Given how much cars are used for commuting, it always seemed to me that much of the case for Uber was based on a refusal to note the peak time demand problem. But I concur with the conclusion here: the S-1 is devoid of meaningful information because the meaningful information is bearish:
Ben Thompson: Uber Questions: "What an alluring pitch it remains! The fundamental idea of paying tens of thousands of dollars (more or less) for a large metal box that sits idle the vast majority of the time, doing nothing but depreciating in value, doesn’t really make much sense in a world where everyone carries Internet communicators that let you call up a ride when—and crucially, only when—you need it.... Here’s the problem, though: it’s impossible to tell if theory matches reality..... Uber’s S-1 is particularly lacking.... This is at best disappointing, and at worst feels like a cruel trick on retail investors.... Uber may still be worth the investment: the theory of the company remains plausible, and the company is decreasing its losses.... However, if I bought individual stocks... I would be out: this S-1 is so devoid of meaningful information (despite its length) that it makes me wonder what, if anything, Uber is trying to hide. If I am going to be taken for a ride I want at least some idea of where I am going—isn’t that the point of Uber in the first place?...
#noted
