Live data from Hacker News

Uber Q3 Results

investor.uber.com

21–30 of 172 posts

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#21

I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"

While I can understand why autonomous cars can improve the efficiency of the market, unless Uber is able to gain semi-exclusive access self driving cars alone I don’t understand how this will fix their economics.

Let’s pretend Waymo has 100% safe, easy producible, street legal self driving cars available today and everyone else was clearly several years behind. I see this would play out in a few ways:

1) Would Waymo actually want to spend billions to buy enough cars to maintain their own fleet in most cities in the world/US so that you could quickly and reliably hail a self driving car (and spend on marketing / referrals to grow marketshare). Would Waymos/Google investors actually allow them to lose this much money to start a new business that has historically been so unprofitable?

2) Would Waymo just sell cars to consumers/rental car companies, who would then deploy the vehicles to uber/lyft. In this scenario wouldn’t the cars be even more price sensitive about automatically switching between driving for different platforms and optimizing for the cars time. Wouldn’t consumer still open their uber/Lyft apps, check for the lowest price and then take the cheapest ride? Isn’t this fundamentally the same economics issue (unless the rides perhaps get so cheap that consumer no longer bother to check)

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#22
if uber, wasn't doing business on an uber scale. then maybe, instead of lighting money, they would be printing money. correct ideas, but wrong execution. but alas, a holoi polloi like me will enjoy the VC subsidized rides

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#23
post #14

You have to go past a lot of non-GAAP accounting to see that they actually lost $1.1B last quarter, almost all from operations. There is a nice chart showing all the things they are taking out to get their adjusted EBITDA of -0.5B. It seems like they are always taking out a bunch of one time charges to claim that there core business would be profitable. But every quarter they have those charges. I don't understand ho…

Someday, I want to see a financial statement where the non-GAAP accounting makes the company look worse than GAAP accounting. Statistically, that should happen half the time. It doesn't.

> Statistically, that should happen half the time.

Uhh...no. Non-GAAP is financials manipulated against accounting standards to show a better picture. No company wants to show a worse picture.

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#24

You have to go past a lot of non-GAAP accounting to see that they actually lost $1.1B last quarter, almost all from operations. There is a nice chart showing all the things they are taking out to get their adjusted EBITDA of -0.5B. It seems like they are always taking out a bunch of one time charges to claim that there core business would be profitable. But every quarter they have those charges. I don't understand ho…

wouldn't that violate accounting practices if they took one time charges? That's what constitutes fraud right?

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#25
post #12

I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"

IMHO, autonomous cars actually breaks Uber's model. It changes it from taking a % off the top of a market to a capital and maintenance intensive business. Only seems to work if they end up with some sort of franchise model. Sort of like how Coke has a bunch of distributors.

I suspect this is what Waymo plans to do with Chrysler. Waymo will be the brand of AI driving the car, and probably own the app/marketplace, but the car companies will take care of building/capitalizing the fleet (and probably maintaining it, too).

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#26

I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"

Any savings from not paying a driver would probably be taken up by maintaining and deploying their own vehicle fleet. And that's assuming the tech is ready in a reasonable timeframe and doesn't cost a ridiculous amount.

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#27

You have to go past a lot of non-GAAP accounting to see that they actually lost $1.1B last quarter, almost all from operations. There is a nice chart showing all the things they are taking out to get their adjusted EBITDA of -0.5B. It seems like they are always taking out a bunch of one time charges to claim that there core business would be profitable. But every quarter they have those charges. I don't understand ho…

wouldn't that violate accounting practices if they took one time charges? That's what constitutes fraud right?

They need to provide GAAP numbers and so long as everything else is clearly labeled (i.e. "non-GAAP"), there's no problems.

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#28

I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"

I think the surplus from self-driving tech is going to go to the owners of self-driving IP and consumers.

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#29
post #3

They're still losing money hand over fist - no surprise there. Looks like that is hitting the stock in after-hours for about -5%. Biggest takeaway for me is that gross revenue actually grew slower than total trips (30% vs 31%), which is an interesting trend.

Looks like Uber has two types of businesses. a) Ones that are slowing down, e.g. Rides with growth rate of ~20% and b) Ones that are growing faster by unsustainable economics, e.g. Freight -40% EBITDA. For Uber ever to thrive, they need a business that is growing fast with good economics. It doesn't look they have one anywhere on the horizon.

[deleted]

Re: Uber Q3 Results

#30
post #14

You have to go past a lot of non-GAAP accounting to see that they actually lost $1.1B last quarter, almost all from operations. There is a nice chart showing all the things they are taking out to get their adjusted EBITDA of -0.5B. It seems like they are always taking out a bunch of one time charges to claim that there core business would be profitable. But every quarter they have those charges. I don't understand ho…

Someday, I want to see a financial statement where the non-GAAP accounting makes the company look worse than GAAP accounting. Statistically, that should happen half the time. It doesn't.

Having worked with investment bankers: Statistically speaking, bankers develop various hypotheses re: what "adjustments" might be added to a financial model to make the company look better to investors. They tell their junior analysts to run the numbers, this flows down the chain, and many late nights and Seamless orders ensue. Experienced bankers have pretty good priors, so most of these hypotheses make the company look better. Even so, all but the best outcomes are rejected, and the analysts whose analyses ended up being useless complain to each other over copious amounts of alcohol.

Essentially, it's as if p-hacking were codified as an industry standard, which is to say, it's exactly p-hacking.

Post reply on HN