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

151–160 of 239 posts

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

#151

Post by Bakary »

dingo_bat wrote: post #86

I know most people hate on uber, but it has impacted my life a lot. I think the model they've demonstrated is a legit model, and the ruthlessness with which they pursue it should not take anything away from the company's value. In fact, it should add. I want companies to show a giant middle finger to monopolistic city laws that harm citizens.

>I want companies to show a giant middle finger to monopolistic city laws that harm citizens.

Just wait until a private company holds a monopoly on an essential service, especially one with a history of unethical conduct like Uber. The city laws will seem like the good old days in comparison.

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

#152

Post by jpatokal »

inopinatus wrote: post #142
jpatokal wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private hire cars are not a realistic alternative to Uber or taxis in most cases, since they generally have to be booked well in advance. In Australia, they're also significantly more expensive than taxis.

Wrong and wrong. I took one to the airport today, I called thirty minutes ahead, and it cost less than a metered fare.

Where in Australia are you, and what company did you use? In both Sydney and Melbourne, all the hire cars I know of cost more.

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

#153

Post by jpatokal »

Bakary wrote: post #146
jpatokal wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring that businessmen who travel all the time are very heavy users of Uber and similar services. I'm not even a frequent flyer, but I'd estimate that a good 80-90% of my Uber usage is travel-related. At home, I have tons of other options to get around, but on a tight schedule in an unfamiliar city, I basically default to Uber all the time, because I rarely have the time or risk tolerance explore alternativ…

I think their point was that well-off people who travel all the time are still a tiny portion of the population.

Sure, but that tiny portion still supports the bulk of the airline and hotel industry, and (I suspect) a very disproportionate share of Uber's business.

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

#154

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by Marazan »

dingo_bat wrote: post #89
bitJericho wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy gas from across the street for 3 dollars a gallon. I sell it for 2. I sell 1.5 million dollars an hour. My business is doing great.

Are you also doing self driving car research from the money?

Do you think Uber has spent 15 billion dollars on research?

I have a bridge to sell you if you do.

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

#156

Post by inopinatus »

jpatokal wrote: post #152
inopinatus wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong and wrong. I took one to the airport today, I called thirty minutes ahead, and it cost less than a metered fare.

Where in Australia are you, and what company did you use? In both Sydney and Melbourne, all the hire cars I know of cost more.

Melbourne, and I have a VHA account. Metered fares from my home to MEL are inflated by extensive never-ending roadworks. The fixed-rate private hire cars are excellent value for that route. For everything else it's a modest premium, and one I'm very happy to pay.

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

#157

Post by clairity »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #97
clairity wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's incorrect. $3.4B is their gross revenue (gross bookings) and out of that they probably paid 70% to drivers ($2.4B). i say probably because that assumes a single revenue source, no diffential payments to drivers and no other direct costs (COGS). so indeed, they would need revenues to go up by ~20% to break even. that in turn means a 20% rise in average prices to break even (again assuming a single revenue sourc…

No, you're wrong. 3.4B is their revenue, not their gross bookings.

you're right, my bad. in my haste to post before quickly having to get offline earlier, i didn't read carefully. i also couldn't access the WSJ article, so i don't know if there are better numbers in it or not. in any case, here's what i could garner about 1Q2017 by looking at other sites[1][2]:

   $7.5B bookings ((1+9%)*$6.9B from 4Q2016)
  -$3.2B paid to (non-Pool) drivers
  -$0.9B COGS (probably driver acquisition)
   ------------------------
   $3.4B net revenue (GAAP)
  -$1.9B paid to Pool drivers
   ------------------------
   $1.5B net revenue (non-GAAP)
  -$2.2B other expenses
   ------------------------
  -$0.7B net earnings (or EBIT?)

   ($3.2B+$1.9B)/$7.5B = 68% paid to drivers (32% take rate [3])
the numbers are a little rough, but in any case, my main point still stands: they still need a 20% rise in bookings for it all to trickle down into a breakeven scenario.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-01/uber-s-re... [2]: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2017/05/31/Uber-posts-impro... [3]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2017/04/15/caution...

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

#158

Post by lhorie »

yladiz wrote: post #125
lhorie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just thought I'd point out that, in addition to name calling not being very nice in general, it's particularly in poor taste right now given that the person in question is grieving a family death that happened just this weekend[1] [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/27/technology/uber-travis-kalan...

I didn't know about this, and while it's sad, it doesn't excuse his past actions and in the context of this post it doesn't matter. If the post was about his mother passing, and someone mentioned how much of a jerk he is, that's in much worse taste. Saying it in a comment thread on a post about Uber's loss is not in bad taste.

> Saying it in a comment thread on a post about Uber's loss is not in bad taste.

I dunno. The comment doesn't seem very relevant, being basically one random guy's opinion of what he read on the 'tubes about another guy he probably never met, and extrapolating that to be some sort of argument about the profitability of a company. To me, it just kinda feels like thinly disguised bandwagoning to get internet points.

I recall people making similarly tone deaf comments about Steve Jobs around the time he took time off due to cancer, or Bill Gates in his early philanthropic days. Perhaps this particular case bothers me more than the average person because I've been through the same loss, but I guess as long as one get internet points, poor taste is forgiven?

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

#159

Post by BigJono »

HXFIVE wrote: post #85
threeseed wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. I'm in Australia and have no idea how Uber and taxi prices compare. I use Uber because of the quality of their product. Not a big fan of Uber as a company though. If Lyft of another viable competitor set up shop here then I'd be open to switching.

I can give a very small sample of data. Uber is $30-33 to my suburb on a Thursday night. I even had a $28 once which is ludicrous (I calculated the theoretical minimum cost of the route to be around $27.50 so it was almost a perfect run).

I've caught taxis on the exact same route twice because my phone was dead and I couldn't order an Uber. One was $48 and the other was $55. I believe it's more on a Friday or Saturday (they have some 'off-peak' fee or something), but Uber obviously has the occasional surge on those nights too.

Using Taxis, in Melbourne at least, seems to be lighting money on fire.

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

#160

Post by resf »

ubernostrum wrote: post #150
threeseed wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lyft came to town and probably 80% of the drivers solely use them now, driving up the Uber prices. Where is this and what facts is this number based on ? In Australia for example Lyft is simply non existent. And sure it's a smaller market but it demonstrates that Uber's aggressive international expansion strategy is the right one. > Plus, most of the Uber drivers are shady Pretty libellous, ridiculous and unfair th…

it demonstrates that Uber's aggressive international expansion strategy is the right one. Does it? "We lose money on every customer, but we'll make it up in volume" is one of the classic ways to run a business into bankruptcy. Sometimes, taking one's time is the far sounder strategy, even if a hyper-growth competitor is "everywhere" and "dominating" in the eyes of the uninformed public.

They clearly have different objectives. Uber wants to be a huge multinational company, whereas Lyft can only hope to win the US market.

In other words, even Lyft's best case scenario would be a huge step down for Uber.

Post reply on HN