Logan Green and John Zimmer, the co-founders of Lyft, will each have about $500M in stock at $72.
(Edit: I miscalculated the holdings of the cofounders at $85M because I didn't account for their class B shares. However, I think my point still stands for the most part).
Google holds $900M in Lyft stock. A16Z holds $1B in Lyft stock. GM and Fidelity have $1.3B. Rakuten Europe has $2.2B.
$500M is certainly a life-changing outcome, but it's interesting how we value the capital that those companies put in far more than we value the years of work those two put in.
Edit 2: To be clear, this isn't a complaint in any way. What A16Z and Google and the rest did for Lyft is highly valuable and worthy of compensation.
This is simply a commentary on the relative value of capital vs labor.
By contrast, the 3 GitHub founders each took home about $1.25B from their $7.5B acquisition. Mark Zuckerburg's Facebook stake was worth about $20B in 2011, out of the roughly $85B market cap. Larry & Sergey own 11% of Google today, 15 years after it became a public company. Kevin Systrom netted about $400M from Instagram's $1B sale. The three YouTube founders took home around $700M of YouTube's $1.65B sale. Jan Koum and Brian Acton together took in about $11B of WhatsApp's $19B sale, including continued stock incentives (they may've forfeited some by departing FB early). AFAIK Markus Frind took home nearly all of the $575M that PlentyOfFish sold for.
I was also surprised at how low the founder ownership stakes were for Box (3% IIRC) and PayPal (Elon Musk was the largest founder shareholder at about $85M of the $1.5B purchase price). It really does pay to keep capital requirements low, profits high, and get on the hyper-growth curve before taking lots of capital rather than taking lots of capital so you can get on the hyper-growth curve.
The companies I mentioned are all alike in that they have nearly zero marginal cost of production; zero cost of distribution (they grew virally); early markets that could be reached with a product built only by the founders; and a lack of competition. Together, that means low costs and high profits, which means they didn't need to take much investment (Facebook is an exception, but they took it all on very advantageous terms), which means they had investors begging them to invest rather than them begging investors.
The ones that got diluted did so for different reasons. My understanding of PayPal is that it's because of the number of pivots and corporate restructurings they needed to do before finding product/market fit; they started as 2 separate companies (X.com and Confinity) in 1996, and didn't really take off until 1999. My understanding of Box is that they need a very expensive enterprise sales process to generate revenue - they don't get the viral growth of say Hotmail or even DropBox. Lyft got in a price war with Uber, and spent billions on ride subsidies to generate consumer demand and ensure they were price competitive.
Warren Buffett had over 25% of Berkshire Hathaway after roughly 43 years, until he began liquidating to give it away.
Michael Dell now owns 52% of the publicly traded Dell. That had been reduced to about 14% during the company's last term as a public entity (circa 2013), prior to the move to take it private. Through very clever maneuvering he now majority controls the public conglomerate of Dell + EMC + VMWare.
Another one is Larry Ellison, who still holds 30% of Oracle after 41 years.
How much of the capital raise decision due you feel falls into founder choice vs market or industry dynamics?
I know that I've decided not to fundraise until I have a pretty good idea who my market is and some proof points that they actually want my product, and I've chosen product ideas and target markets to make it feasible (if difficult, sigh) to test those assumptions without funding. Part of this is that I see my personal competitive advantages as technology & strategy, though, and I kinda suck at skills like hype and fundraising. Someone good at hoodwinking people like Elizabeth Holmes or Lucas Duplan might rationally choose to raise as much capital as possible first and then hire people to figure out the details ... but then again, it didn't exactly work out for either of them. (Actually, Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos are good examples of people for whom this strategy did work out - but they actually were not diluted all that much, because the data they took to investors was such that they were able to raise that capital on advantageous terms.)
