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

Uber opens at $42 per share

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 470 posts

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#261

Post by intuitionist »

marnett wrote: post #213
intuitionist wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re joining a $60 billion company with thousands of employees expecting rocket-ship growth, that’s kind of on you, I think. You wouldn’t expect that from a public company; why would you from a similarly sized company that just happens to be pre-IPO?

Amazon in 2016 was $502 a share, it is $1900 now Microsoft in 2016 was $51, $127 now Facebook was $97, $189 now We're not even talking about rocket-ship growth here. We are talking about option strike prices losing money in one of the most favorable economic time periods where massive, healthy public business did have monstrous growth. I would have at least expected price parity with other large companies - even that…

Expecting price parity with other large companies, okay. But the expectation in 2016 wasn’t for Facebook etc. to be at today’s prices in 2019, or they would have been priced higher then.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#262

Post by aetherson »

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…

Well. We're now at close of market, and below $42.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#263

Post by tapland »

resters wrote: post #249
tapland wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this because you want it to seem like desperation. The claim that any stock that is overvalued at IPO shows desperation is just not true, and it's the statement you are making.

No, I said it is too soon to tell, and that it has more to do with the balance of power going into the IPO.

> No, I said it is too soon to tell

Your comment had no relevance for what I wrote.

You said it was too soon because stock can be volatile the first week, but that it ending the week down still proves desperation.

This is just not right at all.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#264

Post by adjkant »

mevile wrote: post #227
exogeny wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand why uber's costs don't scale well. They make an app that drivers use. They're not having to buy cars or hire drivers to grow. They just need their app to function. What is all their money going towards? Is all that money lost just subsidizing the cost of the ride? If they stop subsidizing the drive price, which they will have to at some point I imagine, will people just abandon the service?

There's two ways it goes: squeeze drivers or squeeze riders. The ironic part of their position is as it makes a market on both sides, squeezing either will result in a loss of riders/drivers to alternatives.

This writing has been on the wall for ages, but people keep looking past it.

Uber I think somewhat internally knows this, and have thus tried either moonshots or diversifying. Uber Eats actually looks to be profitable since you take driver surplus and turn it into profits, simplifying a bit. Self driving moonshots are just that - moonshots.

You can already see the effects of them squeezing drivers with recent strikes and issues including a possible 600M+ arbitration costs from drivers.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#265

Post by freewilly1040 »

_bxg1 wrote: post #245
criddell wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why so many people were/are so bullish on Uber. I understand that ride hailing is a big deal, but it doesn't feel like it's that hard to launch a new ride hailing company. I'm basing that opinion on what I've seen in my city. When Uber and Lyft left Austin, there were lots of alternatives that had existed or popped up to fill the space. Aside from brand recognition, what does Uber have that the…

Ease of competition aside, I still think Uber is a massive bubble. Ride-hailing is of dubious actual utility, it's been causing traffic problems (and has been getting regulated accordingly), it has ethical problems with regards to employment (and faces constant threat of regulation from that angle too), and above all else, it's clear at this point that it will never be profitable while it relies on human drivers. Inv…

Dubious utility? It's a massive improvement over cabs for the consumer.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#266

Post by jdavis703 »

jimmywanger wrote: post #208
drocer88 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market is up today (as of 3:20pm EST). Über and Lyft are down > 6% . SV Unicorn hype aside, there's not a big moat around running a jitney cab company.

Hmmm. Never heard that term before. I usually hear "gypsy cab".

Just FYI many people consider “Gypsy” a slur nowadays since it’s commonly used in regards to illegal behaviors (like running outlaw cab services). I understand your intent was not to offend, but this is perhaps why the parent referred to it by a different name. See more on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Romani_people

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#267

Post by akchin »

intuitionist wrote: post #142
khazhou wrote: post #55

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...

If you’re joining a $60 billion company with thousands of employees expecting rocket-ship growth, that’s kind of on you, I think. You wouldn’t expect that from a public company; why would you from a similarly sized company that just happens to be pre-IPO?

It shouldn't matter a lot since I am 99% sure that they were issuing RSUs at that time and not options. So the strike price based on 3-years ago valuation is not relevant. Also, I am sure the number of RSUs you got at Uber should have been more than the RSUs at FAANG, to compensate for some of the risks. Now, if an individual Uber employee came out ahead, vs. having joined a FAANG really depends on the offers they had.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#268

Post by _bxg1 »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #265
_bxg1 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ease of competition aside, I still think Uber is a massive bubble. Ride-hailing is of dubious actual utility, it's been causing traffic problems (and has been getting regulated accordingly), it has ethical problems with regards to employment (and faces constant threat of regulation from that angle too), and above all else, it's clear at this point that it will never be profitable while it relies on human drivers. Inv…

Dubious utility? It's a massive improvement over cabs for the consumer.

Is it though? Cabs have apps now. What makes them different? If the answer is the price, well, that price is unsustainable and denies thousands of people a living wage.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#269

Post by caprese »

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…

The media should talk more about the deal flow itself and pretty much ignore secondary market trading, showcasing the covenants of the deal in comparison to other deals.

How about celebrating with the underwriters and profile the MD who worked on the deal - if we are putting large public deals on a pedestal - lets pop champagne with the people that actually made money and stop pretending like the secondary market price even matters, or maybe cut occasionally to a live stream to the underwriter's traders trying to hold up the stabilizing bid like it was a poker match if the market is dumping, and if they fold under too much selling pressure have silly music and the hosts on picture-in-picture laughing as if it was a Japanese game show

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#270

Post by semi-extrinsic »

malvosenior wrote: post #131
nonaime wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get how Amazon can be seen as revolutionary, but not how Uber (or even Lyft) is. I mean, when I think of catching a taxi back in the day, the only difference is that I made a phonecall instead of using an app to get the service. If it's the "gig economy-ness" of it, we had hacks in my hometown. Maybe there was a license requirement to be a hack, but it always felt like hacks were just regular schmoes who would char…

I've had very extensive and very negative taxi experiences around the world. Uber is night and day from a UX perspective. Being able to see where the car is when it's on the way, pre-inputting your destination, paying through the app... The gig economy aspect was definitely revolutionary as well. It's essentially changing the nature of work (love it or hate it). As much as I love Amazon and always have, in the early…

I don't see how the UX thing is so revolutionary. I live in a city with 120k people, and the app of the local taxi company here does all of those things as well.
Post reply on HN