
Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake - derwiki
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-05/uber-co-founder-travis-kalanick-said-to-plan-sale-of-29-of-stake
======
kinkrtyavimoodh
Happy for him. I can only imagine how much being ousted from a company he
created and raised to its current level must have hurt.

I do not look fondly at what a pain local transport was in cities without
public transport (and even those with), and it is Travis (yes, Travis first,
Uber second) that led this paradigm shift.

We can debate about Uber's business practices until the cows come home, but
this is undeniable. And yes, other so-called 'nicer' / 'ethical' rideshare
companies who didn't have to get their hands dirty because they profited from
the ecosystem that Uber created exist precisely because of that.

~~~
craigching
> I do not look fondly at what a pain local transport was in cities without
> public transport (and even those with), and it is Travis (yes, Travis first,
> Uber second) that led this paradigm shift.

How about we improve public transport? I know it’s unpopular to propose
“socialist” ideas, but public transport works elsewhere in the world, why does
it have to be so horrible here? Why does someone have to profit for something
that you agree is a “pain?”

~~~
jeffdavis
There are a lot of practical challenges here because this country was already
built for cars as the universal form of transport.

~~~
AlexandrB
Over the last 50 years American exceptionalism has morphed from: "We are the
greatest country on earth, unique in our ability to achieve." to "We are the
most special snowflake country in the world, unique in our inability to
improve healthcare, public infrastructure, or reduce deaths by firearms." It's
really quite sad, I hope you guys get our of your rut soon.

~~~
unethical_ban
As someone who has grown up in the South, and who has visited San Francisco,
Philadelphia, DC, NYC, Boston and other places, I agree public transport is
amazing, and I wish cities in the South could pull it off. I also recognize
it's incredibly difficult, and expensive, to do so. And even if we had the
money and ability to build rail along freeway lines, and build stops at
popular social and residential hubs, how do people get to the rail station?
Vehicle. And for many people, the question will then be, "Why drive to the
station, wait 15 minutes, take a train with multiple stops, etc. when I can
just drive?"

At which point you talk about incentives against driving, at which point you
piss off millions of people, and potentially punish those who legitimately
couldn't use rail due to work or scheduling circumstances.

You're really blowing off something incredibly difficult, more difficult
(politically and financially) than putting someone on the moon. And your snark
isn't even conceptually consistent; we thought we were a snowflake in the 60s,
we just really were one of the greatest countries in the world. Firearm issues
are there but over hyped/more complex than you want to admit, and if anything,
we really should let states take the reins at healthcare, because it'd be a
lot easier for regional governments to pull something off and get the ball
rolling than to constantly fight at our crippled-by-two-national-parties
Congress.

~~~
AlexandrB
> You're really blowing off something incredibly difficult, more difficult
> (politically and financially) than putting someone on the moon.

You're probably right, but I also think that the main roadblocks are
political, not financial. The US has one of the highest GDP/capita in the
world but consistently fails to apply this economic power to helping its own
citizens or does so in extremely wasteful ways like creating jobs through
military spending.

Edit: Also public infrastructure isn't just transport. There are cities in the
US that do not have safe drinking water. It's shocking.

------
ProfessorLayton
Looks like there were a lot of people looking to cash out, since he was unable
to sell 50% like initially offered [1]

[1]
[https://twitter.com/EricNewcomer/status/949095493052768256](https://twitter.com/EricNewcomer/status/949095493052768256)

Still, a 1.4B cash out is $437,363 _per day_ return for Kalanick. Wow!

~~~
kjksf
According to the article, the limit is not because Softbank and others were
not willing to buy more but because Softbank and others could not buy more.

Presumably because other investors didn't want Softbank to buy too much shares
and gain too much control over Uber.

In other words, Softbank bought as much as they possibly could.

------
hkmurakami
Basically an admission that he has lost the power struggle.

~~~
cylinder
What if he engineered his departure so he could get away with dumping his
shares?

~~~
kjksf
Then he deserves an Oscar _and_ an Emmy.

All this fake fighting for control over company. He certainly had me fooled.

~~~
bertil
I’m not close enough to that action to know but I understand (from rumours)
that he pretended to support a problematic successor who proved to be a dud to
get the attention far from Dara, the person he actually wanted to take over.

------
matchagaucho
After taxes this sale would amount to $1B+.

That's a solid psychological finish line for some entrepreneurs.

The liquid Billion club gets a pretty cool Amex card with personal concierge.

~~~
joncrocks
Three comma club.

------
paunchy
Although unsurprising, this can't be a good indicator for the outlook of the
company.

~~~
tyingq
Hard to determine if he lost confidence in "his vision" vs "current + future
vision".

In his place, having lost direct control, I'd be tempted to cash out early
solely because my influence was so diminished. Not because I was 100% sure the
new direction wasn't right.

So I can't tell if this is an admission that Uber is over valued, or just a
risk management decision around losing more direct control.