Brian Chesky talks in some interviews about how they initially planned to grow AirBnB organically and take only as much capital as needed to stay alive, but foreign competition that copied their idea and raised hundreds of millions forced their hand. At that point it didn't matter much, though, because they already had a profitable business. Joel Spolsky has also written about the decision process:
But many startups run out of cash while still growing. It's more like dying from exhaustion while running faster and faster, not a frequent outcome.
Is it that or is it because a lot of start ups always want to "grow" at all cost? It is be possible to have a small-medium scale business and organically growing it out, but obviously if you take investor money, they want max return in shortest amount of time possible.
$700 x 3 = $2.1B. I guess one of these numbers is wrong.
If it had said "each took home" then your interpretation would have been correct.
And considering Lyft was/is a hugely capital intensive business that is still losing billions, I'm not surprised the capital investors came out with more equity in this one.
"Consists of (i) 4,663,809 shares of Class B common stock held by El Trust dated August 3, 2015, for which Mr. Green serves as trustee, (ii) 675,564 shares of Class B common stock held by The Green 2014 Irrevocable Trust dated June 12, 2014, for which Mr. Zimmer serves as trustee, (iii) 360,979 shares of Class B common stock held by The Logan Green 2016 Annuity Trust, for which Mr. Green serves as trustee, (iv) 360,979 shares of Class B common stock held by The Eva Green 2016 Annuity Trust, for which Mr. Green’s spouse serves as trustee, (v) shares of Class B common stock issued pursuant to the Founder Option Net Exercises and (vi) 1,180,329 shares of Class A common stock underlying RSUs for which the time-based vesting condition would be satisfied within 60 days of December 31, 2018 and assuming the satisfaction of the performance-based vesting condition. Subsequent to December 31, 2018, a portion of the shares described in this footnote were transferred between the trusts described in this footnote for estate planning purposes."
Employee #20, who joined maybe a few months in, and then put in seven years, is gonna be at order of magnitude down, $1M. Employee #50, who put in six years, is the hundred thousands, and we keep going down.
Yeah, fantastic money, but pales compared to founders.
Lesson: don't not be a founder.
They did all the work, or they hired employees to do lots of it with the capital?
Equity investors exist because most people would rather work for cash than for stock. Typically, the way the money flows is that college endowments & pension funds put cash into VC funds in exchange for equity; VC funds put cash into startups in exchange for equity; startups use that cash to pay salaries; and employees who receive those salaries spend a portion on college tuition, gifts to their alma mater, retirement savings, etc. that then gets recycled back into institutional finance. If the startup ends up being worth more than the money put in (either because they turn a profit or because they can convince some greater sucker to take that equity off their hands), the excess is returned to the VC fund in proportion to their ownership stake & liquidation preferences, who take 20% for their GPs and distribute the rest of it back to their LPs, who use it to fund scholarships or buy a new building or pay for your parents' retirement.
If you can convince employees to work for you for equity, you don't need VCs at all: you give them shares, and when the company has a liquidity event, everybody benefits. Most people don't take that bargain, though, because they don't have confidence that the equity will be worth anything and need to eat in the meantime. The premium VCs get is precisely because people are risk averse. If all companies were public and everyone were willing to work for equity, that premium would be arbitraged down to nearly nothing, but then we'd probably be complaining about how certain unscrupulous actors managed to convince people to accept equity of their worthless company and now those people can't eat because they were bilked out of just compensation for their labor. (The crypto economy basically functions like this, with various tokens acting as pseudo-equity in the "economy" that grows in value as the surrounding ecosystem grows and these tokens being freely tradeable on exchanges - and it suffers from precisely this failure mode, where it turns out that unforgeable tokens != unbreakable promises.)
No, I think the reason is different, and it's quite rational. Diversification. VCs invest in 10(0)s of startups, but an employee is only employed by one, and his/her job depends on the success of that one startup. It makes sense to take whatever money you can, and invest it in other start-ups (or equity markets).
