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

Uber Joins Lyft in Race to Tap Investors

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Uber Joins Lyft in Race to Tap Investors

#131

Post by rayshan »

nihonde wrote: post #120
rayshan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all, but you're welcome to share the results with us and get additional help / advice. I won't sell you on how seriously we take security and privacy. I built IPO Ready with IPO lawyers and let's just say they don't mess around. Details are in the Terms of Use in the footer.

IAAL. It’s odd that Orrick doesnt mention how the data submitted will be handled. It’s not addressed in the Terms of Use, and there doesn’t seem to be any privacy policy. Also, the fact that you side-stepped a very straightforward question (“What will you do with my data?”) by citing the bona fides of your lawyers is a red flag. Just saying...

Fair point. Here's exactly what happens to your data - all your IPO readiness assessment input is stored locally on your computer, and not transmitted to our servers. You can verify this by looking at the app's network activities. Optionally, you can share your assessment with us for additional help. Happy to chat more - ray at ltse.com.

Re: Uber Joins Lyft in Race to Tap Investors

#132

Post by rayshan »

estsauver wrote: post #123
nihonde wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IAAL. It’s odd that Orrick doesnt mention how the data submitted will be handled. It’s not addressed in the Terms of Use, and there doesn’t seem to be any privacy policy. Also, the fact that you side-stepped a very straightforward question (“What will you do with my data?”) by citing the bona fides of your lawyers is a red flag. Just saying...

I mean, Orrick's name is generally enough for me. They're our lawyers, and talking with any of their partners is like talking with the best engineer you've ever worked with. They just pull apart whatever they're working with. I mean, who knows, but their reputation is worth so much more than a privacy policy that it's actually enough for me.

Thanks, we like Orrick too! They're very founder-friendly. Talking about engineering, see my other comment about how no IPO readiness assessment input data is sent to our servers.

Re: Uber Joins Lyft in Race to Tap Investors

#133

Post by seattle_spring »

charlesdm wrote: post #122
vadym909 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a race against the market slowdown. The 6 months cooling (waiting time) is going to be the most nerve racking for employees wanting to sell.

Sounds like they might be better off selling now, on the secondary market.

Most can't do that, since rsus are on a double trigger vesting schedule. That means they don't have any stock to their name until the 6 month cooling period.

Re: Uber Joins Lyft in Race to Tap Investors

#134

Post by erikpukinskis »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #106

Now its all about the road show :-) Since it costs nothing, I'll put down my predictions so that I can come back later and see how wrong/silly I was. I predict that Uber won't meet their subscription goals during the road show and be forced to push off their IPO until 2020 at least, and that Lyft will make it through the gate but will come out with less than a 10% bump in price. I'm basing that on an investor sentime…

I’ve turned around a little on Uber and Lyft.

At first I thought Lyft was doomed because of network effect.

Then I thought they were both doomed because Tesla, Waymo et al will just do an end-run around them with self-driving cars.

Then I thought maybe Uber would survive, if they can develop their own self driving tech.

But now I think, self driving tech will be a market of its own... there will always be a carmaker/software co wiling to sell vehicles and computers to someone with deep pockets.

So that brings me back to Lyft and Uber both being viable strategically.

Under that lens though, Uber looks a little weird with all of its debt and erratic behavior.

Both of them are acquisition targets for anyone who survives the EV/autonomous vehicle production wars.

Re: Uber Joins Lyft in Race to Tap Investors

#135

Post by arcticbull »

dawhizkid wrote: post #130
quickthrower2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the MO for a tech millionaire, do you retire in the bay area or f-off to somewhere where you can retire in luxury? Or keep grinding in SF?

A rank and file employee at one of these cos unless very early is not necessarily getting so much after taxes that they can retire in SF following an IPO...it's house money, not necessarily retirement money.

The median price per square-foot is around $1100 which means that if you make $2 million pretax in an IPO you’re left with approximately $1.2 million after-tax which is the average price of a nice 2br/1.5ba condo, a little short of a single family which is $1.5 million.

I think the MO is based more on age and where you’re at in life, people tend to leave San Francisco in their mid to late 30s and either set up shop in the South Bay, or move home.

IMO That’s why 1-2 bedrooms are so popular here. You buy, then keep it as a rental or sell when you leave.

Re: Uber Joins Lyft in Race to Tap Investors

#136

Post by quickthrower2 »

dawhizkid wrote: post #130
quickthrower2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the MO for a tech millionaire, do you retire in the bay area or f-off to somewhere where you can retire in luxury? Or keep grinding in SF?

A rank and file employee at one of these cos unless very early is not necessarily getting so much after taxes that they can retire in SF following an IPO...it's house money, not necessarily retirement money.

I guess its not mutually exclusive. Buy a house now, then sell it a few years later to retire somewhere else.

Re: Uber Joins Lyft in Race to Tap Investors

#137

Post by _2d30 »

closeparen wrote: post #84
_2d30 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of Lyft and Uber employees is minuscule compared to the size of the housing market.

In the 6 months from October 2017 to April 2017, the San Francisco housing market was a couple thousand units, per the MLS [0]. Lyft and Uber each have thousands of headquarters employees. The number of employees who will make windfalls in 2019 is easily larger than the number of homes for which they’ll compete. Minuscule compared to the housing stock sure. [0] https://www.allisonchapleau.com/marketreports/san-franci…

That's in SF, a tiny portion of the "Bay Area housing market". Additionally, of those thousands of HQ employees, relatively few of them are going to gain the wealth needed to purchase SF homes. Consider how many of those in are non-tech and therefore low-equity positions as well as it being the case that many (most?) joined much later and had equity packages converging to market comp.

Re: Uber Joins Lyft in Race to Tap Investors

#138

Post by lawrenceyan »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #124
lawrenceyan wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-ceo-idUSKCN1BA0JL > "His plans include rebuilding Uber’s culture and growing market share as well as possibly conducting an initial public offering in 18 to 36 months, according to people who attended the meeting. It is common for venture capital-backed companies to signal an IPO at a vague time in the future." That Uber has chosen to go towards an earlier IPO rather than later…

What you're saying is absolute bullshit. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/09/uber-ceo-says-2019-is-the-... He publicly stated over a year ago that 2019 was the year to IPO. To characterize this as a "rush" is being disingenuous. The 36 months that you're pointing to was never public, so who knows if was even correct or what the context was. His first PUBLIC statement above was 2019, and that was only 3 months after he…

There was consideration of a wide range of timelines. Given the information we have, it seems like this range was most probably within the stated 18-36 months. A decision was ultimately made to choose an earlier timeline over a later one. Again, this is an irrefutable statement, a fundamental fact of reality.

The only thing that we can discuss and try to figure out from that then, is whether this choice of an earlier IPO over a later one means something. In my opinion, it does. Is this a basis with which we can at least agree on? A discussion without some kind of common foundation to derive from is meaningless otherwise.

Post reply on HN