5 ms·
> But we acted out of a deep conviction that it would be better for Uber, its employees, and investors to have a fresh start. Bull-fucking-shit. Don't condesc
by dasil003 9y ago
> But we acted out of a deep conviction that it would be better for Uber, its employees, and investors to have a fresh start.
Bull-fucking-shit. Don't condescend to us and pretend like you have the employees' interests at heart. I have no great love for Travis, but come on don't act like this isn't about getting your returns. The letter would have a lot more credibility if they just came out and admitted what is obvious to everyone.
- prostoalex 9y agoAre Benchmark's interests not aligned with employees' interests in this case? They would have preferred stock, so it seems like there's plenty of scenarios where they extract benefit, but common stockholders don't, there's one scenario - perfect execution - where common stockholders benefit while Benchmark benefits enormously, but there are zero scenarios where common stockholders do well, but Benchmark doesn't.
- mark_element 9y agoBenchmark here has quite different time pressure than potential common stock holders. They need to get liquid.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> They need to get liquid Benchmark or Uber's employees who hold illiquid common stock?
- sah2ed 9y agoBenchmark. At least that's according to this throwaway but highly upvoted comment [0] from some days ago. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14983957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14983957
- prostoalex 9y agoThe urgency is never quite explained. If Benchmark needs to wind down a fund, they can just distribute shares directly to LPs.
- prostoalex 9y agoWhy?
- dfabulich 9y agoAre you saying that Benchmark thinks/knows this lawsuit is worse for Uber and its employees? It's an open secret that Kalanick is trying to regain control of the company, telling people that he plans to return as CEO; that he's "Steve Jobs-ing it." [1] That's what this lawsuit is trying to prevent. I don't think Kalanick's return would be good for Uber, its employees, or its investors. Clearly Benchmark feels the same way. [1] https://www.recode.net/2017/7/30/16066332/uber-ceo-search-travis-kalanick-meg-whitman-steve-jobs-board https://www.recode.net/2017/7/30/16066332/uber-ceo-search-tr...
- aianus 9y agoAny examples of companies that have done significantly better after publicly ousting their founder CEO? I've worked at more than one where it turned to shit...
- nkassis 9y agoBut if they are ousting their CEO publicly it's probably because things are going extremely badly. I don't think ousting the founder is necessarily making it worse and thus the cause for those companies to worsen after the ousting.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- CreepGin 9y agoPaypal? Well, things are complicated.
- throwaway987634 9y agohttp://www.businessinsider.com/how-ciscos-founders-were-ousted-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ciscos-founders-were-oust...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jmull 9y agoI don't think they are somehow attempting to hide their motivations or mislead employees. As you say, it is obvious. They are only arguing that both employees and investors have a shared interest in the long-term success of the company. Which sounds pretty reasonable.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y agoThe problem is a lot of people believe that Benchmark has interest in the short-term success (until it IPOs) due to its fund cycle. So it's pretty obvious that there's no such "shared" interest here. Which is why this letter comes off as deceitful
- rtx 9y agoBenchmark have a deadline.
- coverband 9y agoAnd if the authors had shown their personal convictions by putting their names on the bottom...