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.

[0]: https://www.uber.com/us/en/elevate/

[1]: https://www.uberfreight.com/

Depending on the voting structure of shares, many funds will pass over a company. SNAP, for example, is only in 20-some ETFs: https://www.etfchannel.com/finder/?a=etfsholding&symbol=SNAP

Most people investing in Mutual Funds and ETFs aren't getting exposure to SNAP. That may be the case with LYFT and Uber as well.

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.

https://www.recode.net/2019/4/11/18302102/ipo-voting-multi-d...

> 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.

Thanks for that link. FB has a dual-class structure, but its owned by all major ETFs: https://www.etfchannel.com/etfs/?symbol=FB

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

Mutual fund and ETF investors have historically done quite well with FB.

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.