6 ms·

I mean, the market agreed it was legitimate and Lyft was promising much the same in 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-22/lyft-forecasts-prof

I mean, the market agreed it was legitimate and Lyft was promising much the same in 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-22/lyft-forecasts-profit-by-end-of-2021-sending-shares-surging https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-22/lyft-fore...

Klinky 6y ago
Market has never been wrong, bandwagoned or knee-jerked before.
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  Random outsiders with no understanding of the company are never wrong and their criticism is always spot on.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    Aren't rando outsiders effectively "The Market"? Appealing to the authority of "The Market", as if it is this great metric of truth, while it currently runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, is not the best argument. Shares surging by 9% on a vague promise to be profitable in 2 years time sounds like bandwagon behavior. Simple "Good News - Buy, Bad News - Sell" signalling. This is also "Adjusted EBITDA profitability", which is squirrelly, and 2021 means "Q4 of 2021". With recent events, it also seems less likely "The Market" was accurate in its assessment. Honestly that may not be entirely fair given the unprecedented nature, but isn't "The Market" supposed to factor in long-term threats, instead of short-sighted potential profitability proposals? If we were listening to the markets over the last few weeks, the world was either ending or the economy was booming and "nothing was wrong", all depending on what day of the week it was. Lots of sage wisdom being gained there.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Just ask WeWork and Enron and Luckin Coffee investors!
  - mewpmewp2 6y ago
    Let's keep citing some famous failures to dismiss anything market might predict because these few examples mean none of it can be useful information. We obviously know better than the market and if we don't it's because markets are full of shit and manipulated by the feds. Furthermore all companies are evil, greedy and nobody wants to build things that develop and grow the world. All decisions made are corrupt and no one cares for our best interests.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      It's hard to argue that the market can get, uh, frothy from time to time. This is especially true as low-interest-rate money is chasing such limited yields (or more frequently, negative yields) in low-risk asset classes like bonds. Large investors and VCs are more interested in growth than they are in fundamentals because they believe the fundamentals will follow the growth. Often they do, but sometimes they don't. The size and employee counts of those organizations don't always mean much. It's worth being skeptical. I think you'd have made the same reply if I'd cited Luckin before last week, ya know? Especially for a company like Uber, whose operating economics have been -- let's just call them bleak. They burned $1B/quarter for years. I really like the write-up from Naked Capitalism (a few years old now, but aging well imo) [1] They have lost more money so far than any startup in recent history. But I'm sure genuine profitability is right around the corner ;) > Furthermore all companies are evil, greedy and nobody wants to build things that develop and grow the world. Uh... sir, this is a Wendy's. IRL, just because you really deeply want something doesn't mean you'll get it -- or that it was even a good idea to begin with. And it certainly doesn't mean losing a billion dollars per quarter is going to magically generate a profitable business from thin air. OR, I'm totally wrong! Either way's fine :) [1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-one-understanding-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-delive...
      - mewpmewp2 6y ago
        It's worth being skeptical, but it seems to me that people who criticise do so without having any idea how the business internally operates or what its goals and expectations are - and it seems like on falsely based assumptions. "Burning" cash is already an unfair term which to me implies that analysis is not founded on fair terms. How can you tell they are "burning" cash and not "investing" it in r&d and expansion which will have effect in the future? If you can differentiate between the two and bring forth a solid reason why it's actually burning, not investing in itself, I might think there's some truth to it. Certainly there are viable conditions in which it's possible to invest $1B in itself, right? You could certainly prove that with maths, if for example this $1B spent now will mean maybe $1B extra revenue after 5 years? > They have lost more money so far than any startup in recent history How can that be an argument? How can you tell it isn't "They have invested more money so far than any startup in recent history"?

Klinky 6y ago

Market has never been wrong, bandwagoned or knee-jerked before.

mewpmewp2 6y ago
Random outsiders with no understanding of the company are never wrong and their criticism is always spot on.
- Klinky 6y ago
  Aren't rando outsiders effectively "The Market"? Appealing to the authority of "The Market", as if it is this great metric of truth, while it currently runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, is not the best argument. Shares surging by 9% on a vague promise to be profitable in 2 years time sounds like bandwagon behavior. Simple "Good News - Buy, Bad News - Sell" signalling. This is also "Adjusted EBITDA profitability", which is squirrelly, and 2021 means "Q4 of 2021". With recent events, it also seems less likely "The Market" was accurate in its assessment. Honestly that may not be entirely fair given the unprecedented nature, but isn't "The Market" supposed to factor in long-term threats, instead of short-sighted potential profitability proposals? If we were listening to the markets over the last few weeks, the world was either ending or the economy was booming and "nothing was wrong", all depending on what day of the week it was. Lots of sage wisdom being gained there.
arcticbull 6y ago
Just ask WeWork and Enron and Luckin Coffee investors!
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  Let's keep citing some famous failures to dismiss anything market might predict because these few examples mean none of it can be useful information. We obviously know better than the market and if we don't it's because markets are full of shit and manipulated by the feds. Furthermore all companies are evil, greedy and nobody wants to build things that develop and grow the world. All decisions made are corrupt and no one cares for our best interests.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    It's hard to argue that the market can get, uh, frothy from time to time. This is especially true as low-interest-rate money is chasing such limited yields (or more frequently, negative yields) in low-risk asset classes like bonds. Large investors and VCs are more interested in growth than they are in fundamentals because they believe the fundamentals will follow the growth. Often they do, but sometimes they don't. The size and employee counts of those organizations don't always mean much. It's worth being skeptical. I think you'd have made the same reply if I'd cited Luckin before last week, ya know? Especially for a company like Uber, whose operating economics have been -- let's just call them bleak. They burned $1B/quarter for years. I really like the write-up from Naked Capitalism (a few years old now, but aging well imo) [1] They have lost more money so far than any startup in recent history. But I'm sure genuine profitability is right around the corner ;) > Furthermore all companies are evil, greedy and nobody wants to build things that develop and grow the world. Uh... sir, this is a Wendy's. IRL, just because you really deeply want something doesn't mean you'll get it -- or that it was even a good idea to begin with. And it certainly doesn't mean losing a billion dollars per quarter is going to magically generate a profitable business from thin air. OR, I'm totally wrong! Either way's fine :) [1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-one-understanding-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-delive...
    - mewpmewp2 6y ago
      It's worth being skeptical, but it seems to me that people who criticise do so without having any idea how the business internally operates or what its goals and expectations are - and it seems like on falsely based assumptions. "Burning" cash is already an unfair term which to me implies that analysis is not founded on fair terms. How can you tell they are "burning" cash and not "investing" it in r&d and expansion which will have effect in the future? If you can differentiate between the two and bring forth a solid reason why it's actually burning, not investing in itself, I might think there's some truth to it. Certainly there are viable conditions in which it's possible to invest $1B in itself, right? You could certainly prove that with maths, if for example this $1B spent now will mean maybe $1B extra revenue after 5 years? > They have lost more money so far than any startup in recent history How can that be an argument? How can you tell it isn't "They have invested more money so far than any startup in recent history"?