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

181–190 of 239 posts

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

#181

Post by yladiz »

lhorie wrote: post #158
yladiz wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

I wouldn't assume that everyone knows about the death of his mother. I didn't until you posted the article. In this case, the comment was relevant to its parent because the parent was adding an anecdote about the number of people they know who had ridden Uber versus Lyft, and the comment was adding its own anecdote about their workplace/coworkers switching to Lyft.

Like I said, I think it depends on context. In this case, I wouldn't say it's tone deaf to mention the CEO of Uber being one of the main reasons you don't use Uber anymore, unless the article is directly talking about something bad happening to him. For example, if the article about his mom's death got to the front page, and people made comments about how bad of a CEO he is or he's the main reason they don't use Uber, that's not ok.

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

#182

Post by beavisthegenius »

lhorie wrote: post #114
tw04 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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...

The guy may be grieving but he's still an asshole. He calls it boober because of all the sex he has being the founder of it.

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

#183

Post by beavisthegenius »

dx034 wrote: post #168
pfarnsworth wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It still means that their owners won't see any of the money generated by the company. Before compensation, most companies are profitable. And in the end it doesn't matter to the shareholder if you pay stock compensation or cash.

Not true. Stock compensation is dilutitive to existing shareholders putting future pressure on earnings per share and generally means you'll see a share buyback further reducing cash on balance sheet or increasing debt. Further, large blocks of lockup expirations cause selling pressure. Once talent sells stock compensation how do you then retain them? Do you grant more shares diluting existing shareholders further?

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

#184

Post by thisisit »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #26
randomdrake wrote: post #15

Great example of how the headlines can drive a story more than the story itself. While Uber may have posted $708 million of losses, it is also up 18% in revenue from last quarter. That's 3.4 billion dollars in the first quarter of 2017. Uber is making approximately $1,500,000 per hour. I dislike Uber as much as the next person for ethical reasons, but a company that can achieve millions of dollars in revenue per day,…

$1,500,000 per hour in revenue sounds great. Spending $1,872,000 per hour to bring in $1,500,000 per hour sounds less great. I understand that it takes money to make money, but this is one of the most extreme cases in a business.

As a value investor or Warren Buffett follower would put it, they are very capital intensive. This can turn into a bad sign if they can't build a moat (monopoly of sorts) or take a hit on their margins.

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

#185

Post by larzang »

Bakary wrote: post #151
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.

e.g Comcast. Doesn't everybody just love having to pick between the diverse internet options of 1) all of Comcast's abusive shenanigans or 2) 2002-era dsl speeds?

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

#186

Post by idiotdummy »

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…

>Yeah... Uber is doing fine.

Okay, let's see them raise prices 6% in an environment with increasingly hostile regulators, increasing competition and a shallow moat and see what happens.

"Just raise prices" demonstrates a lack of fundamental economic analysis; what happens to demand? Outside of of a few city centers, people use Uber because it's cheap, not because it's cool. People will move to alternatives.

Uber is literally giving away rides, then boasting about usage. You think they can easily increase prices?

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

#187

Post by mgkimsal »

celticninja wrote: post #173
dismantlethesun wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but a 6% increase overboard is practically invisible. Will you notice if you pay $7.51 one day, and 7.96 the next day? What with all the surge pricing, route changes, time of day pricing, and other schemes Uber throws at you, you're lucky to get the same price day to day.

To be fair if you take an uber regularly on a regular route you know how much it is going to cost. Sure they could bump up prices when a user takes a journey they don't usually take but it is noticeable when your regular ride cost increases.

they can 'simply' (probably not that simple, of course), introduce higher fares for new users. never used uber myself, and if i did, I'd have little to compare the cost to. That 6% they need could easily be 7, 8, 9 or 10%, and I wouldn't know.

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

#188

Post by jpatokal »

dx034 wrote: post #166
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…

As a business traveller you don't really care about the price as it's paid by your employer. So you'll take the fastest and most comfortable option. In many cities that's still a cab as they are much faster to get at airports than Ubers. The other alternative are exec cars which Uber offers but which will often be pre-booked locally. I think Uber could get many business travellers on board if they'd offer some reward…

Uber already has a partnership with SPG (Starwood Hotels). Catch an Uber, get hotel points; catch an Uber while staying at a SPG hotel, get even more points.

https://www.spgpromos.com/uber/

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

#189

Post by code4tee »

They do not have a sustainable business. They're clearly pumping up revenue with subsidies (which is why they lose so much money). I do use Uber occasionally but when I do there's so many offers and deals that I never pay anything close to a break-even price. If you sell dollar bills for 85 cents it's easy to have lots of revenue.

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

#190

Post by idiotdummy »

cameldrv wrote: post #60
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…

You haven't been paying attention to what Uber's been doing. They started by charging flat fares on Pool, now they're charging flat fares for all rides. They're decoupling the price that the rider pays from what the driver gets. Pool makes this obfuscation easier, since the calculation is much more complex for rides that are partially shared. They do seem to be raising prices on riders without passing it on to driver…

>They're decoupling the price that the rider pays from what the driver gets.

And this is somewhat transparent, right? Everyone loves getting middle manned, I'm sure neither drivers nor passengers will mind.

Getting a lift is a commodity. It needs to be cheaper form the buyer's perspective and it needs to pay better from the driver's perspective. Not sure how that works while also earning bing money for the middle man. Uber smells like a self-driving play, and that's falling apart.

Post reply on HN