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

Uber S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 559 posts

Re: Uber S-1

#271

Post by polishTar »

sytelus wrote: post #233

As an IPO n00b, I have basic question: Let's say I'm a startup founder with revenues in $10M and want to raise money. Can't I just go straight to IPO instead of making VC rounds? It seems you don't need to be profitable or even have to have great outlook. Meanwhile majority of IPOs are getting magically funded anyway no matter what. On the top of it you get to even keep most of the voting shares. So what are the mini…

There are tons of restrictions on public companies that don't apply to companies that are still private. Too many to list, but these include disclosure requirements (10-K, 10Q, 8-K...), restrictions on who can be on the board, regular independent financial audits, SOX compliance scope, CEO+CFO certifications, shareholder proposal requirements, listing requirements+fees, etc.

The restrictions are enough of a pain (especially the disclosure requirements since most companies would prefer their competitors not knowing their financial state) that it isn't uncommon to see a private company put off an IPO for a super long time.

Re: Uber S-1

#272

Post by mrhappyunhappy »

dockd wrote: post #225
yalogin wrote: post #103

Feels more like Uber and Lyft reached a point where they cannot raise private capital anymore and so jumped onto the public markets to fool random investors. If they cannot be profitable now, what makes them think they will be profitable with SDCs? I challenge the fundamental premise that SDCs will make them profitable. There is no stickiness to their business model. Moving on to another ride sharing service is frict…

Aren't most index funds, almost by definition, required to buy their shares? If Vanguard owns a piece of every listed company, they're going to buy Uber at pretty much any price, right?

I wonder about this too. What if I, as an index fund holder do not want the fund to buy up junk like lyft and uber?

Re: Uber S-1

#273

Post by gcb0 »

justfor1comment wrote: post #135

Some people are excited about Uber having a more diversified business than Lyft. Uber Freight, Uber Eats, Jump bikes and e scooters are some of their offerings. However, currently the revenue they generate (or don't) is completely dwarfed by the ride hailing service. If at some point in the future these other businesses turn out to be profitable, shareholders will insist to break them out of Uber to maximize gains. R…

instead of one money-burning product, you get five burning your money! in two dozen regions!

IPOs are making BTC look good.

Re: Uber S-1

#274

Post by aphextron »

notyourwork wrote: post #100
aphextron wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autonomous cars won’t be proprietary to each manufacturer or company. Once someone has perfected their system, everyone else will drop what they are doing and simply buy it like an OS. It’s all in the software; hardware required (cameras, radar, GPUs) is already cheap and ubiquitous. My money is on Tesla or comma.ai for this.

My understanding is Tesla and comma.ai have taken a software focused approach with limited hardware. Others like waymo have taken a hardware approach with more sophisticated sensors. What makes you feel Tesla/Comma.ai will win?

Because sensors aren’t the hard part. We already have enough hardware to perform superhuman sensing but it’s meaningless without the massive amounts of mapping data and trained models to make sense of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OikZ6J1YDlI&t=18m20s

Re: Uber S-1

#275

Post by carb »

return0 wrote: post #247
tom-_- wrote: post #142

The cost of entry into this space is much greater than I think most people realize. It's not "building an app". It's building a balanced, efficient marketplace. This means complex matching, pricing and routing algorithms that have been developed for almost a decade. It's also about working with regulations at the city level and building a reliable labor force of contractors to supply the marketplace in every new city…

similar apps have popped up in many places where uber is not allowed or limited. it doesn't look that hard.

> "where uber is not allowed or limited"

Doesn't that strengthen the argument for the network effect? The only places there have been successful 3rd party launches are in markets without Uber or Lyft, where there is no network effect to compete against.

Re: Uber S-1

#276

Post by panarky »

tinus_hn wrote: post #220
SimonPStevens wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber is a non-profit version of Uber. They made a 10% loss last year. So a non-profit (assuming they intend to at least break even) would actually need to pay the drivers less.

That’s an amusing proposition but a true non-profit could have more advantages like tax breaks and volunteer staff.

> volunteer staff

Why would some people work for free so that drivers can earn more or riders could pay less?

Uber racked up a $20 billion cumulative deficit by subsidizing both drivers and riders.

Even if you cloned the Uber app and had people volunteer to do customer support, you'd still wind up with a service where riders pay more, or drivers earn less, or both.

That works for BlaBlaCar [0] that's true carpooling, without drivers trying to make a living on the platform. Riders pay less and drivers get paid less.

But if Uber is losing $4 billion a year at the current prices, it's hard to see how there would be a sustainable market where drivers make more and riders pay less.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlaBlaCar

Re: Uber S-1

#277

Post by [deleted] »

mckenna wrote: post #252
thelock85 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen RideAustin? https://rideaustin.com

Love it. That's how it should be. Drivers should get max possible cut of the fares while the network operator works as a non-profit. 100B pump/dump is a scam. Think about all the indices-tracking-ETFs/Funds that will pick up this overpriced stock(our hard earned 401ks). Sigh. Silicon Valley should not have pumped up what was originally a good idea. This has a high chance of ending badly

[deleted]

Re: Uber S-1

#278

Post by gowld »

gonehome wrote: post #250
karmelapple wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick note that Facebook, unfortunately, has no real competitor for the sheer number of things it does. As soon as one comes out built for non-technical users the way Facebook is - and hopefully is a nonprofit - I’ll go running to it and encourage my friends, too.

I’d want one that’s just an online account with a single picture, name, address, phone number that lets you have friends. No posting - basically just a contact list that’s always up to date because people update themselves. Keybase could be this. The main way to get people in would be a focus on event scheduling relying on twilio and sms for including users that don’t have accounts. Make it cheap but not free ($1/mon…

What would motivate everyone you know to use this service?

Re: Uber S-1

#279

Post by acchow »

dman wrote: post #107
nostrademons wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good thing for Lyft-the-corporation but a bad thing for anyone who bought into the IPO. Any sort of financial engineering tricks that goose the accounting numbers without affecting the long-term health of the business are basically a transfer payment from people who buy in at the inflated price to entities who sell at the inflated price. It's rational for the company to try to pull them; it's also rational for…

Think about morale at Lyft. You have employees locked in who cant sell for first couple of months. They are seeing their networth plummet everyday.

Employees saw their share price go from $44 in June (private markets) to a range of $62-68 during the road show last month to an IPO at $72, to close today at $61.

Again, in less than a year, rose from $44 to $61 with a brief uptick to $72 in the middle.

How is that plummeting?

Re: Uber S-1

#280

Post by panarky »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #246
panarky wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can't imagine how Uber is worth anything If the operation doesn't make an economic profit, and if there isn't sufficient moat to defend the operation until it can become profitable, then I agree with you it's not worth anything. But in fact, Uber does have a massive moat -- its network of drivers and riders in thousands of cities around the world. No competitor is even close. It takes tremendous capital expenditure…

>But in fact, Uber does have a massive moat -- its network of drivers and riders in thousands of cities around the world. No competitor is even close. Ola in India, Didi in China... both are expanding internationally. If Lyft somehow manages to offer riders consistently cheaper fares (say, 50% off the Uber fare for 1 month) people will switch in droves.

> 50% off the Uber fare for 1 month

That's exactly what it would take.

A tremendous capital expenditure, sustained over time, to dismantle Uber's network of drivers and riders.

Post reply on HN