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

501–510 of 559 posts

Re: Uber S-1

#501

Post by walrus1066 »

ManishR wrote: post #355

People here seem to think that Uber/Lyft do not have any competitive moat. I disagree. What we seem to forget is that just because a VC can burn boatloads of money to capture ridesharing market from Uber/Lyft doesn't mean that they would. From a game theoretic POV, Uber and Lyft have signaled that they're ready to fight for survival in markets they are established in. Unless as a startup founder you can demonstrate t…

"Uber/Lyft do have a VCs-will-not-race-to-the-bottom-with-them moat, and tomorrow they might as well raise their prices to turn profitable."

That's the multi billion $ question, if they hike prices to become profitable, will customers swallow it, or jump to local alternatives. My feeling is the latter, I don't think you get economy of scale for running a taxi business, because your biggest cost is paying local drivers.

Re: Uber S-1

#502

Post by sah2ed »

whoisjuan wrote: post #169
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…

I mean. Objectively speaking and valuation aside, Uber's numbers are better than Lyft's. Unlike you, I would much rather take Uber over Lyft, given how extremely siloed is Lyft's market. 1.63 billion from Uber Eats is not a minor number and definitely a contrasting number that shows that at least Uber is trying to position itself as a logistics company instead of a mobility company, which really doesn't make sense (m…

> ... at least Uber is trying to position itself as a logistics company instead of a mobility company, which really doesn't make sense (mobility is an abstract concept that I think can't be definied as an industry).

Logistics: conveying goods;

Mobility: conveying people;

Uber is both and more. Those sectors are too small for their ambitions -- essentially they think they are in the transportation business which encompasses logistics, mobility and more.

Surely you'll have heard of Uber Elevate [0] which is a flying taxi service to augment urban mobility and of course there is Uber Freight [1], a haulage business that was supposed to benefit from their Otto acquisition, which built self-driving trucks.

[0]: https://www.uber.com/us/en/elevate/

[1]: https://www.uberfreight.com/

Re: Uber S-1

#503

Post by mypalmike »

gnicholas wrote: post #480
mypalmike wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pigs get slaughtered. Trying to time your options on a volatile stock to avoid short-term capital gains is gambling. Same-day exercise + sell is what any financial advisor will recommend. RSU risk is worse because it is outside of your control, unless of course you don't have RSUs. You get taxed on the vest date. Withholding is often at the 25% minimum government rate. Assuming you're in a no-sell window, any downwar…

I thought the saying was “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered”? Also, with $1M in losses, one would not be limited to the $3k offset against ordinary income. Presumably one would have other gains along the way from other investments.

The quote I was paraphrasing was something like, "Bulls make money. Bears make money. Pigs (or maybe hogs?) get slaughtered."

And yes, you are correct on the other point. You would be able to avoid paying tax on your next $1M in lifetime capital gains. *disclaimer: This is not financial advice.

Re: Uber S-1

#504

Post by mrweasel »

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…

Uber won't survive the wait for self driving cars, it's simply to far way, even if we take the most optimistic estimates. Uber is burning cash they do not have, trying to make self driving cars work. People seems focused on how much revenue Uber has, but Uber doesn't need revenue, they need profit to finance their R&D.

After the IPO I'd give it a year before the investors starts to demand slashing drivers pay, and cancelling the self driving car project.

Re: Uber S-1

#505

Post by m1sta_ »

ManishR wrote: post #355

People here seem to think that Uber/Lyft do not have any competitive moat. I disagree. What we seem to forget is that just because a VC can burn boatloads of money to capture ridesharing market from Uber/Lyft doesn't mean that they would. From a game theoretic POV, Uber and Lyft have signaled that they're ready to fight for survival in markets they are established in. Unless as a startup founder you can demonstrate t…

1. Be a city council 2. Create an open source competitor for integrated transport management 3. Destroy profit

Re: Uber S-1

#506

Post by hoschicz »

tyrust wrote: post #268
dockd wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Vanguard owns a piece of every listed company I doubt this is true, at least not across their primary stock market index funds. For example, VTSAX only holds about 3500 stocks [0]. I don't know how the fund usually treats new, large IPOs, but I highly doubt that they would just blindly buy it at "any price" EDIT: I just checked the holdings of VTSAX [1] and VGT [2], neither holds Lyft. [0] - https://investor.vanguar…

They don't hold Lyft because of their dual-class share structure.

Yes, Vanguard will buy at "any price" and will buy more at a higher price -- the funds try to replicate the breakdown of the underlying indices on a market cap basis.

Re: Uber S-1

#507

Post by kristianov »

SRTP wrote: post #455
sfifs wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no VC will fund their rapid growth (small offerings will still find a niche, assuming they don't get gobbled up And yet Grab and Didi drove Uber out of South East Asia and China, Ola is giving Uber a run for its money in India and now GoJek in turn is challenging Grab. In my recent trip to Tokyo we were mostly advised to take regular cabs Vs Uber in contrast to a year ago. That's literally half the world where they…

Go-Jek is not challenging Grab. They have a deeply inferior product, fail to catch up to Grab's breakneck innovation pace. Also, being an Indonesian company, Go-Jek has a disorganized company culture that is not conducive to competing with a lean, well-oiled machine run by Singaporeans like Grab.

This is so racist...

Re: Uber S-1

#508

Post by ddalex »

walrus1066 wrote: post #501
ManishR wrote: post #355

People here seem to think that Uber/Lyft do not have any competitive moat. I disagree. What we seem to forget is that just because a VC can burn boatloads of money to capture ridesharing market from Uber/Lyft doesn't mean that they would. From a game theoretic POV, Uber and Lyft have signaled that they're ready to fight for survival in markets they are established in. Unless as a startup founder you can demonstrate t…

"Uber/Lyft do have a VCs-will-not-race-to-the-bottom-with-them moat, and tomorrow they might as well raise their prices to turn profitable." That's the multi billion $ question, if they hike prices to become profitable, will customers swallow it, or jump to local alternatives. My feeling is the latter, I don't think you get economy of scale for running a taxi business, because your biggest cost is paying local driver…

I have several apps on my phone for calling a ride. I usually pick Uber because it's cheapest, but if there is any hint of a surcharge I scan all of the apps to pick the cheapest.

Re: Uber S-1

#509

Post by arsenico »

halr9000 wrote: post #403
benburleson wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't just raise prices willy-nilly; taxis still exist.

Most people I know hate taxis. Uber can nearly raise prices to parity with cabs.

In the US, correct. In most of Western Europe a taxi is normally a very different experience from Uber X - a nice car, nice driver, great navigation and safe trip. Yes, you're paying extra, but the comfort is also very different, especially when going from airports.

Re: Uber S-1

#510

Post by PMan74 »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #24
whoisjuan wrote: post #17

Just a brief scan and it looks much healthier and diversified than Lyft. Of course far from a perfect business or anything. Their revenue is 5X Lyft's revenue. Doesn't look good for Lyft's stock to be honest. I wouldn't be surprised if after their first earnings release, Lyft stock goes below 40 USD.

They did really well with the CEO they recruited. From the outside, it seemed like he did a really exceptional job profitably growing Expedia.

> it seemed like he did a really exceptional job profitably growing Expedia.

Expedia comes a distant second Booking Holdings. https://finance.yahoo.com/quotes/EXPE,BKNG/view/v1

So while he may have done well, he didn't do as well as the competition.

Post reply on HN