It would be much more fair of course if "normal" people were able to invest in start-ups, or at least in VCs. (AFAIK currently only "sophisticated investors" can.)
The founders chose to get diluted at each round. And you're ignoring that at each "dilution", the value went up. The company didn't start at $24bn and at each round the founders got their value diluted, down to around a mere $500mm. The founders started at 100% of $0 and got "diluted" up to $500mm each.
I'd call it a fun lesson in meteoric wealth growth for 2 guys starting with just an idea. $500mm/7yrs = $70mm/year. That's remarkable.
top pay : $1.7b for 1 year for #1 spot to $100m for spot #20.
For the hedge fund managers note that this is not just "pay", it includes as well the returns on their own invested fortunes. The #1 in the list is not even working (he's 80 and he retired 10 years ago). They may make billions, but they also may lose billions: since 2011, John Paulson's estimated wealth is down from $15bn to $5bn.
The capital is arguably more valuable in this case. Lyft is just a copycat of Uber, what did the founders bring to the table?
I'm playing devil's advocate [more than] a bit. I'm happy for Green and Zimmer, and they are both making FU money from this so I'm not sure what the complaint is.
Not to downplay Lyft, though... Lyft started in 2007, two years before Uber — and so was doing ridesharing beforehand. Uber snuck in with a taxi model that was legally gray which opened the doors.
At what point of seeing this same story over and over again and realising that funding growth is a viable strategy do the cynics just let go?
 heaven forbid you ever take investment advice from dhh https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33...
So if I'm critical about the "grow while burning money" strategy, it's because I've seen the damage the eventual successful business model does to civil society. It's a bait and switch that we don't have to continue falling for.
But I'm just making a commentary on the relative value of the capital vs. the work.
Speaking as a Founder myself.... Honestly their stake is too damn high. They didn’t do 0.001% of the work required to build the company. Could you make the case they even had some unique skill or insight that meant they were providing even 1% of the business value? They were just first.
And they weren’t even the first with the idea of how to build a “Lyft”. They were just the first on this particular cap table.
Think it this way, the work of founders which got them their share of capital will be used as investment in some other company.
Or are you trying to claim the capital invested in this company by investors was acquired for free without putting in any work or risk?
How much did those founders get for their time compared to the average person selling their time?
I for one hope for market forces that will rebalance these discrepancies. Talented 1st employee shouldering most of the technical brunt taking <1% plus dilution is selling oneself to the dogs.
Being a founder is a hugely stressful job, and everyone I've seen spend 5 years as a founder has aged more like 10 years in that time.
"We" value taking risks more than working. An investor in Lyft carries much more risk than the founders - who would quickly find new jobs. But if the company goes bust the investor's money is gone.
We lionize the “risk” of VC investors far too much.
Who is "we"? The founders are who agreed to those terms. It's how they valued the capital.
I would say this is more related to cultural understanding and values, than how to just do something profitable.
The cognitive dissonance comes from valuing work, and getting affirmation from others that your work was worth more because of your efforts.
But this has nothing to do with math and accounting.
Both companies lose a crazy amount of money, they have close to zero moat, customers have no loyalty and will go to another rideshare service if it is one dollar cheaper. The fundamentals don't make any sense, but still we read everywhere that Lyft and Uber at those prices make sense.
The VCs and founders decided to get out while the market is up (and while they still can) and they will sell their shares to the "dumb" public that will buy into another overhyped tech stocks without really understanding the fundamentals. The employees cannot sell before 6 months, they are locked out.
After a couple weeks the market will probably realize this stock is overvalued and it will start to go down, but at that point all the big fishes will be out already and who will hold those toxic assets? individual investors and employees that cannot yet sell.
Uber and Lyft are an optimistic bet. They can't generate profits right now but (Uber especially) they might find a way. Self driving cars are otw. They could be in position for that. Regulation is otw. This could give them a moat.
