There is one bright side to otherwise disgraceful incidents: All the customers running older versions are now forced to upgrade to the latest versions. The burden of supporting really old versions suddenly vanishes.
Box vendors should really stop selling unmanaged boxes/solutions. In reality, customers end up buying service contracts anyway along with boxes. Instead, sell usage/service/connectivity and manage the hardware. A critical patch like this one could then be applied before a PSIRT is released. Frequent upgrades(security patches or feature/bug fix patches) are now commonplace. The user experience would be so much better if the solution were managed by the vendor (cloud managed).
Most places (especially where they have enough money to be buying Cisco Nexus 9k kit) will want some sort of change management, not the vendor to be making arbitrary changes to their critical infrastructure.
Also, given the number and severity of these sort of vulnerabilities in recent times, do you want to give the same companies remote access to your infrastructure as well? :)
Equity = Sigma(Free-cash-flow) summed over time. In the case of AMZN, equity is about 43B. 18B of this amount is goodwill(intangible vaporware). That leaves with about 25B real equity. And surprisingly, this 25B matches with FCF over the last 2 years(2017-2018). Which essentially means, cumulative FCF until 2017 was indeed 0. Numbers do seem to support the claim that AMZN was running on 0(averaged over time) FCF. Showing 1B in one quarter, -1B in another. But overall 0.
Whether 0 cumulative FCF means predatory pricing is a different question altogether. I'm not so sure about that. How would visionaries build big things, that need, and money? If AMZN loses it and acts monopolistic, I think people will respond by migrating en-masse. No one likes too much inequality. Jeff should do something about that image.
Love it. That's how it should be. Drivers should get max possible cut of the fares while the network operator works as a non-profit.
100B pump/dump is a scam. Think about all the indices-tracking-ETFs/Funds that will pick up this overpriced stock(our hard earned 401ks). Sigh. Silicon Valley should not have pumped up what was originally a good idea. This has a high chance of ending badly
What funds are those specifically? Certainly not the S&P 500. The Russell 3000, but they don’t have a choice.
The point of investing is deciding what you believe in (financially speaking)! If you don’t like Uber, make some money on it! You can’t short in an IRA, or sell naked options, but you can sell futures or buy put options. All of these would express a bearish sentiment on Uber. So don’t feel like you sre being screwed, go make some alpha!
For the record I agree with you, and will short Uber the day it IPOs. I’ve already made some good money on shorting Lyft and expect I’ll do well on the same strat with Uber.
Really? The numbers look horrible to me. Both LYFT/UBER have horrible numbers. I would prefer LYFT(@80% discount to IPO price) than UBER(@80% discount to IPO price).
Both of these stock valuations are being pumped and dumped onto public markets with clever tricks. Funny thing is, many of us won't even realize that some of our money will be invested in these stocks without our knowledge(ETFs/Funds tracking indices). Most 401ks market tracking Funds/ETFs will pick up these horrible stocks in time.
Tech wizards of silicon valley have managed to one-up wall street this time, by creating a 100B taxi app. With the 10B they raise from IPO, they will try more desperate measures to try and close the gap in price($100B-$120B) and value($25B-$35B).
I mean. Objectively speaking and valuation aside, Uber's numbers are better than Lyft's. Unlike you, I would much rather take Uber over Lyft, given how extremely siloed is Lyft's market.
1.63 billion from Uber Eats is not a minor number and definitely a contrasting number that shows that at least Uber is trying to position itself as a logistics company instead of a mobility company, which really doesn't make sense (mobility is an abstract concept that I think can't be definied as an industry).
I honestly don't like either. But a plain analysis makes Uber more attractive by far.
> ... at least Uber is trying to position itself as a logistics company instead of a mobility company, which really doesn't make sense (mobility is an abstract concept that I think can't be definied as an industry).
Logistics: conveying goods;
Mobility: conveying people;
Uber is both and more. Those sectors are too small for their ambitions -- essentially they think they are in the transportation business which encompasses logistics, mobility and more.
Surely you'll have heard of Uber Elevate [0] which is a flying taxi service to augment urban mobility and of course there is Uber Freight [1], a haulage business that was supposed to benefit from their Otto acquisition, which built self-driving trucks.
It's the case of SNAP and LYFT because they have ownership structures which don't allow mutual funds to invest in them. Uber has a normal structure; any fund that mirrors the market will purchase the stock.
> Back in 2017, the private ride-hailing company got rid of its dual-class voting structure that had enabled its previous CEO, Travis Kalanick, to make a lot of bad decisions.
What an interesting takeaway. Certainly bodes well for the average Uber investor, but really it only happened because of Travis.
