141–150 of 470 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
According to this article, stock was valued internally at $49/share in 2016 , so anyone joining in the last three years will not have enjoyed any sort of rocket-ship growth. https://news.yahoo.com/uber-employees-may-not-partying-15171...
probably one of the worst days to IPO given current china/us trade spat
This is unfortunate for many of the rank and file Uber employees but it’s good news for the stock market in general. It’s showing we’re not in a tech bubble and companies are still going to be valued based on how strong their business case is.
With the burn rate uber has, it'll be bankrupt in < 2 years. There are no other suckers to buy in after the public.
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…
Morgan Stanley going to have to do a lot to stabilize the price over the coming days... On Uber's side, they sold at their $45 mark. However, seems this may have been a down round vs their last private funding round ($74.1BN pre-money vs $76BN last year).
I'm confused by this comment. Is it the underwriter's job to intervene in the market after the initial sale? I thought they simply guaranteed that all the initial shares are sold.
It's generally an optics play - how bad would it look if you as a bank, who wanted to continue to offer IPOs, listed a company and its stock price plummeted below IPO on the first day - obviously you didn't do a great job at valuing the company and building an adequate order book.
Unprofitable companies are the only ones that really benefit from IPOs. An IPO is basically a way for the company to raise money, but tis time straight from the public. Usually when it gets harder and harder for them to attract private investors. The IPO listing basically guarantees that they won't take the public's billions and run. Successful companies with perfect cash flows (think of Github, Valve, IKEA) always t…
This is incorrect. There are lots of cases where profitable companies want to IPO. Specifically the public markets are where you go when you need to raise money at significant levels. Nowadays this happens less often as their are bigger and bigger private investors (so you can raise billions in private markets). However there is still a point at which you may need to go public for fundraising. You are making a mistak…
My assumption was that troubled ones also need it. So we should not be surprised that see so many controversial IPO listings recently.
I mean, let's be real here, is $42 really disappointing? Because from where I sit, this company is going to be bankrupt in short order.
It's certainly disappointing for people who have been underpaid compared to industry salaries for the last several years based on their belief that their shares were worth more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon didn't turned profit for first 5 years or so after IPO. If you go back 15 years down the history, you will find many articles/analysis doubting if they would ever become profitable. However no one doubted that online retail was the future and brick-and-mortar stores will increasingly become part of the history. I see a lot of parallels here. No one doubts anymore that app-based cabs are the future and traditio…
This is a foolish viewpoint. Amazon got immense economies of scale as they grew, Uber’s costs scale alongside it. It drives me crazy that so many people equivocate them.
Retailers can use economies of scale to lower prices and increase variety of products. There are no economies of scale in Uber the way it's structured now and the service is largely homogeneous. There could be economies of scale with self-driving cars, but why should they be the winner there?
The only way they managed to offer lower prices (which is the main concern to riders) is through VC subsidy. There is simply no way to significantly lower prices for taxis, unless you have self-driving cars.
The only thing Uber has is a limited power of a local network effect which is a relatively weak moat.
Unprofitable companies are the only ones that really benefit from IPOs. An IPO is basically a way for the company to raise money, but tis time straight from the public. Usually when it gets harder and harder for them to attract private investors. The IPO listing basically guarantees that they won't take the public's billions and run. Successful companies with perfect cash flows (think of Github, Valve, IKEA) always t…