# UBER CFO STEPS DOWN (to "spend more time with family")



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

http://www.cnet.com/news/uber-cfo-steps-down-after-huge-year-of-financing/


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

"spend more time with family" means he was told he can either resign immediately or be fired.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> "spend more time with family" means he was told he can either resign immediately or be fired.


I don't think so in this case.
The guy is now a 'made man' and after what he accomplished in the last 24 months (and his time at Google) it is unlikely he will ever need to work again. I suspect he's just getting out while the getting is good... and before his reputation gets tarnished with the real possibility of a disastrous IPO. Uber is so over valued that if at or after an IPO the company's market cap is anything below $40bil, it would reflect very poorly on him. So instead, het gets to sit back with his stock options and wait it all out.

There's really no down-side for him for stepping down.


----------



## Bob Smith (Jan 11, 2015)

He's made more money than he can spend in a life time. Why continue working a stressful job when he can retire already? He made his money on the backs of the drivers though. Convincing the everyday american into working for free lol


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't think so in this case.
> The guy is now a 'made man' and after what he accomplished in the last 24 months (and his time at Google) it is unlikely he will ever need to work again. I suspect he's just getting out while the getting is good... and before his reputation gets tarnished with the real possibility of a disastrous IPO. Uber is so over valued that if at or after an IPO the company's market cap is anything below $40bil, it would reflect very poorly on him. So instead, het gets to sit back with his stock options and wait it all out.
> 
> There's really no down-side for him for stepping down.


POST # 3 /@Michael - Cleveland : Nice scoop
Michael!
I guess the Spring IPO is about to happen.
Anyone wanna bet on whether it'll happen
before the Snow Farms melt in Boston?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Bob Smith said:


> He made his money on the backs of the drivers though. Convincing the everyday american into working for free lol


I doubt he's ever met an Uber driver in person. He's a finance guy... he talks people with big money into investing. Don't blame the CFO for the work of the CEO.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't think so in this case.
> The guy is now a 'made man' and after what he accomplished in the last 24 months (and his time at Google) it is unlikely he will ever need to work again. I suspect he's just getting out while the getting is good... and before his reputation gets tarnished with the real possibility of a disastrous IPO. Uber is so over valued that if at or after an IPO the company's market cap is anything below $40bil, it would reflect very poorly on him. So instead, het gets to sit back with his stock options and wait it all out.
> 
> There's really no down-side for him for stepping down.


There's also no upside for Uber to have people with ties to Google anymore.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 3 /@Michael - Cleveland : Nice scoop
> Michael!
> I guess the Spring IPO is about to happen.
> Anyone wanna bet on whether it'll happen
> before the Snow Farms melt in Boston?


What, are you kidding? Do you know how long it takes to do an IPO?
It's not like you you just post an AD on eBay with 'stock for sale'.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> There's also no upside for Uber to have people with ties to Google anymore.


hehe... I get your point, but remember, Google has a ($300mil) seat at the board... and this CFO is NOT Uber's competition.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> hehe... I get your point, but remember, Google has a ($300mil) seat at the board... and this CFO is NOT Uber's competition.


Bloomberg has an unnamed source that says the board is weighing whether to ask Drummon to resign his seat on the board.

From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-google-and-uber-are-going-to-war-over-taxis

_"Now there are signs that the companies are more likely to be ferocious competitors than allies. Google is preparing to offer its own ride-hailing service, most likely in conjunction with its long-in-development driverless car project. Drummond has informed Uber's board of this possibility, according to a person close to the Uber board, and Uber executives have seen screenshots of what appears to be a Google ride-sharing app that is currently being used by Google employees. *This person, who requested not to be named because the talks are private, said the Uber board is now weighing whether to ask Drummond to resign his position as an Uber board member.*"_


----------



## uberThere (Feb 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't think so in this case.
> The guy is now a 'made man' and after what he accomplished in the last 24 months (and his time at Google) it is unlikely he will ever need to work again. I suspect he's just getting out while the getting is good... and before his reputation gets tarnished with the real possibility of a disastrous IPO. Uber is so over valued that if at or after an IPO the company's market cap is anything below $40bil, it would reflect very poorly on him. So instead, het gets to sit back with his stock options and wait it all out.
> 
> There's really no down-side for him for stepping down.


