5 ms·
Kalanick has stated publicly that he has not sold a single share - so he has actually taken no money off the table whatsoever.
by bigtones 9y ago
Kalanick has stated publicly that he has not sold a single share - so he has actually taken no money off the table whatsoever.
- downandout 9y agoI hadn't heard that. When did he state this, and is it still accurate as of today? It's possible he sold shares in the last few weeks during the run-up to this decision. Or maybe he hasn't sold shares, but there are other ways that he could have profited handsomely from Uber already. Cash bonuses, private sale of options (has he said he hasn't sold an option?) etc. I'm just saying if he has enough in the bank, he may have decided it wasn't worth it to fight his investors, the media, and basically everyone else that has jumped on the anti-Kalanik bandwagon.
- noway421 9y agohttp://video.vanityfair.com/watch/the-new-establishment-summit-the-world-of-uber http://video.vanityfair.com/watch/the-new-establishment-summ... 33:45 It's actually would be a major news point I think. Whether or not Travis sells his shares is what's gonna be decisive of his position in the company and possible future ambitions.
- usrusr 9y agoSurely a company with billions of valuation will pay a decent CEO salary even if said CEO happens to be the founder / main shareholder?
- baybal2 9y agoPROTIP: Shareholder loan
- ridgeguy 9y agoPerhaps he pledged a small fraction of his shares to collateralize a non-recourse loan. This is one way to monetize equity without selling it. The lender takes the risks as to share value and liquidity. If presented early in Uber's climbing valuation curve, it probably would have looked like a good opportunity to lenders.