Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
1–10 of 516 posts
Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
#2No doubt they are struggling to show a path to profitability, but $3.9B of that is a one-time recognition of all their stock comp which makes look much worse than it should (Assuming that a 1.3B loss is more "normal")
Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
#3> A majority of that [$5.2B] — about $3.9 billion — was caused by stock-based compensation that Uber paid its employees after its I.P.O. Excluding that one-time expense, Uber lost $1.3 billion, or nearly twice the $878 million that it lost a year earlier.
Not exactly as bad as the headline makes it sound, but still bad. EDIT: Still very bad. Obviously!
Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
#4> A majority of that [$5.2B] — about $3.9 billion — was caused by stock-based compensation that Uber paid its employees after its I.P.O. Excluding that one-time expense, Uber lost $1.3 billion, or nearly twice the $878 million that it lost a year earlier. Not exactly as bad as the headline makes it sound, but still bad. EDIT: Still very bad. Obviously!
It's bad all the way, including the $3.9 billion, which is a massive sum. As Warren Buffett says, "if stock-based compensation isn't an expense, what is it?".
Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
#5Uber laying off 400 two weeks ago felt like a leading indicator that they were going to deliver a weak quarter, I'm surprised this wasn't priced into the stock (which is now down ~10% after hours after finishing today's session at +8%). What was the market expecting?
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/technology/uber-job-cuts....
Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
#6Biased headline, biased article.
1. 3.9 Bil was a one time cost
2. 1.3 Bil is not almost double 880 Mil. I mean that's just egregious.
Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
#7I really wonder where Uber, Lyft etc. go in the future. Uber in particular seemed to betting hard on the fact that self-driving cars would make them wildly profitable but it seems like that is a long way away yet. And they're still subsiding rides in a lot of markets to make them look a lot more affordable than they really are.
I still think there's a market out there, but Uber in particular feels like it's grown too big for the actual market it can hope to occupy.
Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
#8Uber and lyft are both on the way down. The price at which they need to operate to be profitable is not a price that most americans are ready to pay. As simple as that.
For now they delay this reality by subsidizing rides in order to generate business. In some cities like San Francisco, most incentives were removed and among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too expensive.
(Comment that I already issued yesterday on a similar thread)
Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
#9> A majority of that [$5.2B] — about $3.9 billion — was caused by stock-based compensation that Uber paid its employees after its I.P.O. Excluding that one-time expense, Uber lost $1.3 billion, or nearly twice the $878 million that it lost a year earlier. Not exactly as bad as the headline makes it sound, but still bad. EDIT: Still very bad. Obviously!
I don't know how the headline could be anymore objective than this. And the loss numbers not withstanding, a company bleeding money like a unicorn growing only 14% in revenue is pretty bad no matter how you slice it.
Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate
#10No doubt they are struggling to show a path to profitability, but $3.9B of that is a one-time recognition of all their stock comp which makes look much worse than it should (Assuming that a 1.3B loss is more "normal")
I am confused at how that 3.9B could be said not to matter - I'm not familiar with what precisely "recognition of stock comp" means, but I'm going to assume it was either squaring a previously deferred liability - or directly needing to pay out some sort of stock based compensation.
Assuming the compensation was for a business need (like hiring labour or purchasing something necessary) then I don't see how that should be isolated or differentiated from regular costs of running the business - assuming it wasn't a business need (and was more of a way to game the stock price) then I'd assume whoever made the decision to take such an action when Uber is already losing money hand-over-fist is just trying to get out some loot while they can... which is potentially an even more extremely bad scenario to accept.