The phrase "leaving to spend more time with his family." has long been a code word for being forced out. You can also tell by the fact that he left abruptly. Executives that leave voluntarily give a long lead time to allow for proper succession planning.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberThere said:


> The phrase "leaving to spend more time with his family." has long been a code word for being forced out. You can also tell by the fact that he left abruptly. Executives that leave voluntarily give a long lead time to allow for proper succession planning.


None of that is true... many times (as in the case of the recent departure of the CFO from CRCM), an exec leaves a company saying they want to spend more time with their family - when in fact, they want to spend less time with the jerks they work with. It's particularly common among CFOs who get pressured from the board or CEO to do things that would put their license and reputation at risk. But in this case, as I mentioned, I suspect the guy did an amazing job, picked up his pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and is going to sit back and wait for the next tech start-up that wants to raise billions in VC investment to come calling. With his reputation now, every tech start-up in the world will seek him out.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> What, are you kidding? Do you know how long it takes to do an IPO?
> It's not like you you just post an AD on eBay with 'stock for sale'.


POST # 8 /@Michael - Cleveland: Having
read
ALL the linked articles on these Forums
I was lead to believe that the IPO was a
2015 certainty with between 2nd and 4th
Quarters. BTW: The previous "record"
Winter, '95-'96, it was near Memorial
Day before the SnowFarm puddled out!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 8 /@Michael - Cleveland: Having
> read
> ALL the linked articles on these Forums
> I was lead to believe that the IPO was a
> ...


hehe... yeah, okay... if you consider 3rd/4th qtr spring when the snow melts, I can't argue. 

Look for a public announcement from Morgan-Stanley/Goldman-Sachs/BofA that they have been engaged to do the IPO and an announcement of the hiring of auditors to prepare the IPO financials for the SEC. AFTER those announcements you're looking at a minimum of 90 days before a scheduled IPO (which can be delayed due to market conditions)


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> hehe... yeah, okay... if you consider 3rd/4th qtr spring when the snow melts, I can't argue.
> 
> Look for a public announcement from Morgan-Stanley/Goldman-Sachs/BofA that they have been engaged to do the IPO and an announcement of the hiring of auditors to prepare the IPO financials for the SEC. AFTER those announcements you're looking at a minimum of 90 days before a scheduled IPO (which can be delayed due to market conditions)


Or SEC due diligence??


----------



## uberThere (Feb 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> None of that is true... many times (as in the case of the recent departure of the CFO from CRCM), an exec leaves a company saying they want to spend more time with their family - when in fact, they want to spend less time with the jerks they work with.


I've been investing in the markets for 30 years, I've yet to see it otherwise - have you taken a look at the stock for CRCM? It's highest price was $30/share during its IPO, and that was only a little over a year ago. Now it's below $8. Doesn't seem to me that he's flavour of the month.



> It's particularly common among CFOs who get pressured from the board or CEO to do things that would put their license and reputation at risk.


You don't need a licence to be a CFO, and it's common for them to be sent packing because finance is a tough job, and if you aren't getting the job done, then you aren't going to hang around.



> But in this case, as I mentioned, I suspect the guy did an amazing job, picked up his pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and is going to sit back and wait for the next tech start-up that wants to raise billions in VC investment to come calling. With his reputation now, every tech start-up in the world will seek him out.


I don't really know why he was sent packing, so I won't speculate. It's especially difficult to know because Uber is not a publicly traded company so who knows what the finances are really like. It may also be due to a personality clash, but none of that matters. The fact is if he was in high demand, and was leaving out of personal choice, he'd make sure he gave lots of lead-time, and then have a new position lined up and ready to go. Are you do aware that if you quit without proper notice as someone who is really key to the firm then you can be sued for wrongful quitting?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberThere said:


> I've been investing in the markets for 30 years,...


