[oblio]

No, I'm predicting that:

1. opportunity costs are a thing.

2. if you add Uber's financial numbers since creation, the crazy amount of VC that was invested Uber would have provided better returns by investing it in the S&P 500.

3. Uber will settle in as a boring, profitable company that's going to be a side note in both the history of tech and also of transportation and will primarily be remembered for eroding worker rights.

[simianwords]

I don't get your point. You would have still made more money investing in Uber than in S&P.

[oblio]

No, you wouldn't have, unless you were one of handful VCs or Uber execs (ok, and a bunch of pre-IPO Uber employees).

Uber IPO May 2019: market cap $82bn. Uber now: $193bn. 2.35x multiplier.

S&P 500 May 2019: $2750. S&P 500 now: $6460. 2.35x multiplier.

So the much, much riskier Uber investment has barely matched a passive S&P 500 investment over the same time frame. And the business itself has lost money, more money was put into it than has been gotten back so far.

I'm not even sure why I'm in this conversation as it seems ideological. I bring up facts and you bring up... vibes?

[simianwords]

Let me get this straight.

I was replying to this: "So far Lyft seems to be doing okay, which proves the business plan doesn't really work." when I said Uber is profitable

Your retort to that was S&P grew more than Uber, which is a nonsensical argument. Our standard for what is a good business is if it grows faster than S&P after going public?

Edit: I dug up some research related to this, most companies do worse than S&P after becoming public. What's your point then?

[nly]

Most people can't invest in a company pre-IPO, so it's irrelevant

The same is currently true of Anthropic.