~~~
paunchy
True. But by cashing out the maximum possible amount, this is far more than a
hedge. In your scenario, I would cash out some but would have confidence in
the strength of the business that I created... unless I didn't.

In reality, I'm at a loss as to why anyone would join Uber right now. They
cannot be still attracting the best talent, especially in the autonomous
vehicle space. And I've seen no evidence that the current ride sharing
business is defensible, particularly once you account for the equity infusions
that subsidize that business.

~~~
tyingq
I get your point, but is roughly 1/3 of my stake having lost direct control
that strong a statement?

Personally, I think his next move is more telling. If he holds 2 thirds,
that's an endorsement. If he keeps selling, then, yeah...it's a signal.

------
tw1010
What an incredible twist. I bet most people would have pinned him as the next
Jobs or Gates only a few years ago.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
> I bet most people would have pinned him as the next Jobs

And they would have been absolutely correct. Exactly what happened to Steve
Jobs.

~~~
adjkant
Far too early to say "correct". Starting a company that burns cash faster than
anyone and cashing out is not at the same level of Steve Jobs.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
Do you know why Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple?

~~~
jachee
It _wasn 't_ allegations of sexual harassment and/or legally-questionable
business practices.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
> It wasn't allegations of sexual harassment

The "sexual harassment" claim was for an employee (or employees), it wasn't
him who sexually harassed someone.

There is sexual harassment everywhere. Probably at your company too, it's just
that people wanted to see Uber fail, and that's why he's become the sacred
cow.

I'm not saying he did a great job dealing with these issues. I'm saying a lot
of the things Uber was accused of was something that EVERY other company does.
You just aren't aware of it.

And in this particular case, this was used as a weapon to bring down Uber. The
narrative you're following is really just a result of politics and media
manipulation by some parties which benefited from this result.

~~~
adjkant
> it's just that people wanted to see Uber fail, and that's why he's become
> the sacred cow.

The sexual harassment did not come out because people wanted to see Uber fail.
People want Uber to fail because it came out, and the extent of it.

Extent is a very important factor. This was not "a person was sexually
harassed once at a company", which does indeed happen at many places. This was
a larger pattern and intrinsic problem. You're downplaying that by insinuating
that all of this is because there was a target on Uber's back. There are good
reasons people want to see them fail.

> I'm saying a lot of the things Uber was accused of was something that EVERY
> other company does. You just aren't aware of it.

Um, no. There are some more common than others, sure, but few companies were
as bad as Uber was. Every company does not steal IP from other companies.
Every company does not create software to evade law enforcement. Every company
does not pay hackers to delete data. Every company does not hire psychologists
in an attempt to manipulate drivers. The list goes on.

You can argue that Kalanick deserves credit for his idea and perhaps even the
overall effects in a utilitarian argument, but sweeping under the rug the bad
reveals your bias very quickly. All of your posts on this thread are basically
trying to defend him directly or indirectly while adding in a clause basically
saying "well he wasn't perfect". Let's not erase the bad because he may have
done something good, just as we shouldn't erase the good.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
If you think Uber is uniquely evil, you are too naive my friend.

Again, i'm not trying to say Uber was ethical, so don't try to tell me I'm
some Uber fanboy.

I'm just pointing out among all evil corporations Uber was the one to fall and
there are plenty of disgusting reasons behind it which most people who
criticize Uber have no idea of. And I'm talking about this point. The world
thinks they've won because they've punished Uber, but what they've done is
just play into hidden politics that made some shady people behind the scenes
more money.

~~~
adjkant
Actually, the world is all run by 3 dogs making decisions in Japan. Trust me,
Uber is just their pawn. Nothing else matters, every other ethical fault is
meaningless.

You're going to have to actually provide some examples and/or evidence before
I believe most companies do all of this regularly. I'd argue most terrible
ethical actions of companies are out in the open and more socially accepted.

> "The world thinks they've won because they've punished Uber, but what
> they've done is just play into hidden politics that made some shady people
> behind the scenes more money."

This is one small thing, but I'll take it over nothing.

I'm not blind to the larger power struggle of the world all mostly hidden from
view. But, if this didn't happen, a different group of shady people wins on
the other side of the hidden politics. Last I checked there aren't big
differences in the shady hidden political system's parties.

------
cocktailpeanuts
Good for him. This is probably an unpopular opinion here, but I feel bad for
this guy. Could have built a really great empire, and he probably would have
if it was ten years ago.

But things are changing so fast nowadays and the masses have a lot of power
(maybe too much than they deserve) and Uber unfortunately was at the wrong
place at the wrong time.

When I talk to real people in the real world (not Twitter trolls and social
justice warriors), most people appreciate how Uber changed the world for the
better. He deserves every cent of his billions of dollars.