No offense intended, but that's hardly a resume point. I've been working with C-level management for 35 years. Just as you think you know what you're talking about, so di I.



> ...I've yet to see it otherwise - have you taken a look at the stock for CRCM? It's highest price was $30/share during its IPO, and that was only a little over a year ago. Now it's below $8. Doesn't seem to me that he's flavour of the month.


Then you just haven't seen what I've seen. That's fine - but it doesn't make your comment anything more than speculation.

I really don't understand why people feel the need to get into a pissing match just because someone disagrees with their opinion and states it. Yes, I know CRCM well, I know the management, founders and followed the prep for the IPO, the IPO itself and follow the stock very closely.
Who cares?
Their stock price has nothing to do with what I was talking about...
I just used it is an example of a very well respected CFO who left a company whose management team has been accused of misleading investors by painting a far too rosy picture of lousy actual financials. A CFO, unless they are a crook, is always the one person in the exec management team that will not lie... because they aren't willing to go to jail for making someone else wealthy.
That's why they leave companies.



> You don't need a licence to be a CFO,


What does that have to do with anything here?
THIS CFO happens to be a licensed CPA.
In THIS instance, his ability to remain licensed and certified *may* be at risk if he is tied to any financial improprieties at the company.
CFOs often leave companies under those circumstances.



> ...and it's common for them to be sent packing because finance is a tough job, and if you aren't getting the job done, then you aren't going to hang around.


If you want to discuss CFOs and corporate politics and procedures, go ahead (preferably in your own thread topic).
In THIS thread, the ability of THIS CFO to raise $2bil in capital investment and $1.6bil in financing in just the last 12 months speaks to his success.



> I don't really know why he was sent packing, so I won't speculate.


You don't know that he WAS sent packing - you are already speculating.
Which is great... but don't pass your speculation off as confirmed information.



> The fact is if he was in high demand, and was leaving out of personal choice, he'd make sure he gave lots of lead-time,


We have NO IDEA how much lead time he gave (privately), whether he clashed with Kanalick or someone else, or if he just wanted to get out while the getting was good (which is MY speculation).



> and then have a new position lined up and ready to go.


In my corporate experience of 35 years, people who have exceeded their personal financial goals to live an independently wealthy life leave a company when they want to - whether they have been recruited for a new position or not. For example, the head of the only profitable division of CRCM (who founded the division and sold it to CRCM for $10mil in cash and 6.6% of CRCMs stock) left CRCM to go do advocacy work in her industry. She's not looking for another 'job'.



> Are you do aware that if you quit without proper notice as someone who is really key to the firm then you can be sued for wrongful quitting?


Seriously, you don't think I (or anyone else) knows what a contract is?
Do you seriously think this guy left without having met the terms of his contract (which undoubtedly included stock options)?
More to the point... why are you even going there? What's the relevance?
Whether he resigned because he met his own goals, the company's goals or just didn't like what he saw coming down the pike, the one thing we can be _fairly_ sure of is that he wasn't fired... and we can lean towards that conclusion because a company with a $40bil valuation heading towards an IPO does everything it can to avoid bad press, and bad impressions on investors who do not like to be made nervous about their investments.

So the question to be asking, in my opinion, is 'what is it that he knows that makes him no longer want to be associated with the company?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> Or SEC due diligence??


Yes - that's what the outside auditors prepare.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> Bloomberg has an unnamed source that says the board is weighing whether to ask Drummon to resign his seat on the board._"_


Makes sense... it's a serious matter. If they piss off Google, they may end up in a proxy battle with an adversary that has virtually (no pun intended) unlimited financial resources.

hehe... all we need now is for Elon Musk to take a major position in Uber and then we can watch the fun begin.


----------



## uberThere (Feb 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No offense intended, but that's hardly a resume point. I've been working with C-level management for 35 years. Just as you think you know what you're talking about, so di I.


No offence, either, but I worked as a middle-level drone before leaving corporate life a while back, and even we knew the lingo.



