You have to read to paragraph #17 before you get the information the story is really about.
Uber delivered shares to its employees on the day of its IPO in May 2019, meaning employees would be taxed at the price of $45 a share. But the employees were restricted from selling their shares for six months, by which point the price had fallen to around $27 a share.
This definitely sucks for the employees. But it isn't really clear that Uber did anything wrong. In cases where there's an IPO pop, and employees want to hold on to the stock for a while, this can be good for employees, because more of their income happens via capital gains.
To me, the real lesson is that our tax code is stupid, because it treats "a share of stock that you are given on day X, but may not sell until day X+180" and "a share of stock that you are given on day X+180" in different ways, even though they seem exactly the same to the employee.
> Why is that stupid? I own the stock on day X (and ignoring the lock in period), it’s part if my compensation that I could sell and by any other stock.
He means that if I offered you stock with a 6 month lockup, or a stock with no lockup, you would prefer the second, and value it much higher.
Uber delivered shares to its employees on the day of its IPO in May 2019, meaning employees would be taxed at the price of $45 a share. But the employees were restricted from selling their shares for six months, by which point the price had fallen to around $27 a share.
This definitely sucks for the employees. But it isn't really clear that Uber did anything wrong. In cases where there's an IPO pop, and employees want to hold on to the stock for a while, this can be good for employees, because more of their income happens via capital gains.
To me, the real lesson is that our tax code is stupid, because it treats "a share of stock that you are given on day X, but may not sell until day X+180" and "a share of stock that you are given on day X+180" in different ways, even though they seem exactly the same to the employee.