| Reposting for a well composted comment from Alex DeLarge for visibility and to add to the conversation: > Here is a quick response on science and fiction parts as a follow up to my previous comment. I am not sure if I want to spend a lot of time on this one-sided, brand-bashing article to point out all the misinformation or truth hiding. Believe me when I say I come up with an immediate counter argument in a second when I read a paragraph in this piece. > Unfortunately, I do have better things to do and hoping below should suffice. > The science-fiction writer here understands the average reader’s quirks and their unwillingness to dig through all the “sources” cited here so he just hand-picked some data that works for the narrative. > Hey, don’t get me wrong - I do agree it works pretty well for the aimed narrative. > SCIENCE > “Uber’s time is up.” > Nope. It is not. Dull claim requires a dull answer but I’ll do you one better. Uber just raised $1.5B in senior notes due 2029. In plain language, this means that Uber is capable of raising money when it needs because there are investors out there who did their due diligence and concluded Uber will be good for its word. > “Uber loses a lot of money. A lot of money. Billions. But it claims it’s making money. How does it do this? It lies. Uber eschews boring old generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and invents fanciful new forms of mathematics where losing money is good, actually. > Every quarter, it releases new lies laid out like a profit-and-loss statement, and every quarter, Horan shows it’s losing money. Here he is on the company’s $6.8 billion (with a B!) loss last summer, predicting the company would be broke by mid-2021. > It’s mid-2021. Uber is going broke. > Yesterday, Horan published his 26th (!) analysis of Uber, breaking down its Q2–21 financials.” > Yes, let’s address the financial elephant in the room. Adjusted EBITDA! What a fancy name, eh? Basically, all it does is to remove certain items from the profitabilty calculation as those are, well, called one time for a good reason. It is for investors/analysts so they are able to make good comparisons and educated decisions in the same industry. It is not to lie to those people who will never read their financial statements. This calculation is never meant for those people. > Another misinformation is Uber avoiding using GAAP. Just go ahead and take a look at their last filing and tell me how they are avoiding using GAAP as it is required by law to publish results in GAAP. > It is way past mid-2021 and Uber is not broke. I still see tons of cash ($4.4B) in their balance sheet and already shown their ability to raise money. It is going to be a bit cheesy but if Horan (who?) was right then he would not need 26 (!) analyses to prove it. One would suffice. > “Uber increased road congestion.” > From your source article: “And it’s always worth remembering, as transportation professionals say again and again, that congestion can be a sign that your city is thriving. “Congestion arises because we have people, and people go out and do things and they have jobs,” says Castiglione. Fighting congestion is good. But expecting traffic to disappear—or blaming it all on one or two players—isn’t realistic.” > “Uber was never going to be profitable. Never.” > I cannot decide if this is part is getting the science wrong or all together fiction so I guess it is a bit of both. > Here is another one. FB was never going to be profitable. Never. Until one day it was. (FB founded in 2004, turned cash flow positive in 2009 and IPO’ed in 2012). I’ll prescribe Business 101 so you understand why companies are formed. Hint: It is related with profits. > Uber in its last filing (2Q21) shows its revenue progress from its worst quarter (hello Covid19) to its current. It goes like this: $1.9B -> $2.8B -> $3.1B -> $2.9B -> $3.9B > (I will not bother myself to explain “one-time item” so just took $2.9B instead of $3.5B for 1Q21.) > It is only a matter of time and it just requires some clever lever pulling (read the guidance in the below link — page 14) for Uber to be able to become profitable. (First EBITDA, then GAAP). > And yet you claim it was never going to be profitable. Huh, interesting! (in Larry David’s voice). > https://s23.q4cdn.com/407969754/files/doc_financials/2021/q2... > FICTION > “Cities, meanwhile, experienced a lost decade of transit activism. It’s true that Uber had upsides, like bringing transport to underserved communities of color — but because Uber was always doomed, this was a temporary mirage that would strand those communities again.” > I seriously don’t understand the logic here. You say Uber did one good thing but because Uber was always doomed it is not a good thing anymore. How come we are having this discussion if Uber was always doomed? If Uber is not currently doomed that means it is still helping underserved communities, right? > “Take the story that Uber could be a substitute for public transit. Private cars can’t substitute for buses, light rail and subways. It’s just fucking geometry. Number of cars * area occupied by cars * increased distances created by roads = infinity." > First, where is this said story coming from? I cannot find any official statement that says Uber could be or wants to be a substitute for public transit. I do however see their plans to integrate public transport into their app to make it easier to go from point A to point B. Basically, you open their app and plan your whole trip which might include taking a bus or metro to a certain point and jump on an Uber to go to your next point and maybe ending your last mile on a scooter. I gotta add you must be really proud of with that formula when you finished forming it. Like hell yeah I showed them Uber boys. > https://d1nyezh1ys8wfo.cloudfront.net/static/PDFs/Transit+Ho... > “This gives Uber a great new financial trick: they can put the inflated valuations of these regional Uber-alikes on their balance sheet to make it look like the company is sitting on a mountain of cash that will let it continue with its losses for years.” > You gotta be kidding me. You have got to be kidding me here. You think Uber can just conjure up valuations for other companies and put some numbers on them to inflate its balance sheet. Below are some key search words as I am getting really annoyed by the financial ineptness shown here so not going to explain anymore. > “Valuation for a private company” > “Valuation for a public company” > “409A valuation” > “Security Exchange Commission” > “Big jail time” |
edit but I do want to address this point:
> Nope. It is not. Dull claim requires a dull answer but I’ll do you one better. Uber just raised $1.5B in senior notes due 2029. In plain language, this means that Uber is capable of raising money when it needs because there are investors out there who did their due diligence and concluded Uber will be good for its word.
$1.5B is less than 6 months of operating costs for Uber. This comment also excludes any information on the interest rate of the debt being raised here. Is it a low interest debt because the lenders have confidence in the company? Is it a high interest predatory loan because Uber is desperate and needs cash? The fact that someone can get a long term note is, on its own, not useful information at all.