Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 239 posts

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#101

Post by pfarnsworth »

mrep wrote: post #36
dmix wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People were saying the same thing about Twitter forever and turned out to be largely wrong. I have a feeling the company making billions of dollars in revenue has some smart people who figured out how not to mess this up. But who knows maybe Uber will stop being the dominate taxi / self-driving car company globally over the next decade and mess it all up. Or not... but I doubt this large expenditure was done without…

> People were saying the same thing about Twitter forever and turned out to be largely wrong. Twitter lost 456 million dollars in 2016 [1] and I don't remember them ever being profitable so i don't know how those people are wrong. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter

If you look, their losses are because of stock-based comp, not because of spending. It's generally a GAAP loss, not a cash loss.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#102

Post by inopinatus »

threeseed wrote: post #55
nullnilvoid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of my friends open both Lyft and Uber. They choose whichever is cheaper. Sure, Lyft might take a few more minutes to arrive. If you time it well ahead, it does not cost you more time. For me, I would rather take Lyft even if it is a little more expensive and takes a little longer. I hope Lyft catches up and makes it a real competition, which benefits consumers eventually.

In Australia we only have Uber and taxis. Nobody is switching to taxis because of a 10% price increase. Because most people are using Uber for the fact that they will always come, always pick you up and always drop you off at the right spot. So it's fantastic that Lyft is doing okay in the US. But Uber is playing a whole different game.

This is incorrect. We have had private hire vehicles in Australia for years. Many of them are now also taking rides via Uber, but I've had black sedans to/from the airport for as long as I can remember.

The only things Uber add to the service mix is an app and a bad attitude, neither of which create any value for me.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#103

Post by beager »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #58
adriand wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact they're losing money like this doesn't really mean anything because Uber isn't a normal business. It's not some little mom & pop outfit that has bills to pay. This is a company whose investors (e.g. the Saudis) have so much cash a billion here and a billion there barely matters. It's a place for absurdly wealthy people to park vast sums of cash on the bet that Uber will continue to gobble up marketshare from…

> The fact they're losing money like this doesn't really mean anything because Uber isn't a normal business. Yeah, Uber is different because of its insane amount of investor money but losing money is still losing money; it can't go on forever. So saying it doesn't mean anything is a bit shortsighted in my opinion. > It's a place for absurdly wealthy people to park vast sums of cash on the bet that Uber will continue…

With respect to the second point about hugely wealthy foreign investors parking cash in Uber-like companies, consider that the risk profile of a highly visible company like Uber with very high-volume cash flow, unprofitable though they may be, can often be much lower than the risk profile of keeping the money in the source nation's domestic vehicles. See also: foreign money parked in absurd condos in NYC.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#105

Post by kunaalarya »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #93
nunez wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has a solid worldwide presence. Lyft does not. You can go into nearly any state and most countries (I think all of the first world countries and a bunch of second world ones too) and book an Uber. As long as that stays true and Uber continues to grow outside of the US, Lyft doesn't stand a chance. If Lyft could light up worldwide scale right now, they absolutely would have. Something is holding them back. It's l…

Everyone keeps forgetting that Lyft has first-mover advantage. Lyft basically created ride-sharing, Uber was a black-car company and had to play catch-up to Lyft.

lyft somewhat had first mover advantage in SF. Uber had first mover advantage in every other city. Uber already existed in SF and was doing black car rides and a lot of people in NY/SF knew of it - which Uber used to leapfrog Lyft's first move advantage.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#106

Post by beager »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #29

So Uber made 612M more in revenue and lost 283M less money, in 17Q1 than 16Q4. Naively, that seems like a good sign (for Uber), but it could also just be that they stopped growth spending or are hiding losses in unreported figures. Does anyone have more insight in to what could have caused it?

Tangentially related: is there a seasonal ebb and flow to Uber usage that could soften or sharpen this delta? I know I'm much less likely to want to walk 3 miles in February than October, but that's just one person in one city.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#107

Post by argonaut »

bpodgursky wrote: post #13

$708 million loss, narrowed from $991 million last quarter 18% growth from last quarter (note: that's not Y/Y. this is ridiculously fast, given the huge base.) 708mm loss / 3.4 billion in revenue is only about 20% under even. And what most people miss, is that the 3.4 billion is the 30% cut Uber takes from a ride. Prices don't have to rise 20% to break even, prices have to rise 6% (assuming no efficiency improvements…

Warning: Uber counts the entire Uber Pool fare are revenue, which throws off these numbers a lot since I would guess that Uber Pool is the most popular option where available.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-14/embattled...

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#108

Post by tw04 »

skinnymuch wrote: post #54
lettergram wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber is doing fine. Yes and no, they are in a space which is extremely price competitive. I literally am watching Uber take a dramatic hit in my area right now. Lyft came to town and probably 80% of the drivers solely use them now, driving up the Uber prices. Now, I only use Lyft - as do most of the people. Plus, most of the Uber drivers are shady here and the people think Ubers a snaky company. I realize this is a…

I'm not buying that most people use Lyft in your area - passengers or drivers. I believe you think that and your circle of people may also be doing the same, but beyond that, I'm guessing there's a lot of bias. Especially if you're saying everywhere you go Lyft seems to be more popular among riders. It's just not true at all. For my own anecdote, I'd bet 75% of my FB friends with smartphones within my age range, 21-4…

While anecdotes are clearly anecdotal - the entirety of my company has started switching. The constant bad press, and quite frankly the CEO being such a jerk has been enough to get my colleagues to almost universally switch. The cost difference is about 3rd on the list of priorities for most business users.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#109

Post by beager »

encoderer wrote: post #59
objclxt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what most people miss, is that the 3.4 billion is the 30% cut Uber takes from a ride. Prices don't have to rise 20% to break even, prices have to rise 6% No, they have to rise by more than that. Your math is technically correct (a 6% rise gives you an extra $700 million), but you are assuming that the price increase goes entirely to Uber. There is no way Uber can increase prices by 6% and give none of that upsi…

Lyft just isn't a real competitor outside of major American cities right now. Go to a city without an international airport and see how many lyft drivers there are.

I believe that Lyft doesn't have to compete globally with Uber to be a successful business in its own right. I also believe that Uber isn't immune from being crippled by competitors that operate in a very small but key subset of Uber's markets.

There is very little network effect with Uber. Sure, you can hop off a plane anywhere in the world and open Uber to get a car, but that is a very small number of people overall. I would contend that most people use whichever ride-sharing service is available and most economical in their own city, and if that same service is available on the rare occasion that they travel, then bonus.

Of course, if Uber beats everyone else to the punch with proprietary self-driving cars and undercuts prices profitably, they win. There seem to be some very large issues with that, however.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#110

Post by habosa »

A couple things to note:

1. This is new loss excluding 'employee stock compensation and other items'. Anecdotally I've heard that Uber offers, particularly for advanced technical positions, are extremely stock heavy. This could be a big exclusion. It's also a bit of a double standard since so much was made of Snap's recent losses which were largely stock based compensation driven.

2. Past discussions on HN have noted that Uber counts the full Pool fare as revenue but this is not the case for Uber X or Uber Black. So if Pool is a rising share of rides (I've heard it is) then Uber will show strong revenue growth without a proportional growth in net income.

And a question: How long will Uber's investors tolerate the current situation? The company is losing money at a record setting pace, has a new scandal every day, and has seemingly no plans for a liquidity event. Even though the on-paper growth is fantastic people must want to get their money out. If this was a public company there would be a huge sell off.

Post reply on HN