81–90 of 143 posts
What's the purpose of this $1B investment at a $70B fictional valuation given that everyone knows the actual valuation is $48B? Does it make the tax accounting better for someone somehow? I'm with discordianfish in saying only 30% down sounds better than it could have been for Uber.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The missing $24 were health insurance, car insurance, pension payments for the driver etc. All not being paid. Uber is no ride share service, it is a test project to figure out if modern society will accept a larger lower income working class without any social security, and that is what all investment firms bet on.
Additionally taxis are regulated so as to create a reasonably universally publicly accessible transportation system. That is that you can call a cab and it will pick you up and you will have an understanding of the price you will pay. In an Uber/Lyft ride hailing system cabs can only be hailed via an app, and will only accept the most profitable rides. Surge pricing may also make the ride only affordable to the relat…
- undefensible core business model
- overvalued market cap
- assumes capital markets will hold
https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2013/07/30/sprints-p...
To me, he's a risk-taker for the sake of taking risks. He has to be perceived to be taking risks in the Japanese circles for some reason, but might be a billionaire ego. While there were good picks like Alibaba, these capital intensive acquisitions seems counter productive and during completely different environments (early 2000s).
I don't mean to criticize Son Masayoshi for all he is, after all, he did overcome poverty and a systematically racist Japanese society that severely limited the economic activities of non-Japanese, purely based on blood. I just feel like most of his North American acquisitions haven't turned out great.
A few observations: Softbank has stakes in Didi, Didi has stakes in Uber, Uber has stakes in Didi, with this Softbank got stakes in Uber. Uber is mostly successful in North America and Southern Americas. Didi is obviously successful in China and will expand to Southern Americas soon. Europe is not an important market for these companies. Too much regulations and good public transportation won't allow them to thrive.…
How often do companies come back from down rounds? It seems like any company willing to take a down round is also fine with taking a publicity hit and a hit to morale, which suggests it's in an even worse spot compared to what the devaluation would suggest. Is there precedent that suggests even that SoftBank will come out on top from this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The missing $24 were health insurance, car insurance, pension payments for the driver etc. All not being paid. Uber is no ride share service, it is a test project to figure out if modern society will accept a larger lower income working class without any social security, and that is what all investment firms bet on.
Additionally taxis are regulated so as to create a reasonably universally publicly accessible transportation system. That is that you can call a cab and it will pick you up and you will have an understanding of the price you will pay. In an Uber/Lyft ride hailing system cabs can only be hailed via an app, and will only accept the most profitable rides. Surge pricing may also make the ride only affordable to the relat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the valuation didn't change, and the common stock is fairly priced, then we should stop calling the valuation $70B. Under that model, Uber was never worth $70B.
No, that's not how that works. The preferred share and common share prices converge towards a liquidity event, like an IPO, when preferred shares are converted to common shares. It's expected that common shares are worth less than preferred shares. After all, the preferred shares could be paid out at value in, e.g. in the event that the company is sold for far less than the current valuation, and the common shares wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additionally taxis are regulated so as to create a reasonably universally publicly accessible transportation system. That is that you can call a cab and it will pick you up and you will have an understanding of the price you will pay. In an Uber/Lyft ride hailing system cabs can only be hailed via an app, and will only accept the most profitable rides. Surge pricing may also make the ride only affordable to the relat…
Uber and Lyft actually succeeded in creating an accessible system that everyone could afford. You have it all backwards. The common person can actually afford Uber, not cabs.
App based ride hailing dominance reduces accessibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additionally taxis are regulated so as to create a reasonably universally publicly accessible transportation system. That is that you can call a cab and it will pick you up and you will have an understanding of the price you will pay. In an Uber/Lyft ride hailing system cabs can only be hailed via an app, and will only accept the most profitable rides. Surge pricing may also make the ride only affordable to the relat…
How can that be true when Uber is cheaper than taxis?
As Uber gains dominance over regulated taxis (which are obligated to serve everyone), the level of accessibility to transportation in certain generally unprofitable areas may decrease.