..also efficiency, I suppose. A lot of recent "marketplace" successes (YouTube rev-share, app stores, steam, iTunes...) are built on thick margins. Uber and Lyft take 20-25%. Uber & Lyft's main job is software and software scales. There's no inherent reason preventing them from operating within a profit producing budget, especially if growth-at-all-costs ends. It'd be hard to justify the share price though.
Remember that FB went public well before the ad business turned into the money machine it became.
Not saying it's a good investment. I suspect it's not, but there aren't many good investments around.
> but there aren't many good investments around. etc.
Like, can we talk about this just a sec? I feel this too, that there just isn't a lot of room left in the economy. But, it just feels like that is crazy, right?
There is all this money, more than ever before. There is all this technology, and it's the best that has ever been out there. There is all this education and learning, we're better at teaching people than we've ever been. And there are all these people, nearly eight billion of us. Things, objectively, have never been better!
So, how can we be running out of good investments? It just feels like I'm nutz here. One one hand, we have all this potential energy, but on the other, there is just no where for the kinetic energy to go. Humans aren't just boulders on hill sides, we don't tend to sit still, we get moving on our own.
Why do I feel like I'm missing something big?
There's a lot of factors but the big ones I've noticed are healthcare costs/risks and overall income inequality drastically reducing the pool of potential entrepreneurs. It's less a problem for software engineers but it's a significant limiting factor for any venture that's applying software to specific industries (think transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, etc) when founders can't get their heads above water long enough to consider a startup.
Zoning laws are also slowing growth in many cities so a lot of money that would normally be chasing low risk returns in real estate has to move up the ladder. The number of things to invest into without relying on a bubble just can't keep up with the amount of money coming in from fiscal policy and foreign investors.
Construction in the US is minimal. The initial costs of any industry with production, manufacturing are immense.
Healthcare is one area where there is space for clear improvement, but being a rigid to change as it is, healthcare startups really struggle to penetrate the industry.
You may invest in the service / food industry, but it doesn't seem to be as hyper-scaling friendly as it used to be. I do not foresee any trend since Starbucks that has been able to take a country by storm.
You can invest in smaller restaurants, but that is more of a small business investment than anything resembling stock, so good luck making it a liquid asset, even if successful.
Also, a lot of investments are mislabeled (often purposely) as tech startups but are actually some thing else. Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Coursera, Udacity, Instacart, Juul, WeWork, and the like are to me, products from a different industry all the together. The tech aspect of their business does not influence their success as much as it may seem.
(1) Uber and Lyft have worse unit economics than a taxi company because taxi companies leverage some little bits of scale by pooling fleet ownership costs and insurance.
(2) Uber and Lyft are currently pricing rides at about 66% of what it costs to provide.
(3) There's no loyalty.
(4) There's no indication that people are willing to pay what it costs to provide their service, doubly so if its actually more expensive than a taxi due to efficiencies stated in .
(5) Self-driving cars are a ruse in this context; many companies are developing them at the same time and when one gets them, shortly after, the other will too. And so will all the car companies itching to get into ridesharing (I'm looking at you, Tesla).
To my knowledge, while Amazon wasn't turning a profit in the early days, re-investing in growth, they weren't selling you $20 bills for $12 in the hopes someday "drones" would allow them to turn a profit.
By that indicator?
This is way more like the status quo of private equity. A bunch of people throwing money at negative cashflow businesses. I wonder if this period of time in history will be looked at as ridiculous.
Another poster in this chain made a good point, however - due to very low taxes, people have a lot of cash and there is just finite opportunity currently.
If my driver is closer, and I have scale to keep them busy, you'll have no way to compete without dumping in those same millions.
It's how Amazon worked.
Or indeed Google develops a competitor themselves if Uber and Lyft gain 9-digit valuations. It could do that in less than a year and for a few hundred millions at most. Taking a page out of Apple's book of vertical integration and squashing popular services with in-house offerings.
