41–50 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SCO?
You're in for a treat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber is worth 60 billion dollars. It is 2megacorps fighting each other.
Honest question, I have little VC expertise. Are these valuations relatively legit? Do the people with money at stake have undue influence on the number?
The 60 billion valuation means that there was an investor who was willing to put their money where their mouth is and trade X billion dollars for Y number of shares under certain terms.
But the specifics of that term sheet matter a lot.
For example, if that investor has "ratchets" or preferred shares in their term sheet, it means that they get their money before anyone else does.
Kind of like if a bank gave you a loan, but put a 100% interest rate on it.
It's high time for mods to launch ubernews, they are in the spotlight every single day. 71 submissions last week [0]. 0: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=uber&sort=byDate&dateRange=pas...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question, I have little VC expertise. Are these valuations relatively legit? Do the people with money at stake have undue influence on the number?
Depends on what you mean by legit. The 60 billion valuation means that there was an investor who was willing to put their money where their mouth is and trade X billion dollars for Y number of shares under certain terms. But the specifics of that term sheet matter a lot. For example, if that investor has "ratchets" or preferred shares in their term sheet, it means that they get their money before anyone else does. Ki…
Sounds like that might result in some inflation. I guess I could look at eventual IPO events, but that's judging the herd by the leaders.
Edit: Thanks for the clarification below. I'm dragging this page off topic now, so noting it here.
I'm really curious how Alphabet even suspects that Levandowski signed this doc days after he quit. Anonymous/confidential tip?
They didn't know. Levandowski's lawyer outed its existence in a hearing, trying to use it as some basis for redacting or witholding other documents. "Ramsey pointed to a joint defense agreement between Levandowski and various law firms that meant that nothing should be revealed." I assume it was dated. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/judge-accuses-ub... Perhaps a move he regrets? Edit: That arstechnica ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on what you mean by legit. The 60 billion valuation means that there was an investor who was willing to put their money where their mouth is and trade X billion dollars for Y number of shares under certain terms. But the specifics of that term sheet matter a lot. For example, if that investor has "ratchets" or preferred shares in their term sheet, it means that they get their money before anyone else does. Ki…
Okay, so early investors have some influence on valuation, based on how much risk they appear to be taking? So a high valuation helps attract new investors to dilute the risk of the early crowd? Sounds like that might result in some inflation. I guess I could look at eventual IPO events, but that's judging the herd by the leaders. Edit: Thanks for the clarification below. I'm dragging this page off topic now, so noti…
High valuation is equivalent to saying high price. The higher the valuation, the more you pay, for less of the company.
BUT, in order to get investors to pay this high price, sometimes you have to give them really good terms.
Terms like "if the company sells for less than you paid, then you get all of your money back, thus you aren't risking anything".
Early investors pay a lower price, but generally risk more. If the company ever has a down round, at any point in the history of the company, the early investors get screwed/might walk away with literally 0$, even though they "owned" x% of the company. While the later investors walk away with all their money intact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't know. Levandowski's lawyer outed its existence in a hearing, trying to use it as some basis for redacting or witholding other documents. "Ramsey pointed to a joint defense agreement between Levandowski and various law firms that meant that nothing should be revealed." I assume it was dated. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/judge-accuses-ub... Perhaps a move he regrets? Edit: That arstechnica ar…
Wow, misstep after misstep. This is really turning out very poorly for Uber. All because of a bunch of accidental events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't know. Levandowski's lawyer outed its existence in a hearing, trying to use it as some basis for redacting or witholding other documents. "Ramsey pointed to a joint defense agreement between Levandowski and various law firms that meant that nothing should be revealed." I assume it was dated. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/judge-accuses-ub... Perhaps a move he regrets? Edit: That arstechnica ar…
Wow, misstep after misstep. This is really turning out very poorly for Uber. All because of a bunch of accidental events.