Uber opens at $42 per share • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#301

Post by pavlov » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

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…

The Silicon Valley giants don't do options anymore, but RSUs (restricted stock units) which are simply share awards. There's no strike price to worry about, but of course it's a bit of a disappointment if you expected Uber to be a $100B company out of the gate.

Still, Uber employees will be happy that they can finally sell those RSU awards (in six months when the lockup expires).

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#302

Post by busymom0 » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:08 PM UTC

cubano wrote: post #297

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.

Uber is totally banking on driverless cars to lower to cost per mile to near nothing.

I agree that Uber is betting on driverless cars to lower the cost per mile. But I think Tesla will beat them to market much much before them considering Tesla already has the tech. Elon even hinted on the Tesla taxi fleet in the next couple years. Now I realize Elon's got poor judgement on timing but I still think they will be able to achieve that much earlier than Uber. And if they do, I honestly don't see Uber surviving.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#303

Post by conanbatt » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

tuna-piano wrote: post #277

atemerev wrote: post #38

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?

It would be better for you to collect stock on a company like google at 0$ salary, and just pay long term capital gains when you sell than salary.

Makes a huge difference long term, as one is filled with payroll taxes and high rates, and the other is 15%.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#304

Post by busymom0 » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

There's way too many comments in this thread comparing Uber's non-profitability to Amazon's which I think is quite silly. Amazon lost $2.8 billion over its first 17 quarters while Uber lost $4.5 billion in 2017 alone.

Also comparing Uber to Facebook is quite silly too. Facebook had a lot more users than Uber but they are also different types of users. One is a free user with hope for targeted advertisement (in which the advertiser gains/loses money) whereas the other is paid users/riders (but in this case Uber has been losing money each ride and I don't see it changing). Also advertisement has huge margins with not much cost from Facebook's pov but ride sharing logistics is completely different with very little margin where the driver needs to get paid. Drivers are already complaining that they are not getting paid enough for rides and asking Uber to take lesser cut of the ride. So Uber can't raise their cut over their current 20-25%. Facebook's advertisement business doesn't have this problem. Nor does Amazon as they can make their logistics more efficient.

Amazon is able to lower it's cost with economies of scale but I don't see Uber being able to achieve that as their costs only increase as they scale as they lose money on every ride. The only way I can see them become profitable is if and when they achieve driverless cars, which they are betting huge on, but that's a long way to go. Uber is betting on driverless cars to lower the cost per mile. But I think Tesla will beat them to market much much before them considering Tesla already has the tech. Elon even hinted on the Tesla taxi fleet in the next couple years.

Now I realize Elon's got poor judgement on timing but I still think they will be able to achieve that much earlier than Uber. And if they do, I honestly don't see Uber & Lyft surviving.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#305

Post by sova » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

busymom0 wrote: post #304

There's way too many comments in this thread comparing Uber's non-profitability to Amazon's which I think is quite silly. Amazon lost $2.8 billion over its first 17 quarters while Uber lost $4.5 billion in 2017 alone. Also comparing Uber to Facebook is quite silly too. Facebook had a lot more users than Uber but they are also different types of users. One is a free user with hope for targeted advertisement (in which…

Well said! Given that UBER actually follows a model that looks like: Don't own the equipment, rent people who own their own equipment, be the middleman. It's quite reminiscent of Truck Driving or some sort of specialty guildswork, like carpentry or other professions there are Guilds for. UBER is a replicable model for any guildswork, taxi [guild] service conveniently benefitting from GPS and mapping. However, since UBER owns not the equipment, and only rents the laborers (without a strong "come in to the office" type of contract) it's hard to see where the value of this company actually lies. Of course, due to their brand monopoly, or duopoly, they are able to keep strength for a while. But, eventually, guildsworks in general will probably be delegated to some other motherlode app. If they need help growing or figuring out how to actually make a profitable company, they need to stop thinking about how to be a taxi service, and how to be a transportation provider.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#306

Post by zsiddique » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

kingnothing wrote: post #220

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?

It's very reasonable for employees over the past 3 years to expect growth. Over the past 3 years: FB is up 60% AAPL is up 98% AMZN is up 261% NFLX is up 363% GOOG is up 60%

You left off TEAM (Atlassian) up 199% over the past 3 years.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#307

Post by ufmace » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

atemerev wrote: post #38

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.

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.

I get that, as odd as it is. But my understanding was that Uber wasn't doing that at all. I haven't heard of them using slightly dubious accounting tricks to pay more money to shareholders while showing no paper profit. I thought their expenses were simply way ahead of their revenues with no clear way to bridge the gap, and the shareholders are losing money and being diluted too.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#308

Post by OrgNet » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #93

bfrog wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the burn rate uber has, it'll be bankrupt in < 2 years. There are no other suckers to buy in after the public.

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…

> I've never understood why so many people were/are so bullish on Uber.

Uber is bullish, maybe that's why?

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#309

Post by rlucas » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:26 PM UTC

caprese wrote: post #300

dclowd9901 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting definition of "made"... assumes the concept of liquidity has no meaning.

> That's an interesting definition of "made"... assumes the concept of liquidity has no meaning. Thats interesting definition of "literally traded a bunch of shares to underwriters in exchange for $8,100,000,000 and let the underwriters worry about liquidity on the stock exchanges" Uber has dollars for the shares they sold. Liquidity is not a concern for the party of the transaction I talked about.

...aaaand, Uber (meaning, the owners of Uber pre-IPO) has less ownership in the business afterwards.

Sure, you can argue that the $8.1B is something "real" that the owners of Uber have more of, afterwards.

But you also have to acknowledge that the business of running Uber is also something "real" that the owners of Uber have less of, afterwards, having traded it in a heavily-scrutinized auction.

Re: Uber opens at $42 per share

#310

Post by matt-attack » Fri, May 10, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

wesammikhail wrote: post #61

chollida1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edited the comment, $45 was the IPO price, meant it will be the fist time since 2008 that a major IPO closed below its IPO price on the first day of trading.

curious: how do you define major here considering that it is the qualification upon which the entire statement stands?

Successful IPOs are successful. A tautology.