4 ms·

If not for the Trump connection, it is hard to see a $73 million loss rating a headline. Musk lost more than that from share market fluctuations while buying Tw

by roenxi 3y ago

If not for the Trump connection, it is hard to see a $73 million loss rating a headline. Musk lost more than that from share market fluctuations while buying Twitter. The obvious names that leap to my mind when it comes to losses are groups like Uber and WeWork who represent devastating capital misallocations of recent history. Tether, whenever it collapses, will also be one for the history books. Silicon Valley bank was nominally the biggest banking collapse in history IIRC. And if Trump is involved suddenly people want to try and take an interest in $73 million. It was a SPAC. Shock of all shocks the company is dodgy.

reducesuffering 3y ago
> when it comes to losses are groups like Uber Can this meme die already? Uber turned $25b into a $107b company. Rides/Mobility are profitable.
- roenxi 3y ago
  More than a decade of losses is hardly a meme, they nearly burned 10 billion last year. It is a much more interesting story than Truth Social. > Rides/Mobility are profitable. You can probably pick out a random subset of any company that is profitable. The sales team in nearly any company is profitable. The question is how the profitable part would do if disassociated from the all the loss making parts.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    > The question is how the profitable part would do if disassociated from the all the loss making parts. Probably pretty well considering it's profitable. Good thing one of Trump's favorite things is to go bankrupt in which you can indeed separate the loss making parts from the profitable parts. Although obviously not great for local labors when their invoices are to the loss making part.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Are you an MBA by any chance? They'll be left with a highly profitable business with no moat, no capital and no employees that work on profitable activities. The odds are really good that in this case that sort of thinking will fail the acid test. They'd be a taxi company without the licenses - that isn't worth a decade of billion dollar losses.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    That’s why they axed the unprofitable long term bets and are only subsidizing growth in Uber Eats because they’re behind DoorDash, a market worth $37b in market cap. Their forward P/E is still 68, and what they burned last year is part of the $25b investment that still turned out to be a very valuable company.
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/UBER?tab=financials https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/UBER?tab=financials Shows current quarter profitability
rchaud 3y ago
This is Hacker News, not CNN. I frequently see earnings discussions and post-mortems about companies I've never heard of. This could easily have been one of them: a niche social network struggling to make ad revenue.
rsynnott 3y ago
I mean, if not for the Trump connection, Trump Social (a) wouldn't exist, and (b) wouldn't be worth talking about even if it did. Its whole thing is the Trump connection; it is inextricable from it.

by roenxi 3y ago

reducesuffering 3y ago

> when it comes to losses are groups like Uber Can this meme die already? Uber turned $25b into a $107b company. Rides/Mobility are profitable.

roenxi 3y ago
More than a decade of losses is hardly a meme, they nearly burned 10 billion last year. It is a much more interesting story than Truth Social. > Rides/Mobility are profitable. You can probably pick out a random subset of any company that is profitable. The sales team in nearly any company is profitable. The question is how the profitable part would do if disassociated from the all the loss making parts.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > The question is how the profitable part would do if disassociated from the all the loss making parts. Probably pretty well considering it's profitable. Good thing one of Trump's favorite things is to go bankrupt in which you can indeed separate the loss making parts from the profitable parts. Although obviously not great for local labors when their invoices are to the loss making part.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Are you an MBA by any chance? They'll be left with a highly profitable business with no moat, no capital and no employees that work on profitable activities. The odds are really good that in this case that sort of thinking will fail the acid test. They'd be a taxi company without the licenses - that isn't worth a decade of billion dollar losses.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  That’s why they axed the unprofitable long term bets and are only subsidizing growth in Uber Eats because they’re behind DoorDash, a market worth $37b in market cap. Their forward P/E is still 68, and what they burned last year is part of the $25b investment that still turned out to be a very valuable company.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/UBER?tab=financials https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/UBER?tab=financials Shows current quarter profitability

rchaud 3y ago

This is Hacker News, not CNN. I frequently see earnings discussions and post-mortems about companies I've never heard of. This could easily have been one of them: a niche social network struggling to make ad revenue.

rsynnott 3y ago

I mean, if not for the Trump connection, Trump Social (a) wouldn't exist, and (b) wouldn't be worth talking about even if it did. Its whole thing is the Trump connection; it is inextricable from it.