41–50 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try 15%, at a maximum.
20%, you mean, for federal long term capital gains. Plus 3.8% for Net Investment Income Tax. Plus, he resides in CA, so tack on ~12% (he's making so much marginality doesn't really affect things) in state taxes. ~36% in total, which is a lower effective tax rate than many people here, but not quite as outrageous.
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.
the markets are at all time highs Isn't the world economy built on the idea that markets will always go up? Every year should be an all time high, otherwise we're in recession which is (apparently) tragedy to be avoided at all costs, no?
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.
the markets are at all time highs Isn't the world economy built on the idea that markets will always go up? Every year should be an all time high, otherwise we're in recession which is (apparently) tragedy to be avoided at all costs, no?
1987 saw a massive market crash with no recession.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your company doesn't have to make a profit for it to be (legitimately) worth a lot of money...Amazon is a great example.
Amazon does make a profit though. And when they weren't, it was by choice and they were not burning billions in investor dollars to do it. But yes, I probably should've said "Viability" instead of "Profitability".
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.
the markets are at all time highs Isn't the world economy built on the idea that markets will always go up? Every year should be an all time high, otherwise we're in recession which is (apparently) tragedy to be avoided at all costs, no?
It is less the assumption that the market always goes up (eventually) and more the lack of mathematical comprehension.
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?
My questions about the viability of Uber aside, I stick to the story I've heard repeated in many forms "executives sell shares for any number of reasons, but only buy for one reason". Accordingly I don't put much meaning behind stories about an executive selling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your company doesn't have to make a profit for it to be (legitimately) worth a lot of money...Amazon is a great example.
Amazon didn't really have bad unit economics. It just spent a lot on growth and R&D, but the core business was profitable from early on, unlike Uber and WeWork.
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.