If UBER gets into indices, that would be scamming hard earned 401k dollars of unsuspecting ordinary folks. Sigh... More hate for Silicon Valley when folks figure out
I'm starting to believe this is how all of these IPOs are getting funded. No sane dilligent investor would be willingly investing in these stocks. Almost entire funding therefore must come from indices which in turn are funded by unsuspecting 401K, state pension funds, educational endowments like accounts. There was a book called Modern Tycoons which had term for these accounts, something like "global river of money". Given how indices are now leveraged for automated funding of IPOs, we would soon be back to stock cherry picking it seems.
What if you short the stock by the equivalent ETF holding amount. Not sure the math is right, but assuming you have an s&p500 ETF, and s&p500 has 23.7T in market cap and Uber is 100 billion, then they represent something like 0.4% of the s&p500. So for every 10k you have invested, short by 40 dollars worth of Uber stock. If uber stock drops, your ETF drops but your shorts gain and vis-versa.
FYI I'm not even sure if what I'm saying even makes any sense or is realistic to do.
Horrible numbers! They cannot get the unit economics to work. In order to make up for that fundamental flaw, they are trying to throw a number of things at the wall(UberEats/UberFrieght/SD/Bikes/etc) and see if something sticks. Each of those other bets seems poor, thus far.
They better focus on getting their original business in shape(call a cab via an app). I would be curious to know if they tried to raise prices in any markets and what the results were. I'm sure they want to know this for themselves and their investors thus far. Has anyone seen data/insights into such experiments by Uber/Lyft/Ola/X/Y/Z?
Given that none of the ride-sharing companies are sharing insights on such experiments, I am going to conservatively assume that these companies have low/no confidence that they can raise prices. Network effects make a good moat. But demand elasticity, substitute products, and competition seem to be dominating over the network effects.
Their original business is a good one. Price and value are way out of sync. UBER at $100-120B is way overvalued. Not touching UBER/LYFT stocks with a long pole at these valuations. Overpriced by 3-4x in my view. When they fall by 70-80%, will buy some.
The real problem that I see with using Über in South America is that the service is not improving.
- The time estimations are way off
- The app doesn't know one-way roads well, although they should have a lot of training data on the routes I go on
- They allow drivers haggling for the price by forcing users to pay with cash instead of credit card.
- The app doesn't know about the road tarifs sometimes, and the driver is not allowed to ask that money from me, which makes an awkward situation
- Sometimes I'm getting 30 year old cars, which the Taxi companies filter for
I would happily pay more than the current price, but I need more reliable service, which the software could provide.
Right now Taxis with all their problems are still competition.
I’m curious to know more about ridesharing in South America, specifically the haggle portion. If the credit card was allowed it seems like it would alleviate a decent amount of the issues you named in your post. Why would they disallow credit cards? Is it a cultural problem, infrastructure problem or something else?
The other issues you mentioned seem to be tech related in that as companies that offer navigation services improve their data and services in South America the experience there should markedly improve.
I select credit card, but at some places the drivers wait 5-10 minutes, ask where I'm going and write that I should cancel the ride and they bring me for double the cash. At that point I also have to pay for cancelling the ride, and I'm also late, so I have ti accept their offer. They use the Uber messaging system and Uber doesn't catch these drivers (they should just filter for drivers that want users to cancel), although it would be very simple.
I had similar experience living in Sweden, where the market is present but ride sharing has not quite penetrated yet. For the most part (90% of the time in my experience) the ride share driver wouldn’t try to pull anything like you describe. About 10% of the time I would have an experience very similar to what you describe. Every time I was able to continue the normal transaction, however, by being firm with the driver and insisting that they continue the ride. It’s an interesting power dynamic that reflects supply and demand though, because I noticed that if you’re calling the ride at a time where there aren’t going to be a whole lot of drivers, the driver was a lot more insistent and willing to fight back on the deal set by the rideshare company.
It's very interesting, I have been feeling this in Dominican Republic, where people are screwing tourists whenever they can, but Sweden is one of the most advanced countries in the world, where I imagine that this isn't that usual behaviour from most people.
Where I stayed there were a lot of poorer people by Sweden standards. This was in Skåne, which is an area well known in Sweden for being a location where a lot of poorer immigrants reside (mostly in Malmö, where I lived). So it actually might be a better parallel to the DR than you would first imagine.
I haven’t been to the DR personally, but am well acquainted with Central America in general, having been to several countries. So I would say that this kind of behavior is not nearly as noxious or obnoxious as you might observe in Central America, but is similar enough to draw a decent parallel.
Boca Chica, Dominican Republic whenever I wanted to go to Santo Domingo (though Boca Chica is anyways a bad place to go to, any other part of DR is much nicer). Also Recife, Brazil, also far from the city center.