~~~
ejstronge
Perhaps the 'real people in the real world' would be offended and stop using
Uber if they knew of Kalanick and his team's doings, not the least of which
has been the intimidation and attempt to discredit a rape victim.

EDIT: I appear to be mis-remembering Uber's actions - they did not initially
share their denial of the victim's experiences with her, per the accounts I've
found. In this setting, 'intimidation' may be too strong a word.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
This keeps coming up. Uber did not intimidate the rape victim.

~~~
Ppw24
We know they obtained her medical records in an attempt to discredit her, and
Travis knew.

[https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-
indi...](https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-india-
assault-rape-medical-records)

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/07/uber-
exec...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/07/uber-executive-
fired-eric-alexander-rape-case-india)

That alone should disqualify Kalanick from serving as CEO. Instead of firing
the executive who took the records immediately, he gave his implicit approval
by considering the records.

------
thisisit
> Kalanick, who owns 10 percent of the company

The planned sale is of 29% of his stake ie 3% of Uber. I guess 3% doesn't have
the same flourish.

------
tw1010
It feels like a lot of people are saying, through distorted lenses, that it is
understandable that he didn't become the next big tech leader because this or
that reason. (Almost as if they "knew all along that this would happen".) Why
not be honest with ourselves instead? Let's just admit that our predictor
functions got this one totally wrong, and that we should probably each
individually, and maybe as a community, learn from this lesson and somehow
correct whatever the bug in the function was.

~~~
Balgair
> correct whatever the bug in the function was.

You mean the egregious sexual harassing and blatant attempts to obstruct
justice?

Or do you mean the ability of people on the HN forums to predict the future?

~~~
eanzenberg
Who did Travis sexually harass?

~~~
Balgair
Like, if your kids run off and stomp all over the neighbor's petunias, that's
on you, the parent. Similarly, if your platoon drives a tank over and wrecks
some civilian's lawn, that's on you, the lieutenant. Also, if you are a
CEO/manager/whatever and your employees are just _the worst_ to other
employees, that's on you, the manager/CEO person.

Did you wreck the neighbor's petunias yourself? No. But you were the
responsible person in charge.

So, did T-dawg grope without restraint? I don't know, likely not. But he let
it happen, repeatedly, for months.

Also, that whole 'grey-ball' thing.

------
gigatexal
Great time to sell with SoftBank throwing money around. Get out and retire to
an island with your billions.

------
wmf
Can employees also cash out in the Softbank deal?

~~~
akras14
Came here to say something along those lines.

[https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/29/handcuffed-to-
uber/](https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/29/handcuffed-to-uber/)

------
outside1234
Smart dude - bailing the sinking ship

~~~
jerrycruncher
To be fair, he's the one who stuffed the ships with morality-free sailors,
booze, drugs and prostitutes and then acted surprised when his investors
questioned his ability to captain.

~~~
QAPereo
Of course those questions were only raised after it all went public, and Uber
became a bad word in some circles. It’s possible the investors were so due
diligence free that they had no clue, but I really doubt it.

------
CardenB
Does anyone know what sort of restrictions he could have on his stake? Is he
allowed to do this?

I would assume a CEO of a private company couldn't sell this much without
being removed, but since he has already been removed, I wonder what incentives
he would have to keep it.

~~~
erichurkman
Even if he had restrictions, I would expect the current board / management to
waive such restrictions to entice him to sell in the tender, particularly
since there was a floor to Softbank's tender offer. Travis' stake filled a lot
of that floor. Removing some of his voting power to replace it with an active
investor is a nice bonus, too.

------
msmith10101
Looks like both Benchmark and Travis Kalanick wanted to sell more stock than
they were able to. Can someone explain who was able to sell stock and how
their sell preferences were prioritized and executed? Was everyone able to
sell at least one percent of their holdings, for example?

------
m3kw9
he probably needs cash to start his next thing

~~~
wand3r
NEXT Taxi. All the vehicles look like black cubes.

------
creator_lol
or he is planning to get off the sinking ship

~~~
czardoz
Personally, I really hope Uber does well. The leadership is new, they have
more capital, and can do really well if they execute properly. No other
company has that sort of a global reach in the on demand transport business
right now. It's incredible that I can use the same app to hail a ride in so
many cities and countries.

~~~
akras14
They got my business back after he left.

------
dawhizkid
Travis Kalanick has spent his entire career in P2P space...wouldn’t be
surprised if his next move is an ICO!

------
xandar11
Uber's business model is a total failure. Hubert Horan has done an amazing job
exposing it [1] and you can also listen to his interview [2].

[1] [http://horanaviation.com/Uber.html](http://horanaviation.com/Uber.html)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0D_Q8xvosM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0D_Q8xvosM)

~~~
tristanj
Lyft and Uber share the same business model, which is ride hailing. Is Lyft's
business model also a total failure?

~~~
exogeny
Yes. Without billions of subsidies from VCs, both companies are long gone.

I'll leave it up to you to conclude whether or not trading $0.60 for a $1 can
last forever.