That assumes that the feature in Maps not only exists but is widely used by consumers in preference to individual service apps; my impression is that that is not really the case.
It's a two sided market that takes a significant investment to create. Yes, Google can add G-Car to maps, but where are the drivers coming from? They're not going to switch unless they can expect more income than from Lyft/Uber. Google can't provide that without investing a lot of money in incentives.
The best analog to Lyft/Uber is Mastercard/Visa. It's theoretically easy to enter the market, but in practice it's going to be very difficult to develop your own two sided marketplace going against the incumbent competitors.
Uber is a bit of a different beast. It's valuated much higher, and it banked a lot of that valuation (in my perception at least) on the perspective of getting self-developed fully automated driving capability to the market and thus having an edge (and an actual moat) to be used to finally reach profitability by eliminating the costly drivers.
Thus I would expect its valuation to stay high for a while, but drop sharply as soon as the "fully automated driving is right around the corner" bubble pops for real.
I think we'll see facebook similar treatment, comes out to immediately drop
Don't forget government pension programs that are some of the most mismanaged portfolios around.
1. Could you please not call something a ponzi scheme, just because it looks scammy? This seems to be a trend that has caught on during the crypto-bubble (where admittedly there where a lot of ponzi schemes), but not every scam is a ponzi scheme.
2. Whoever trades on the stock market knows the risks.
Whether the pre-IPO VC funding cycle is a ponzi scheme is another topic...
If money from new investors is repeatedly used to pay old investors, it resembles a ponzi scheme.
If it is unrelated to the fundamentals, you are in full speculation territory and the only goal buying the stock is to sell it eventually to a bigger fool that will pay more for it.
I was 24 when I got my driver's license and I've probably driven a dozen times total since then (rental cars in Hawaii, Colorado, or LA mostly). It's really easy, and I feel a lot better for having that ability. I'm 100% glad I did it and added that valuable life skill to my arsenal, despite still hating driving and still almost never using it.
I recommend it.
I suppose you can just shrug and be OK with pretty much staying in or near cities but that seems to close off a lot of options.
I also couldn't deal with day-to-day things without a car but that's at least somewhat manageable depending upon where you live and work.
ADDED: I'm not a typical Silicon Valley developer to be sure, but I couldn't even have done my first job absent a drivers license. It may be worth asking if you want to be employable outside of certain bubbles where you'll be the weird person who always needs a ride because they can't drive even though they don't have a disability.
You say that as if only a tiny minority of jobs will let you get by without a car. Most white collar jobs will not require you to drive anywhere.
Every half-way senior engineer I know (and I'm not even talking sales, system engineers/solution architects, product managers, and so forth) routinely travel to customer sites or branch locations that require driving under at least some circumstances.
Uber/Lyft have absolutely helped with some edge cases. I was at a work event just a couple weeks ago where my default in the past would have been to rent a car and I didn't because, while the venue was about an hour drive from the airport, I didn't actually need to drive once I go there.
It is absolutely the expectation at most jobs that you can drive if need be.
If you're a white collar worker in NYC or SF, you're more likely than not not to own a car, or if you do, to use it almost exclusively for personal reasons and not for work reasons.
As a counterpoint, I've frequently had to drive to customers, job sites, etc. but then I mostly haven't lived or worked in a city.
But yes, I'm in agreement with you that the DL is an essential skill and that not having it can be limiting.
You're making a broad generalization based on nothing but personal anecdote. In my personal experience, on the other hand, I don't know a single person who has ever needed to drive for work.
On second thought, I guess experience differs a lot based on location. Not having a drivers licence is pretty unimaginable for me where I live.
Your college friends are not going to give you rides forever. And your work options, living options, and vacation options are going to be quite limited. Obviously some people do it, but it's hard to imagine for a typical middle-class professional over the long term.
Even people I've known in Manhattan who put it off for a few years learned to drive eventually.
