Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
I believe that DBR is a highly respected Forum with quality members that corresponds quality opinions. With a penchant (at times) to interject humor graciously! My humble stance on the Caldbeck situation is - when this thread goes to Page 3, it will be quickly forgotten.
So many people seem to have forgotten the Caldbeck era, when Vermont kids dominated the hoop roster.
Sure, but Harvard and Stanford are not really in the same situation. Because Harvard, as an Ivy League school, does not offer athletic scholarships (though many athletes receive aid through the university's very generous need-based financial aid program), the cost calculation of operating a sports team is quite different--a smaller amount of money can support more sports.
Two things about Harvard:
- Any admitted student of modest means at Harvard is essentially guaranteed a full ride. Athletes, of course, do qualify for preferred admission at the discretion of the school.
- Harvard has an endowment of $37.6 billion, far larger than any other school. If the overseers decide they want to spend money on something, they have no difficulty coming up with the wherewithal.
FWIW, the Duke University endowment is reported as $6.8 billion. This is separate from "The Duke Endowment" established in 1924 by James B. Duke. Its value is $3.37 billion per the latest annual report, and historically, about one-half of the grants go to Duke University.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
Yeah, it's a great apology, for sure. But their earlier response essentially denied the allegations and supported him. So it seem clear that apologies apparently come only after irrefutable evidence is obtained. Prior to that it's obfuscation. That doesn't speak as well of his character as his well written apology seems to do.
"We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust
I had been following this story, but couldn't place why I knew his name. In light of the trouble at Uber, Caldbeck's story is fitting a definite Silicon Valley narrative.
BTW, he's now out and the fund may be dissolved. How toxic is he now in the Valley?
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/25/bi...from-the-firm/
"Something in my vicinity is Carolina blue and this offends me." - HPR
WRT to Uber's valuation: its closer to ~$50B right now (its secondary paper was going for $70B on the secondary market in late '16/early '17). So if Travis owns 30% (is that true?), he is worth something like $15B...on paper...but I'm not sure he owns 30%. This NYT article is on his ownership and the company's share buyback agreement, and they dont give his ownership (I'm not sure its disclosed anywhere; a benefit of being private. 30% ownership would be very high for a company that has raised $14B and taken on that much dilution, but its possible.)
WRT to Duke's presence in SV: Its certainly not as big as Stanford's, but there's a few of us and we are just fine with our profile
Uhhhh, isn't that what he said?
I think the point is that we don't know how much he owns or what voting controls he might have. He clearly has some of these super voting shares based on what I've read, but its unclear how much controls he still has.
Even if he only owned 5-10%, though, there are still ways to remain on the board based on how he negotiated the investments from outside investors. He likely got very favorable terms given how much of a darling Uber was in SV, and the articles of Inc. may allow him to remain on the board even if he doesn't control a huge portion of stock. I'm not a corporate governance expert, but I've seen this in other scenarios, though not at this magnitude of company. (Didn't Zuckerberg have similar controls that almost made it impossible to force him out, even of the CEO slot?)
FWIW, from my experiences, every situation is unique. I'm not sure there's enough public information to even make an educated guess.
He might have 30% of the voting shares, but only 5% of all shares for example.
Tech companies with a lot of hype and growth might have been able to negotiate that, as Mark Zuckerberg did with Facebook to retain control.
pretty horrible IMO, if allegations are true.
https://www.axios.com/former-binary-...450168326.html
I was doubly worried when related articles mentioned another accused VC person named Dave McClure! Turns out not to be the David McClure of DBB.
Google translate tells me that uber = about, so in a way, this thread is indeed "uber allegations"