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

Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 239 posts

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#191

Post by pbhjpbhj »

lhorie wrote: post #158
yladiz wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know about this, and while it's sad, it doesn't excuse his past actions and in the context of this post it doesn't matter. If the post was about his mother passing, and someone mentioned how much of a jerk he is, that's in much worse taste. Saying it in a comment thread on a post about Uber's loss is not in bad taste.

> Saying it in a comment thread on a post about Uber's loss is not in bad taste. I dunno. The comment doesn't seem very relevant, being basically one random guy's opinion of what he read on the 'tubes about another guy he probably never met, and extrapolating that to be some sort of argument about the profitability of a company. To me, it just kinda feels like thinly disguised bandwagoning to get internet points. I r…

I'm completely ignorant of all of this but if the CEOs behaviour is part of his reason for changing loyalties as a customer then it seems highly relevant to me. Even if the CEO is a perfect saint, stating their reasoning is valid IMO. If people stop using a company because of the behaviour of a CEO, be the real or merely perceived, that must impact profit and is likely to increasingly do so, no?

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#192

Post by dx034 »

beavisthegenius wrote: post #183
dx034 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still means that their owners won't see any of the money generated by the company. Before compensation, most companies are profitable. And in the end it doesn't matter to the shareholder if you pay stock compensation or cash.

Not true. Stock compensation is dilutitive to existing shareholders putting future pressure on earnings per share and generally means you'll see a share buyback further reducing cash on balance sheet or increasing debt. Further, large blocks of lockup expirations cause selling pressure. Once talent sells stock compensation how do you then retain them? Do you grant more shares diluting existing shareholders further?

It is different for incentives but not for the actual outcome. Obviously you'd have to compare the same compensation levels, i.e. 100k in cash vs 100k in stocks (at payout).

For start ups it can turn out cheaper as the compensation will be lower in stocks if the company doesn't perform well. From a shareholder perspective it's compensation and shouldn't be treated differently. Excluding it from costs is dangerous as it gives the impression that it's optional costs when in reality, you need to pay the stock compensation to retain talent.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#193

Post by matwood »

phillc73 wrote: post #175
jpatokal wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring that businessmen who travel all the time are very heavy users of Uber and similar services. I'm not even a frequent flyer, but I'd estimate that a good 80-90% of my Uber usage is travel-related. At home, I have tons of other options to get around, but on a tight schedule in an unfamiliar city, I basically default to Uber all the time, because I rarely have the time or risk tolerance explore alternativ…

> I rarely have the time or risk tolerance explore alternatives. If your goal is to save time and mitigate risk, then pre-book with a local service before you even depart. Or, as many business travelers do, ask the company/person you're meeting to arrange a car to collect you. Then you just have to look out for one of those drivers in Arrivals holding a card with your name. Many of the international airports I've tra…

> Many of the international airports I've traveled to have excellent transport links to the city centre, primarily by rail. They're quick, cost effective and low risk.

While I agree with your point, rarely are the rail links less risky to find/buy tickets/navigate than simply walking out the door at arrivals and catching a cab door to door.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#194

Post by mintone »

idiotdummy wrote: post #190
cameldrv wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't been paying attention to what Uber's been doing. They started by charging flat fares on Pool, now they're charging flat fares for all rides. They're decoupling the price that the rider pays from what the driver gets. Pool makes this obfuscation easier, since the calculation is much more complex for rides that are partially shared. They do seem to be raising prices on riders without passing it on to driver…

> They're decoupling the price that the rider pays from what the driver gets. And this is somewhat transparent, right? Everyone loves getting middle manned, I'm sure neither drivers nor passengers will mind. Getting a lift is a commodity. It needs to be cheaper form the buyer's perspective and it needs to pay better from the driver's perspective. Not sure how that works while also earning bing money for the middle ma…

(on the assumption that your first sentence was sarcastic) Everyone does love getting middle-manned, it's why uber is successful. We had taxi services before uber, but they were unreliable and sometimes meant calling around 3 or 4 to get a cab at busy times. No accountability of where the cab was if it was late / no showed. Uber changed that and people flocked to them in their droves. Same for airbnb and basically any other major marketplace app / site.

They may now be looking like an autonomous driving play, but that is not why the company started.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#196

Post by wodenokoto »

BurningFrog wrote: post #70
bo1024 wrote: post #22

If I understood the Reuters article correctly, Uber made $3.4 billion and therefore lost $4.1 billion in the first quarter of 2017. Can someone help me understand what Uber spends $4.1 billion dollars on in 3 months? Is it because they're subsidizing rides by that much on average? (i.e. paying drivers more than riders pay)

They're paying drivers 70% of the fare, so no. It's a very good question. They must burn a lot of money on developing self driving cars and other research. But can it really be this much?

It is very different from country to country how they do stuff. When they where in China they heavily subsidized rides, paying drives more than the entire fare, sometimes.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#197

Post by TheAdamist »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #117
objclxt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what most people miss, is that the 3.4 billion is the 30% cut Uber takes from a ride. Prices don't have to rise 20% to break even, prices have to rise 6% No, they have to rise by more than that. Your math is technically correct (a 6% rise gives you an extra $700 million), but you are assuming that the price increase goes entirely to Uber. There is no way Uber can increase prices by 6% and give none of that upsi…

Do Uber drivers even see the fair that is charged their passengers? If not, then it's not clear Uber can't keep most or all of a 6% price increase without losing drivers to Lyft.

they don't see the fare charged to the customer, but people have figured out the customer is charged a higher fare than the driver sees by comparing notes, there is a lawsuit about it currently.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-uber-drivers-lawsui...

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#198

Post by rtpg »

resf wrote: post #160
ubernostrum wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it demonstrates that Uber's aggressive international expansion strategy is the right one. Does it? "We lose money on every customer, but we'll make it up in volume" is one of the classic ways to run a business into bankruptcy. Sometimes, taking one's time is the far sounder strategy, even if a hyper-growth competitor is "everywhere" and "dominating" in the eyes of the uninformed public.

They clearly have different objectives. Uber wants to be a huge multinational company, whereas Lyft can only hope to win the US market. In other words, even Lyft's best case scenario would be a huge step down for Uber.

In a world where Lyft wins the US market, they then have a battle chest for future expansion.

Apparently Uber is already profitable in the US and thus can use that to finance further growth, but nothing is stopping Lyft from going back in that game at a later date. If anything Uber's best strat would probably be to refocus on the US and crush Lyft everywhere, rather than give it the room to breath it needs.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#199

Post by calvinv »

jpatokal wrote: post #130
beager wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that Lyft doesn't have to compete globally with Uber to be a successful business in its own right. I also believe that Uber isn't immune from being crippled by competitors that operate in a very small but key subset of Uber's markets. There is very little network effect with Uber. Sure, you can hop off a plane anywhere in the world and open Uber to get a car, but that is a very small number of people overal…

You're ignoring that businessmen who travel all the time are very heavy users of Uber and similar services. I'm not even a frequent flyer, but I'd estimate that a good 80-90% of my Uber usage is travel-related. At home, I have tons of other options to get around, but on a tight schedule in an unfamiliar city, I basically default to Uber all the time, because I rarely have the time or risk tolerance explore alternativ…

It doesn't work at all in Germany, Spain, Iceland, and in smaller towns in UK. Uber isn't very reliable in Europe
Post reply on HN