On the other hand, I know a lot of city dwellers and even those few who don't own cars because they don't need one day to day are constantly using either short-term or longer-term rentals to get around the surrounding area for various activities. (Or doing those activities with people who have cars though that tends to become more difficult as your circle of friends gets older.)
On another note if I had a daughter, I would be more careful. I don’t think anyone is going to bother my 6 foot 200 pound son.....
A large part of their losses are down to expansion. The markets they've become established in are profitable.
In addition, Los Angeles is number 87. The only other entry in North America is Toronto-Hamilton (#83).
The top 90 cities (i.e. up to and including New York City) have a combined population of 965 million.
Also note that smallest in the top 100 is 4.3 million, so this probably misses a lot of smaller but more dense cities.
You run into the same sorts of things with most cities. Urban density is at least somewhat a function of fairly arbitrary political boundaries.
>On the other hand, if you bet that stocks will go down, you have some compensating psychic rewards. For one thing, occasionally stocks will go down, and you will be praised for your prescience in predicting the crash, and the people who were long will be mocked for their complacency. How smart you will feel!
>For another thing, even if stocks haven’t gone down, you get to borrow psychically, as it were, against that future moment of glory. You can just go around sort of saying “this is unsustainable and eventually stocks will go down and I will be praised for my prescience,” and people will be surprisingly willing to say “yes that’s correct, I admire your hypothetical prescience.” Particularly since the 2008 financial crisis, financial markets—and financial media—have a strongly entrenched narrative of prescient bears and complacent bulls, a widespread sense that any rising market is suspect and that the cynical view is always the smart one.
Once again, its strikes me as odd that so many people clamor to call the top so frequently.
I cannot imagine the 2020 electoral carnival and whatever shitshow emerges from Brexit will be taken well.
Not sure about Lyft, of course.
The long put is more sensitive to timing whereas the short call spread limits upside returns. Trade-off depending on your goals.
Edit: not to be confused with a short call, which has unlimited downside risk.
The shortest dated, exchange traded options are weeklies. These expire on Fridays.
I'd imagine you won't see volume there until at least Tuesday, though. In order to buy puts, someone needs to write them. Any reasonable seller will be delta hedging their position by shorting the underlying shares. Since equities settle T+2, it won't be easy to short the shares until Tuesday.
Personally, there's quite a few unknowns that would deter me from entering this trade off the bat, as I don't usually trade IPOs. I don't really know what the short pressure on such a stock would be immediately after IPO. Ideally, I'd want an expiry less than 30-45 days away since I'm selling but, I'm uncertain that's enough time for this trade following IPO. I might execute it after seeing what happens at IPO for a few weeks or so. (edit) Of course, that may be far too late.
Also, I think it would be a hot stock for people to trade against, so I expect the spread to be reasonable, but the pricing to be extremely aggressive, which means the potential upside may not be enough for me to want the trade.
Options are all about timing, sooner may not be better.
Also it’s close to impossible to short an ipo.
Is the stock going to infinity before you can repurchase it really a concern?
When you're shorting, you lose twice as much when the price doubles than when it halves.
It's not infinity, but it's a huge difference, and volatility is your enemy.
Lyft is a good company in a difficult business. No one here should have any interest, financial or otherwise, in good companies deteriorating.
Shorts help keep the stock market healthy by giving opportunities to investor to invest into overevaluated stocks. And honestly Lyft seems to be a perfect candidate for this.
I don't see much health value in ability to short over-valuation.
That's a very Elon-esque understanding of what short pressure does.
But because the bank is in the business of making mortgages against property, it won’t consider the shares as security in most cases. It may consider them as positive evidence in favor of one’s ability to service a mortgage, much like it would consider your income as evidence of ability to service the mortgage. It doesn’t have recourse against your income in event of a default.
(California is a no-recourse stage; talk to a real estate lawyer or similar professional if you are curious on the precise application to your situation, HN.)
