281–290 of 470 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber has paying users. Facebook had advertisement targets. Doesn't make too much sense to conflate the two.
I think the sensible conclusion here is that the two companies have such different business models and goals that it doesn't make much sense to compare them at all.
Logistics is a low margin winner-takes-all industry which is fairly well understood.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you don't say directly which of the two is more desireable, the market unfortunately looks like it prefers advertising targets.
No, what the market likes is profit .
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.
These days, being profitable is considered harmful. More profits = more taxes. Getting virtual “profits” into stock appreciation and structuring revenues to pay nearly zero tax is the name of the game today, and only big corporations can afford it. It is small and medium businesses that pick the bill.
Remaining unprofitable is a part of maintaining the illusion that the company has huge upside in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense, but of course IPOs benefit unprofitable companies. The entire point of an IPO is to raise capital to invest back into the company. Why would you ever have an IPO if you didn't have a plan for that cash, and why would you have an IPO if you had all the cash you needed?
Because the initial investors want to sell their ownership stake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber isn't rolling profit back into the company like Amazon or others do, they are literally loosing money on every ride. There's no profit to hide from the taxman.
> Uber isn't rolling profit back into the company like Amazon They kind of are. It’s just a matter of timing. They are rolling future profits, bankrolled by VC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The lead underwriter needs to stabilize the price post-IPO. When $unicorn_company IPOs, the underwriter actually sells more shares than the IPO company. If the price starts to drop below the originally listed price, the underwriter steps in to purchase these shares back at the IPO price to stabilize it. It's generally an optics play - how bad would it look if you as a bank, who wanted to continue to offer IPOs,…
There's a limit to how much they can prop up the price though. If the market really hates the stock they won't be able to save it.
But let’s also assume some large proportion of players are reactionary, tending to sell when the price drops and buy more when the price rises. If you could show a sufficient demand at price A, then that large block of people would not sell their holdings because the price does not decline beyond A.
Then, the economically rational actors have a dilemma because they believe the price should be B (where B I guess what I’m asking is how much money relative to market cap is required to make the market accept an inflated price _without_ actually trading on it and losing money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These days, being profitable is considered harmful. More profits = more taxes. Getting virtual “profits” into stock appreciation and structuring revenues to pay nearly zero tax is the name of the game today, and only big corporations can afford it. It is small and medium businesses that pick the bill.
Same reason I requested $0 salary this year... Seriously, this argument doesn't make sense to me? How can them spending more money help them make more because of taxes?
You should be already rich and structure your capital properly for this to work.