> Then you just haven't seen what I've seen. That's fine - but it doesn't make your comment anything more than speculation
> 
> I really don't understand why people feel the need to get into a pissing match just because someone disagrees with their opinion and states it. Yes, I know CRCM well, I know the management, founders and followed the prep for the IPO, the IPO itself and follow the stock very closely.
> Who cares?
> ...


What pissing match? If one is starting, it's not from me.

You may know the team well, but are you saying you are privy to the decisions made by the board, or CEO? Otherwise you're post is just speculating, too. My director was replaced Monday to pursue other challenges. I don't recall a party, so do you think that was done on a positive note? Moreover, are you suggesting that the CFO only leaves because he's asked to do something unethical?



> What does that have to do with anything here?
> THIS CFO happens to be a licensed CPA.
> In THIS instance, his ability to remain licensed and certified *may* be at risk if he is tied to any financial improprieties at the company.
> CFOs often leave companies under those circumstances.


You brought up that CFOs could lose their licence, as if it actually was a job requirement. I'm a former CPA, and most accountants in the corporate don't have one, or don't use it. I'm not sure that you realize that having a CPA is only a requirement to sign a public audit statement. That's a minuscule number of people that need it. Again, it seems you are saying the company is crooked, and that's why CFOs leave. Why is that the case in your mind?



> If you want to discuss CFOs and corporate politics and procedures, go ahead (preferably in your own thread topic).
> In THIS thread, the ability of THIS CFO to raise $2bil in capital investment and $1.6bil in financing in just the last 12 months speaks to his success.


I'm sorry, I didn't know that there was a restriction in what could be discussed. More to the point, I think it's why he left is a big part of the story. If you don't agree then you don't have to respond.



> You don't know that he WAS sent packing - you are already speculating.
> Which is great... but don't pass your speculation off as confirmed information.


No, but you are just as guilty as speculating, so how is that different?



> We have NO IDEA how much lead time he gave (privately), whether he clashed with Kanalick or someone else, or if he just wanted to get out while the getting was good (which is MY speculation).


Did they name a replacement for him? No, which means he left before he could do a search, and that means there wasn't enough time to do one. Again, you say you speculate, and again, I state that I've heard this lingo for 30 years.



> In my corporate experience of 35 years, people who have exceeded their personal financial goals to live an independently wealthy life leave a company when they want to - whether they have been recruited for a new position or not. For example, the head of the only profitable division of CRCM (who founded the division and sold it to CRCM for $10mil in cash and 6.6% of CRCMs stock) left CRCM to go do advocacy work in her industry. She's not looking for another 'job'.


She also didn't leave with a press announcement of spending more time with their family, did she?



> Seriously, you don't think I (or anyone else) knows what a contract is?
> Do you seriously think this guy left without having met the terms of his contract (which undoubtedly included stock options)?
> More to the point... why are you even going there? What's the relevance?
> Whether he resigned because he met his own goals, the company's goals or just didn't like what he saw coming down the pike, the one thing we can be _fairly_ sure of is that he wasn't fired... and we can lean towards that conclusion because a company with a $40bil valuation heading towards an IPO does everything it can to avoid bad press, and bad impressions on investors who do not like to be made nervous about their investments.


I don't know what anyone else's knowledge is on this board, but I've seen wrongful quitting suits when key people leave. I guess that CFOs aren't key people, especially when their may be an IPO in the offing? As for the relevance, it's always relevant when someone leaves abruptly. It usually indicates some sort of issue. Sometimes, it just a job performance issue, or personality clash. However, it could also mean there are issues with Uber's internal finances, and they are trying to solve the issues. I follow Tesla a great deal, and the first warning sign that China was in big trouble was when the first Chinese sales head suddenly left.



> So the question to be asking, in my opinion, is 'what is it that he knows that makes him no longer want to be associated with the company?


You are assuming he left because on his own volition, I'm just assuming the opposite. Either way, it does seem we agree that something is amiss.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberThere said:


> are you suggesting that the CFO only leaves because he's asked to do something unethical?


No. I would never suggest hat someone leaves ONLY for one reason. That was my objection to your statement about the what 'spending more time with family' means... _In my opinion_, that euphemism is a 'catch-all' for 'it's none of your business' or 'we're not willing to discuss the particulars of why the person is leaving'.



