4 ms·
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 prud
by williamdclt 7y ago
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
- DuskStar 7y agoI'm pretty sure the thing that changed was that he was allowed to sell...
- thisisnico 7y agoWhen most of your net worth is tied to a stock of a single potentially volatile company like UBER, you sure as hell want to sell that off and diversify your portfolio. He's not involved with the company any-longer, he has no reason to keep his stock. If he was still in-charge I get that you want to display confidence in the business and keep the stock. TLDR: Most of your net worth in a single stock is insane.
- kjs3 7y agoWhat 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?
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoUber'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.