I see no need to support some BS you claim outside the article. You presented it, you support it!
Sorry, thought it had not been posted. My post might make it easier to find by including the title.
What is GG talking about? He is throwing out some silly income quotes that don't match the article.
It seems he is re posting old stories and claiming the market has discounted all future good news.
The clear truth is that uber has peaked and future regulation blows their plan to move to profitability by increasing their fees and cutting driver prices.
From a story about the uber driver protest in London.
"Outside the firm's London offices, around 40 protesters held placards with slogans such as "Uber 1* rating for greed" and "Uber Xploitation" with many saying the demonstration was about a range of complaints over pay.
"It's about falling incomes all the time," Uber driver and trade union representative James Farrar told Reuters.
"Increasing commission is one way, there have been three fare drops in the last two years is another way and to continue to flood the circuit (with drivers) so that there's instant response is another way," he added."
A clear concise statement from experienced driver. uber growth is OVER! uber has too many drivers already. As uber raises rates, as cities demand taxes and respect of regulation and law, as drivers realize all the expenses and liabilities uber sticks them with, the number of uber cars will decline and the price and wait times will go up.
This also alerts the government to investigate uber for labor law violations -the uber contract is " unconscionable and therefore unenforceable" (quote from CA labor commission -former judge).
The article I cited made no such claim -different article? The article I read says "An experienced taxi driver in San Francisco makes between $150 and $300 in take-home pay a day" and that is enough to be far better than driving for uber. The key is the money is free and clear -taxes paid, insurance, licenses... they may have as much from uber, but when liabilities are considered they made less than minimum wage!
I receive no compensation from TAXI (or any company for that mater) for posting. I do own shares and receive the huge dividend quarterly.
GG you make loads of unsubstantiated claims , disclosure of what you are paid to do so would be the only way to make them 'opinions' as opposed to 'fraud'.
As drivers and customers realize they are getting screwed by uber, taxis are on the rise again. Check out the article from the WSJ about SF, the home of uber.
Concerned citizens are recognizing that uber is evil and voting with their feet, and phones! Arriving in an uber car just indicates you are a pompous Douche-bag!
That IS the critical distinction. Cities MUST regulate commerce on their public property. uber's plan is to destroy public transport in cities and replace it with a corrupt monopoly that pays nobody but uber management.
David's comment did not move the stock, but it is the first discouraging word I have heard about uber on CNBC which is amazing considering what #$%$ they are. There was another comment about uber seeking finance at a $70B+ valuation that they acknowledged as delusional.
I figure today's weak pop was just from the dividend investor story. I don't think there is any big institutional dissemination of this news. The only major result might be to impede uber financing. If uber does not accept a numeric down round it will be because of deeper contract features like guaranteed return ratchets -past funders lose share unless latest round makes it's high return.
So why doesn't Chicago collect some money from uber? I am told that Rahm E's brother is a major investor in uber -will Rahm be the next major IL politician put in jail?
Thanks for the clear update.
It looks to me like they are just stripping down the issue to the most obvious win -"why must we obey the law and compete with uber who does not?" There are loads of other uber violations but this one makes it clear that with uber there is no way the industry can serve public needs.
It is not a negative to leave the exchanges. It is a massive positive if the industry can get the government to allow more profit in ACA, and an even bigger positive if ACA folds and insurers can go back to screwing the country out of billions. UNH is just changing it's story to join the industry pressure on politicians to let them make more money.
"MASSIVE WARNING?" What the hell are you talking about? UNH pulled all of the projected losses from next year to get a 4% hit. My view is that UNH just did it to fart in the direction of ACA in the coming election year.
UNH will not test $95. Fools like you will sell short and smart money will recognize UNH is just changing it's story to get more profit from ACA or get ACA eliminated to get MUCH MORE PROFIT!
UNH reported profit on it last Q. It expanded into three times as many markets. Now it is simply changing it's story to extract the highest profit. If UNH stuck with it's profit story the government would likely just favor it's small competition to keep them in ACA. By jumping on the bandwagon UNH hopes to get more profit from ACA or the even more profitable elimination of ACA.
UNH just expanded ACA offerings ~300% for this year. Now less than 2 months later it says it may bail because there is no profit? Didn't they just report that they were right at the 80% gov. mandated medical spend for ACA?
What changed in a few weeks? My recollection is that competitors (small) reported losses and started the narrative that ACA needs to be more profitable or they leave -my read of this astounding reversal at UNH is that UNH is MUCH more profitable WITHOUT ACA than with it, and the CEO simply changed his story to the most profitable one MO-MONEY, MO-MONEY, MO-MONEY!
I don't see any new information to support a cut in earnings. I am sure they can hide $400M for one quarter with ease and will do so to influence political debate.
The bottom line is that there is no change in the top line growth and despite the new 'woe is me...' message UNH is very profitable, growing, and has a new opportunity to get far more profitable -screwing ACA!
There is also the the realities of massive churn of uber drivers, continued losses from operations, violations of numerous laws, insurance fraud, tax evasion....and the impending regulation.
uber would have you believe that their money comes from technology -a massive lie! If you break it down, the difference between uber and a taxi
-breaking laws -no commercial insurance -no commercial license -loan fraud -
-not paying taxes -no employment taxes collected, unemployment, FICA, ....