Some market standoff agreements might prohibit using stock as collateral, but plenty don't. I chatted with an ibank willing to lend me money against locked out shares to buy a home with.
So yes, ibanks will loan you money, because they don't care if you violate the lockup agreement. This should probably not be surprising, and it's buyer beware if you do.
If it's something like this one (https://blog.wealthfront.com/post-ipo-dilemma-hedging-stock/), where you have clauses like " enter into any swap or other agreement that transfers, in whole or in part, any of the economic consequences of ownership of the Common Stock or such other securities" exist, I agree using as loan collateral is pushing the limits, if not past it.
Many companies have much simpler language. Mine was just "will not sell or otherwise dispose of shares", which permits not only loans, but more powerful techniques like hedging.
Everyone is talking about the “easy money” of selling a home as soon as “all those new millionaires are willing to pay top dollar for a new home”.
The problem with this plan is threefold: First, the basic supply and demand rules. Second, all the people selling homes are going to need to live somewhere else, right? So they too are going to have to pay an inflated price for a new home, which will eliminate any gains (the exception is if you own a home in SF and are planning on either leaving town or majorly downsizing). Third, just because someone is newly wealthy doesn’t mean they suddenly decide that paying 20, 30, 40% more for a home is rational. Many folks will keep renting or stay in their current homes if there’s a sudden rush to buy.
I wouldn’t be surprised if prices tick down a bit in 6-12 months from the oversupply before continuing on their regular scheduled steady march upward :)
People were saying we were at the top 5 years ago, but housing prices are way up since then.
A company that hasn't made money is making its founders generational wealth, as well as the investors. (Actually is this wrong? Googling seems to suggest they lost money in recent years. Point is the same though.)
Lyft might never make money, and yet people involved are making out like bandits. I get that some things will lose money before they make money, and it's not up to me to decide whether a particular thing should be invested in by other people.
But it seems if this trend continues, making money becomes more about getting investors to think they're gonna make money than about making a profitable business?
If we push this logic to the extreme, what would prohibit a stock to be completely uncorrelated to the company it represents? What if at some point a stock is traded based purely on the hype and the idea that someone else will eventually buy it for even more eventually later on? This seems to be what's going on with this IPO, it is 100% speculation that someone dumber than you will eventually buy it for even more.
Back in the days dividends and voting rights were used to keep the stock inline with the company's fundamental, but in this specific case, why is the stock related at all to the company since there are no voting right nor dividends?
They've certainly suffered since Uber and Lyft came back to Austin, but they have showed that if Uber and Lyft went away tomorrow it would be trivial to fill their place.
I'm more interested in what will happen after. Will local city Taxi apps fill in the gap? There are a few companies that brand/sell apps for multiple cities that could potentially offer multi-city service.
I think eventually, the price of rides will go back to where it was in the pre-Uber Taxi days, or at least fairly close. It will be several years though.
Lyft is being given a ~40% valuation premium over Expedia, with 20% of the sales and none of the profit (Expedia generated $842m in operating income last year).
What's the growth assumption on Lyft to justify the extreme risk imbalance in that equation? That they're going to do $15-$20 billion in sales within six to eight years? And that even if they manage to accomplish that somehow (while surviving Uber), they might only be worth then what they already are now as their growth inevitably slows considerably (removing the huge growth premium, contracting their sales etc multiple). It seems likely to end in disaster given the wild outcome required to justify the present pricing.
But I think anyone that suggests a certain outcome in the market is "likely" is making some enormous assumptions. I wouldn't invest in a high-risk IPO like this, but the outcome isn't "likely" to end in disaster. Lyft is spending an enormous amount of money on R&D and new market entry.
Analysts have for years told us how a valuation at IPO is "never" going to work and been proven wrong time and time again. As a result, I treat both Lyft's potential as I do analyst recommendations: with a grain of salt.
I think it may be the company with the largest IPO, that is still this neck deep in losses.