3 ms·

Source?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
H8crilA 7y ago
The OP link, of course. Scroll to the GAAP section, earnings are under "CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS". The GAAP loss per quarter is $1.096B, which comes out to $0.64 per share.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- texasbigdata 7y ago
  Cash flow from operations was negative 3 billion excluding the "cash held by insurer" and capex was 0.5 billion. This puts unlevered free cash flow at closer to negative $3.5B. The way they are breaking out segments seems to imply that theres heavy losses in non-North America so of they were to shut off the rest of world stuff maybe it looks better.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Does this imply a ~1 year runway considering $11B cash/cash equivalents on hand?
    - texasbigdata 7y ago
      I believe that was an annual number. Not sure runway makes sense for an entity this big. They recognized billions of stock comp. There's enough enterprise value to generate cash in a variety of ways. The company might kick and scream to not do anything dilutive but its hard to see a scenario where they couldn't access the capital markets if backed against the wall (albeit at maybe an expensive rate). But I'm not intimately familiar with this stock.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- viscanti 7y ago
  You're comparing all their lines of business but the OP talks specifically about the Rides business which they said generated a large EBIDTA profit and was more than enough to cover all G&A and R&D. It doesn't look like they break out G&A and R&D by line of business so it looks like the Rides business specifically is profitable even after paying everyone's salary at the company. Seems like the meme that they'll never be profitable has been disproven.
- tootie 7y ago
  I know it's SOP for Silicon Valley to see massive losses for years while a business is established, but it seems like Uber has absolutely no reason to not be profitable within a year or less. Uber is, for all intents and purposes, a platform for user acquisition and operational cost savings for a decades-old industry (taxis) that are able to be profitable on a small scale all over the world. Car services were all making money charging sustainable rates to willing customers. If the model was just to normalize pricing a bit, gain efficiency at scale and smooth the customer experience with technology, it should be an absolute gimme to be profitable. I have a hard time understanding why their business isn't 90% smoke and mirrors.
  - vosper 7y ago
    > Car services were all making money charging sustainable rates to willing customers I think a fairly good portion of car services were making money charging monopoly rates to customers who had no choice but to take a taxi. It sustained the car services, but sucked for everyone else (as anyone who taxied in SF pre-Uber will tell you, or waited on an hour-late pre-booked taxi to arrive in NZ to go into town on Friday night, or took a chance with an "unlicensed" [some random guy] taxi in London because the black cabs were nowhere to be seen) For example: tourists, people who can't or don't drive for some reason, people who've been out drinking, etc...
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I don't know about monopoly rates. I take a private car service to the airport. There are a number of different services I could choose from but the one I use is reliable and competitive with competing service when I've checked. Yes, they're quite a bit more than Uber but they're reliable, including in situations where Uber would not be (very early morning pickups well outside of a major urban area).
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    I think you're right that Uber could easily be profitable as the jitney cab service it is. The problem is that being a modestly profitable grey-market business doesn't pay back the hundreds of millions your investors have sunk into you.

Source?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

The OP link, of course. Scroll to the GAAP section, earnings are under "CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS". The GAAP loss per quarter is $1.096B, which comes out to $0.64 per share.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
texasbigdata 7y ago
Cash flow from operations was negative 3 billion excluding the "cash held by insurer" and capex was 0.5 billion. This puts unlevered free cash flow at closer to negative $3.5B. The way they are breaking out segments seems to imply that theres heavy losses in non-North America so of they were to shut off the rest of world stuff maybe it looks better.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Does this imply a ~1 year runway considering $11B cash/cash equivalents on hand?
  - texasbigdata 7y ago
    I believe that was an annual number. Not sure runway makes sense for an entity this big. They recognized billions of stock comp. There's enough enterprise value to generate cash in a variety of ways. The company might kick and scream to not do anything dilutive but its hard to see a scenario where they couldn't access the capital markets if backed against the wall (albeit at maybe an expensive rate). But I'm not intimately familiar with this stock.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
viscanti 7y ago
You're comparing all their lines of business but the OP talks specifically about the Rides business which they said generated a large EBIDTA profit and was more than enough to cover all G&A and R&D. It doesn't look like they break out G&A and R&D by line of business so it looks like the Rides business specifically is profitable even after paying everyone's salary at the company. Seems like the meme that they'll never be profitable has been disproven.
tootie 7y ago
I know it's SOP for Silicon Valley to see massive losses for years while a business is established, but it seems like Uber has absolutely no reason to not be profitable within a year or less. Uber is, for all intents and purposes, a platform for user acquisition and operational cost savings for a decades-old industry (taxis) that are able to be profitable on a small scale all over the world. Car services were all making money charging sustainable rates to willing customers. If the model was just to normalize pricing a bit, gain efficiency at scale and smooth the customer experience with technology, it should be an absolute gimme to be profitable. I have a hard time understanding why their business isn't 90% smoke and mirrors.
- vosper 7y ago
  > Car services were all making money charging sustainable rates to willing customers I think a fairly good portion of car services were making money charging monopoly rates to customers who had no choice but to take a taxi. It sustained the car services, but sucked for everyone else (as anyone who taxied in SF pre-Uber will tell you, or waited on an hour-late pre-booked taxi to arrive in NZ to go into town on Friday night, or took a chance with an "unlicensed" [some random guy] taxi in London because the black cabs were nowhere to be seen) For example: tourists, people who can't or don't drive for some reason, people who've been out drinking, etc...
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I don't know about monopoly rates. I take a private car service to the airport. There are a number of different services I could choose from but the one I use is reliable and competitive with competing service when I've checked. Yes, they're quite a bit more than Uber but they're reliable, including in situations where Uber would not be (very early morning pickups well outside of a major urban area).
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  I think you're right that Uber could easily be profitable as the jitney cab service it is. The problem is that being a modestly profitable grey-market business doesn't pay back the hundreds of millions your investors have sunk into you.