Uber opens at $42 per share • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#41

Post by konschubert » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

aqme28 wrote: post #30

chollida1 wrote: post #3

Some notes from watching Uber open: - if it closes below $45(its IPO price) it will be the first time since 2008 that the happened for a major IPO - TD Ameritrade executed more orders in the first 10 minutes of trading than they did for the first 2.5 hours with Lyft. - Uber is 9% of all trading at TD Ameritrade, retail loves this stock, - market is down today, which isn't helping Uber but its probably not much of a f…

> if it closes below $45 it will be the first time since 2008 that the happened for a major IPO Sorry, first time that what happened?

That an IPO stock closes below its IPO price on opening day

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#42

Post by atemerev » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #27

dymk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1997, Amazon's proposition of "Online retailer" was also pretty far fetched. It wasn't obvious that their model was going to make them one of the largest retailers in the world.

I duno, buying stuff online seemed like the way of the future at the time IMO. When, how much and etc was just a matter of timing.

So is gig economy. Jobs will continue to decline.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#43

Post by kyleblarson » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

smoyer wrote: post #9

My primary disappointment with the Uber IPO is that I don't have a larger wad of money to cover a short position.

"To cover a short position" implies that you have a short position you are buying to cover. You likely mean "to put on a short position"

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#44

Post by Naac » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #13

ufmace wrote: post #11

Did I miss something? I thought Uber was still a long way from being profitable and had no plausible plan for how to become profitable.

Just like Amazon at its IPO.

Can you elaborate?

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#45

Post by trynewideas » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #27

dymk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1997, Amazon's proposition of "Online retailer" was also pretty far fetched. It wasn't obvious that their model was going to make them one of the largest retailers in the world.

I duno, buying stuff online seemed like the way of the future at the time IMO. When, how much and etc was just a matter of timing.

TechCrunch did a good job looking back at Amazon's IPO and it's a good read to clarify what Amazon was when it went public (a bookseller, not general retail), how insane its growth was (revenue up about 3,000% YoY from 1996 to 1997, more revenue in the quarter before its IPO than the entire previous year), and how fast the IPO came together (12 days to S-1). Even for all that growth, revenue was still around $15M. It was a minnow but it played all of its cards about as right as it could for an IPO.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/28/a-look-back-at-amazons-199...

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#46

Post by wesammikhail » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

mchristen wrote: post #17

wesammikhail wrote: post #8

disappointing? jesus, its been an hour. Relax your freaking noodles. What´s with everyone and instant gratification these days? The stock is still in range discovery... I myself am bearish but sitting this one out because I have no idea what to make of it. One thing I know though, calling it disappointing 1 hour after open during a tightning range is beyond irresponsible. It´s flat out stupid and lacks any understand…

They are referencing the opening price of the stock, not where it currently is. I would argue that for an IPO the initial opening price is important since the spread between the offering price and opening price is often an indicator of the quality of the IPO.

Except that it isn´t

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#47

Post by tinco » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #21

malvosenior wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like Amazon at its IPO.

Maybe I don't remember it well enough but Amazon's business model seemed a lot more ... tangible than Uber's don't you think?

You don't think selling taxi rides is a tangible business model?

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#48

Post by pastor_elm » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #13

ufmace wrote: post #11

Did I miss something? I thought Uber was still a long way from being profitable and had no plausible plan for how to become profitable.

Just like Amazon at its IPO.

Amazon stock success has always been built on AWS.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#49

Post by rtempaccount1 » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #13

ufmace wrote: post #11

Did I miss something? I thought Uber was still a long way from being profitable and had no plausible plan for how to become profitable.

Just like Amazon at its IPO.

My feeling though is that Amazon had a much larger moat to build, with distribution networks, warehouses, logistics etc.

With Uber, what's their moat, so that when they raise prices to become profitable users don't just move away?

Lyft/local taxi companies/public transport, all have the infrastructure to provide the service that uber provides.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#50

Post by geezerjay » Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

weka wrote: post #29

WMCRUN wrote: post #22

As an employee you typically don’t want your stock to skyrocket on the IPO. Most that do plummet as early investors sell and the employees (who have a lockup period preventing them from selling) watch their “gains” disappear. In my opinion, it’s better to have an accurately priced stock that grows at a healthy rate.

A cart before the horse. Who gets the most profit? The people who finance the project or the people who actually do the project? In a just world, would it be 50/50? Seems skewed... without the builders, there would no buildings.

> In a just world, would it be 50/50?

What is your notion of "fair" and how do you go from there and arrive at that value? I mean, if the people who financed the project didn't invested a penny then the company would not have the means to get people to actually do the project.