
Uber Is the Worst Performing IPO in History - mises
https://gizmodo.com/congratulations-to-uber-the-worst-performing-ipo-in-us-1834681882
======
blakesterz
But the body of the article makes it seem different...

"In terms of percentage losses, Uber’s dip doesn’t even scratch the surface of
the worst IPOs. But the staggering valuation of the company makes it, in raw
scale, “among the top 10 IPOs ever” including companies outside the U.S.,
Ritter told Gizmodo in a phone interview. That single digit decline resulted
in an estimated $617 million paper losses."

~~~
rossdavidh
But, this was after they had dropped their initial valuation: "Consider also
that Uber’s debut valuation of $76.5 billion was a considerable drop from the
between $90 billion and $120 billion the company had been worth in some
analysts estimation just a month earlier..." So, it seems like they knew it
was going to be bad, and dropped their target (by tens of billions of
dollars), and it was still not good.

------
crazygringo
Just because it's one of the biggest, so in absolute terms.

What actually matters:

"In terms of percentage losses, Uber’s dip doesn’t even scratch the surface of
the worst IPOs."

------
gremlinsinc
I don't get how Uber gets so much money thrown at it, when it has not proven
ANY business fundamentals. Sure people use the service, and like the service,
but when the service is essentially a perpetual loss-leader what's the point?
Self-driving cars could be 5 years away, or it could be 20. I remember google
saying they'd be on the road and ready for prime-time use by 2017, well that's
come and gone.

Fact is the entire game will shift when they do hit the market, manufacturers
would be STUPID not to make subscription plans where you don't 'own' a car,
but you pay $500-1000/month (includes insurance/gas/etc...) for a car to pick
you up, take you where you need to go, then when it's not working for you -
it's working for someone else nearby (cutting down on congestion at the same
time). When all the car manufacturers are their own uber, where does that
leave uber?

------
DevX101
I've really never liked the way the financial press writes about IPOs. The
success of an IPO process should be judged on the degree to which the
underwriters were able to accurately price the stock.

The best IPO in my mind is one in which the price doesn't change at all on IPO
day. That is, both the company and the IPO investors agreed on a fair
valuation for the company and they were both right.

Zoom's stock which shot up 70% in my mind was a horrible IPO. Either the
underwriters undervalued the company, or the investors are paying too much for
an asset that's worth less.

Seen in this context, User's 7.6% drop on IPO day is not bad, and better than
most.

~~~
c256
I see what you’re going for, but do you really think anyone’s goal was to
price the stock so that the price stayed flat? In the one IPO that I saw from
the inside (early in the internet bubble days), the financial people seemed to
be debating what sort of first-day growth they were after, and I don’t recall
anyone suggesting targets like that. Maybe strategies have changed since then?