> You brought up that CFOs could lose their licence,


I mentioned it as a side issue - not terribly important. In this case, with this CFO, he is a licensed CPA subject to regulatory oversight. It was a minor, side issue, that you decided was of some particular relevance. It's not.



> No, but you are just as guilty as speculating, so how is that different?


The difference is that my comments were specifically worded (hedged) as 'speculation' while your comment was stated as an absolute (ie: "The phrase "leaving to spend more time with his family." has long been a code word for being forced out. You can also tell by the fact that he left abruptly. Executives that leave voluntarily give a long lead time to allow for proper succession planning.")



> Did they name a replacement for him? No, which means he left before he could do a search, and that means there wasn't enough time to do one.


PURE speculation. You have no idea when he gave notice, if he was fired or much time has been involved. I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but - but it certainly is not a certainty.



> She also didn't leave with a press announcement of spending more time with their family, did she?


hehe... CRCM still hasn't even announced that she left (and it's been 8 months) - but just like Uber's CFO, she told those of us who know her that she will "remain available to the company on a consulting basis".



> I don't know what anyone else's knowledge is on this board, but I've seen wrongful quitting suits when key people leave.


hehe... Analysis and conclusion based on personal anecdotal observance is not exactly scientific methodology.



> However, it could also mean there are issues with Uber's internal finances, and they are trying to solve the issues.


Absolutely... it could (and I suspect that's the case here).



> You are assuming he left because on his own volition, I'm just assuming the opposite. Either way, it does seem we agree that something is amiss.


No - I am SPECULATING that he left of his own volition... and that is exactly what I said. PURE speculation on my part... and I gave my reasons why I feel that way.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The difference is that my comments were specifically worded (hedged) as 'speculation' while your comment was stated as an absolute *(ie: "The phrase "leaving to spend more time with his family." has long been a code word for being forced out.* You can also tell by the fact that he left abruptly. Executives that leave voluntarily give a long lead time to allow for proper succession planning.")


*
Often followed by rumors or disclosures of marital improprieties, sometimes on the yob*.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

hehe... exactly - it's a non-reason.
as far as we know, he left because he lost his calculator.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> hehe... exactly - it's a non-reason.
> as far as we know, he left because he lost his calculator.


He could be the financial genius who algo'ed the reduced rates/hourly guarantees scheme that didn't work out so well on the street.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> He could be the financial genius who algo'ed the reduced rates/hourly guarantees scheme that didn't work out so well on the street.


Doubtful... his time has spent romancing investors, not strategizing marketing efforts. And besides, just because the reduced fares/guarantees thing doesn't work for us drivers, doesn't mean it hasn't worked well for both PAXs and UBER (who says it's been a huge success for them)


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Doubtful... his time has spent romancing investors, not strategizing marketing efforts. And besides, just because the reduced fares/guarantees thing doesn't work for us drivers, doesn't mean it hasn't worked well for both PAXs and *UBER* (who *says it's been a huge success for them*)


You wouldn't expect to hear otherwise, would you?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> You wouldn't expect to hear otherwise, would you?


I absolutely believe it... their numbers show more riders and more drivers making more trips. I saw one email sent to a driver from Uber saying that "Uber is thrilled that the lower fares have meant huge increases in ridership and more rides for pax - and greater revenues over-all - *even if drivers are making less by driving more*."

Sounds like Uber, doesn't it?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I absolutely believe it... their numbers show more riders and more drivers making more trips. I saw one email sent to a driver from Uber saying that Uber is thrilled that the lower fares have meant huge increases in ridership and more rides for pax - and greater revenues over-all - even if drivers are making less by driving more.
> 
> Sounds like Uber, doesn't it?


Large corps only have successful business endeavors, dontchaknow?


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I absolutely believe it... their numbers show more riders and more drivers making more trips. I saw one email sent to a driver from Uber saying that Uber is thrilled that the lower fares have meant huge increases in ridership and more rides for pax - and greater revenues over-all - even if drivers are making less by driving more.
> 
> Sounds like Uber, doesn't it?


