Uber S-1

Post by mckenna » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:01 AM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #149

mckenna wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? The numbers look horrible to me. Both LYFT/UBER have horrible numbers. I would prefer LYFT(@80% discount to IPO price) than UBER(@80% discount to IPO price). Both of these stock valuations are being pumped and dumped onto public markets with clever tricks. Funny thing is, many of us won't even realize that some of our money will be invested in these stocks without our knowledge(ETFs/Funds tracking indices). M…

Depending on the voting structure of shares, many funds will pass over a company. SNAP, for example, is only in 20-some ETFs: https://www.etfchannel.com/finder/?a=etfsholding&symbol=SNAP Most people investing in Mutual Funds and ETFs aren't getting exposure to SNAP. That may be the case with LYFT and Uber as well.

Post by smallgovt » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:03 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #248

smallgovt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't Uber become profitable by raising prices and lowering costs? They have $40B in gross rideshare bookings and $3B in real losses for 2018. Let's assume 20% of their costs are fixed and 80% are variable. What might happen if they raise prices by 10%? Gross bookings drop by 20% / Revenue per booking increase by 10% => $35.2B in gross bookings Variable costs drop by 30% (due to lower driver acquisition costs since t…

I'm not sure why you think 20% of costs are fixed and 80% are variable, or that the elasticity figures are what you suggest they are. Realistically, Uber has a higher cost basis than a taxi because taxis cut down on insurance and fleet expenses through pooling. As such, Uber is not really able to beat them on price. There's no evidence to support the idea that people are willing to pay more than taxis to use Uber or…

Post by esoterica » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:09 AM UTC

saberience wrote: post #177

inverse_pi wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and early engineers paper millionaires actual millionaires not paper millionaires :). > but will hopefully blow up why do you wish others to fail so bad?

No, paper millionaires. You're only an actual millionaire once you sell your stock. You become a paper millionaire when the IPO happens and you gain liquidity and price increases.

Post by wbl » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:11 AM UTC

IMTDb wrote: post #260

inverse_pi wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

like i said it's reasonable to drive for all at different points in the past but it's unreasonable to drive for all 4 at the same time. Think about it, incentive-wise, if you complete 50 trips you got $x , if you complete 100 trips you got $2x. If you only got 50 trips in you, why are you splitting them between two apps 25 trips each and got $0 incentive?

It's a well known fact that the biggest factor in taxi revenues is how much paid miles/km you can do per day. The single biggest factor to increase your revenues is increasing that number. So unless the incentives are massive , a driver will always look for the next ride by any means necessary. It's nearly never worth it to "wait for a better option".

Post by wbl » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:13 AM UTC

panarky wrote: post #173

SilasX wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Merely being ahead of competitors isn't a moat, it would have to be something that makes "entering into serious competition" difficult for any new entrants. Uber already lacks the monopoly power to raise prices significantly because of competition from Lyft and local p…

> Merely being ahead of competitors isn't a moat No competitor can catch up without heavily subsidizing both drivers and riders. If no competitor is willing to spend billions to steal 20% of the market, then that's a pretty effective moat.