~~~
baldajan
It doesn’t have to last forever, it just has to last longer than the
competitor.

~~~
adjkant
This isn't intrinsically true.

If they raise the prices, does the market go away?

If they are able to outlast and go to self-driving cars, how profitable is
that business when factoring in competition, possible regulation, or it even
becoming a public utility?

~~~
baldajan
You’re underestimating the current oligarchy that exists. That’s why net
neutrality is dead. You’re right, it’s not intrinsically true, but it’s pretty
damn close to it...

Side note: big companies generally die because they don’t take a real threat
seriously, and by the time they do, it’s too late.

------
perseusprime11
Is there a way for individual investors like us to buy it before they go
public?

------
cityzen
At least he can keep the JamPad funded for a few more years.

------
mabbo
I'm somehow reminded of Francesco Schettino.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia_disaster](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia_disaster)

------
forgotpw2018
Seems like a good time to dump this =).

I think I know the kind of world Travis comes from. He was in a fraternity,
and he treated it like a business like I did. When he owned a real business he
applied those lessons far too liberally.

Fraternities are ruthlessly competitive, going as far as planting fake pledges
and building internal dossiers on all the other frats on campus. Very valuable
was your loyal man with a generic young face that could walk their way into
other houses unsuspected.

Fraternities are also bound strongly by shared goals and lifetime membership,
something that doesn't translate to a company where you can leave anyday.
They're both a company and a political structure within the university. A
strange 501c3 title 9 exempt chimera that forever walks the line.

I'm not defending what he's done, just saying that ruthless
counterintelligence is normal for Greek houses trying to get an edge, just
like politics. We did much of the same, going as far as putting together wifi
sniffers with long range dish antennas pointed at other houses to figure out
how many people connected to their WiFi during parties.

We never did any harm, but we watched as closely as our abilities (and the
law) allowed. It was opposition research, as bad as politics, and often
intertwined. At one point I was fraternity president and my roommate was
president of the Student House of Representatives, in charge of the school's
'activity fee', which was close to 50 million a year. We both hated politics
and left them forever after graduation, but seeing into the void was a hell of
an eye opener for both of us.

I have a strong feeling Travis tried the fraternity formula on a unicorn. A
fraternity is much different primarily because you're elected. If you own it,
you don't have to pander to anyone or spend half your time watching your back.
I think the shadier and secretive projects are a reflection that Travis didn't
understand that.

~~~
ryandrake
As someone who knows nothing about fraternities: what on earth are they
competing over? Are they competing over who throws the best parties?

~~~
discoursism
They compete over things that seem absolutely critical in your early twenties,
somewhat impressive in your late twenties, and foolish at best by your mid
thirties.

~~~
forgotpw2018
Eh, I joined one when I was 25 so I have to disagree. One of my fraternity
friends followed me across the country and let me live on his couch for about
two years. Another was my best man. Best friends I've ever had, easily.

Yeah the competition doesn't mean as much when you get older but you still get
fired up years later on homecoming when you hear your old rival got more
members or a bigger house or whatever.

I'm in my early thirties now and I still think it was worth it, competition
and everything.

------
LarryDarrell
He at least showed us that waving a smartphone in the face of regulators and
the public was the next best thing to a Jedi mind trick.

 _waves smartphone_ "Uber is not a taxi service." -"Uber isn't a taxi service"

 _waves smartphone_ "There is no need to regulate us as a taxi service."
-"There's no need to regulate them like a taxi service."

 _waves smartphone_ "Uber drivers are not employees." -"These drivers are not
employees."

~~~
forapurpose
> waving a smartphone in the face of regulators

At least for government, that wasn't a smartphone he was waving. It was a
stack of something with drawings of U.S. Presidents on it, sort of greenish.

> waving a smartphone in the face ... the public was the next best thing to a
> Jedi mind trick.

In that case, the smartphones were the ones in the public's hands: Uber ran an
effective media campaign, including paid-for editorials in major newspapers
(and I'm guessing elsewhere) about how great it is to be an Uber driver, and,
AFAICT, astroturfing in online forums and social media. Uber was a darling of
the business world, a paragon of SV and American innovation. Not so long ago,
you couldn't say anything negative about Uber on HN without being voted down
to oblivion, and the talking points were repeated in every discussion.

------
mrschwabe
Travis is to Uber as Ross Ulbricht is to Silk Road (but for transportation).

Both made a practical business innovation but crossed a sensitive line and so
they were attacked/penalized for it.

But the cat is already out of the bag; the idea and technology to fulfill
their goals cannot be stopped.

In that sense, attacking an individual innovator is futile; at best it's a
short term setback for the market they are trying to serve.

