investors it’s the future and it’s going to be trillion dollar business etc.

Sure you can; in fact in many cases you should. Say, one knows (to keep things scientific; replace "knows" with "honestly believes" to somewhat reflect real life) his $100M invested in a company to have a 50% chance of being worth $1B in 5 years and 50% chance of being worthless.

This means expected 500% return in 5 years, which should make (diversified) investors pour money in. But as a real person with $100M net worth, I do not want a 50% chance of zero net worth at any expected return rate. I would rather get $80-90M today, which will give my family 100% chance of financial independence, and leave $10-20M in as a riskier bet. My 2c.

Re: Travis Kalanick Is Exiting His Uber Holdings Uber Quickly

#120

Post by OnlineGladiator »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #67
AznHisoka wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t Japan serve as a counter argument?

No, it just implies Japan is still in a recession.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're essentially saying "the markets always rise over time" is a fundamental law that cannot be broken, and counterexamples are clearly just temporary recessions (no matter how long the recession).

When you take the logic to such extremes, it becomes a meaningless statement. It's literally impossible to disprove this assertion if you just ignore the evidence that says it's not true. Japan is absolutely a counterexample.

Post reply on HN