Uber can say anything they want, they only show graphs never actual numbers of the markets they claim a increase in ridership due to lowering rates. Does Uber ever show in numbers how many new pax are using the app versus existing pax requesting more rides...crickets from Uber. When does cutting your revenue increase when cutting fares by 40%....Nope.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

scrurbscrud said:


> Large corps only have successful business endeavors, dontchaknow?


Tech Start-Ups going public have little to do with the 'success' of the ongoing business...
they have to do with valuation and making the VC and management very wealthy (and often leave the duped public holding the bag).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Txchick said:


> Uber can say anything they want, they only show graphs never actual numbers of the markets they claim a increase in ridership due to lowering rates. Does Uber ever show in numbers how many new pax are using the app versus existing pax requesting more rides...crickets from Uber. When does cutting your revenue increase when cutting fares by 40%....Nope.


fair enough... but the point is that Uber revenues overall can continue to climb while individual driver EARNINGS continue to fall. Easy enough to understand. Uber doesn't care about driver earnings - and right now, not even about their own earnings - Uber is a Tech start-up and all that matters to them is the valuation of the company and demonstrable increases in users of the system.


----------



## Berliner (Oct 29, 2014)

Rats are leaving the sinking ship.

Luber is banned in Europe, but this doesn´t matter. It´s only a small market.

But: the Asian market is although a no-go-area for this assholes. This market is the most important behind the US, and they don`t get any foot at the ground.

Their 40$B value will melt like ice in the sunshine.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Tech Start-Ups going public have little to do with the 'success' of the ongoing business...
> they have to do with valuation and making the VC and management very wealthy (and often leave the duped public holding the bag).


Anyone who believes anything coming from big dot corp is an idiot.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No. I would never suggest hat someone leaves ONLY for one reason. That was my objection to your statement about the what 'spending more time with family' means... _In my opinion_, that euphemism is a 'catch-all' for 'it's none of your business' or 'we're not willing to discuss the particulars of why the person is leaving'.
> 
> I mentioned it as a side issue - not terribly important. In this case, with this CFO, he is a licensed CPA subject to regulatory oversight. It was a minor, side issue, that you decided was of some particular relevance. It's not.
> 
> ...


I give about as much credence to the letter of resignation as I do to Uber's claim that lower rates increases driver earnings. In fact, I speculate both were written by the same Uber PR employee.

I also doubt that after only 1 year and 7 months he was fully vested in his shares of Uber. He likely forfeited a significant non-vested portion leaving so soon. I just have too many reasons to not believe Uber's being honest for once. If Vegas would let me place a bet on this being BS, I would. Uber is BS machine.


----------



## uberThere (Feb 22, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> I give about as much credence to the letter of resignation as I do to Uber's claim that lower rates increases driver earnings. In fact, I speculate both were written by the same Uber PR employee.
> 
> I also doubt that after only 1 year and 7 months he was fully vested in his shares of Uber. He likely forfeited a significant non-vested portion leaving so soon. I just have too many reasons to not believe Uber's being honest for once. If Vegas would let me place a bet on this being BS, I would. Uber is BS machine.


I'd take that bet, too. He's only 48, which makes him young for a C-suite, and has the chops to make the top spot somewhere in SV. Although, Michael is correct in that you can't use absolutes, it's hard to think that someone that obviously was dedicated enough to make it this far this fast would suddenly feel he's a family man, after all.


----------



## ryan76 (Feb 7, 2015)

He got fired, no one wants to get shot before the ipo. Something went wrong. I'd bet this 80 cents - 1 dollar a mile thing isnt working out and they are pissing through investor money.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> http://www.cnet.com/news/uber-cfo-steps-down-after-huge-year-of-financing/


^^^
Yeah, bulldozing all that money around can really take its toll.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Yeah, bulldozing all that money around can really take its toll.


<soundtrack from Jaws coming up in the background>
I guess they needed a bigger bulldozer.

Hey, what about UberCATERPILLAR?
$2.50 base fare / $.74 min / $1.25 a yard


----------