-violating laws assuring equal access regardless of race, handicap, location
-violating laws against rate abuse -you may get a cheap ride out, but get completely screwed if you want to get home. It is against the law to cherry pick fares and customers.
-violating laws on minimum wage, health care...
The slime trail uber leaves on the finances of cities and it's drivers can not be ignored for long. Cities are going broke. Their streets are clogged with uber slaves that contribute nothing but burden to their social services. The latest TAXI attacks look back to the 'golden days' when drivers could be recruited easily, before the lies were revealed.
It is amazing to me that the governments in many states and cities just bend over and become uber's bitch. uber destroys massive amounts of tax and fee income and strains government resources -roads, courts.. and cities don't even enforce the laws they have! Phoenix shut uber down and got them to bring hundreds of jobs -(jobs, not driver/slaves/criminals). Now Pen gets $50M -just to enforce their laws!
" HARRISBURG, Pa. — Judges for the Pennsylvania agency that regulates buses and taxis recommended on Tuesday a record $50 million fine against ride-sharing company Uber for operating in the state without approval.
Two administrative law judges issued the decision, subject to approval by the Public Utility Commission, to punish Uber Technologies Inc. for rides by its subsidiaries from February 2014 until it received experimental authority six months later.
The judges rejected Uber's argument that it did not run afoul of commission rules because it's a software company whose services aren't necessarily available to the public at large.
"Uber took a more active role in providing transportation service than simply providing the Uber app for people with cars to use to provide rides for people who need transportation — it was not a disinterested invisible entity in the background," wrote judges Mary Long and Jeffrey Watson.
Uber spokesman Taylor Bennett said the San Francisco-based company was disappointed and hoped to come to a "reasonable resolution" after being unable to settle with the commission.
After a 30-day period to allow both sides to respond, the Public Utility Commission will consider the recommendation. If approved, it would be the largest fine ever imposed by the agency.
In summarizing the company's arguments, the judges said Uber claimed its conduct was not serious because it provides needed transportation alternatives, it believed a broker license held by a subsidiary was adequate and because the commission's investigation and enforcement arm did not prove any harm occurred.
But the judges found that the company arranged a "large number" of trips — the precise figure was not listed — before a subsidiary obtained a two-year, emergency authorization by the state. Uber drivers had at least nine accidents during that period that could lead to an insurance claim, a company official told the judges.
The proposed fine includes $73,000 related to Uber's actions during the investigation, including failures to produce documents as required, the judges said.
"There is no question that Uber's conduct in the litigation of this complaint has been obstructive," Long and Watson wrote.
The penalty was also enhanced by Uber's decision to continue to operate for more than a month after the commission imposed a cease-and-desist order.
"In sum, there is no excuse for Uber's continued operations after July 1, 2014," the judges wrote. "Its decision to do so was a deliberate disregard of the commission's authority."
They said Uber has shown no contrition, but has complied with commission directives since August 2014.
Agree with the trade characterization. The shorts seem to be topping out -hard to find shares, interest premium going up...
The long side is not picking up either. The company continues slow profit growth, but the high yield is still not an easy buy because of the repeated short noise and volatility. If there was any 'safety' in the shares they would rocket up but as it is this is a high yield battle ground.
-regulatory action against uber -this could go either way unless medallion rights are reinforced. Charging uber taxes and fees costs them competitively but it also appears to legitimize them. There is the chance that the uber biz model falls into question -employee rights, tax avoidance, breaking biz license laws, congestion, corruption...
-uber fundraising fails -this one seems likely but there is so much opportunity to fudge I suspect that they will report an up round but the devil will be in the contract, which will give the latest round major seniority and control advantages over prior rounds.
-more 'news' long and short -old news -on this I think there is more potential up than down.
in the absence of any big price movement I would expect slight positive alpha and a significantly higher beta than market. This will not be satisfactory to management so I think they will move forward on the buyout.
Nobody is dumb enough to finance uber cars. uber has admitted as much and now intends to do the financing themselves. uber is also doing more to finance drivers (step one is to pay drivers a week sooner) and says it will offer financial services as a perk for drivers. The truth is that the global ride biz is mostly financed by the drivers -now uber must help. When uber started it bragged how they got all the growth with none of the investment -now they need to hold the bag and I bet their investors don't like it. I sure wish the latest round of finances would leak. Then we could add anti-trust lawsuits to their pile.
Sorry to see you go. You have been an honest and well reasoned voice here. I am not sure about your buy -if it is down that far you have to consider the news. You have heard all the lies -if it goes down on the same ones you have your play. You might keep an eye on put prices -any spike down might pay you to sell the $7.5 puts at a nice reward/risk.
I was surprised this morning that shares were up Xdiv. I tend to expect that shorts would take the opportunity to knock it down with plenty of time before the next dividend to cover -maybe catch some dividend harvesters. It all looks to me like the battle is tired. the business is slow growth, all the shares available have been shorted.
Odd to see the big bid volume tthis afternoon at break even -who is that?