UBER被排除在价值投资之外，因为其在下行情景中缺乏安全边际，且鉴于自动驾驶技术将广泛普及，它没有持久的竞争护城河。
逐段跳播
接下来是 Uber。我们讨论过它。Bill Ackman 认为，从交通运输、配送一直到所有其他服务，其可扩展性都有 5 倍的增长。市场并不认同 Billy Boy 的看法。过去十年一直如此，但我看 Uber，我们也在我们的内在价值模型中分析过它。
你可以在下方描述中的链接里，从我免费的《价值投资》课程中免费下载这个模型。这里我们看到 Uber，我们为三种情景输入了自由现金流。如果它按预期的高增长率增长，其内在价值将几乎是当前股价的两倍。
而如果它以更高的速度增长，这意味着 5 倍的潜在增长。这意味着轻松达到 4 倍。然而，如果它只增长 10%，这更有可能，市场可能会说：“嗯，竞争很激烈，而且这个也很高。”那么现值，也就是内在价值，就更低，甚至比我们当前的情况低 50%。
因此，这是一个在最坏情景下不提供安全边际的赌博。所以，这不是一笔价值投资，而是一笔我不会接受的风险与回报的赌注。
Next is "Uber". We discussed it. Bill Ackman sees a 5x growth in scalability across everything from transportation and delivery to all other services. The market does not agree with Billy Boy's opinion.
This has been the case for the past decade, but I look at Uber and we have analyzed it as well in our intrinsic value model . You can download this for free in my free Value Investing course from the link in the description below.
Here we have Uber, and we have entered the free cash flow for three scenarios. If it grows at the high growth rates projected, its intrinsic value will be almost double the current share price .
And if it grows at higher rates, this means potential growth of 5 times. This means easily 4 times as much. However , if it grows by only 10%, which is more likely, the market might say, " Well, the competition is high, and that's high."
Then the present value, i.e. the intrinsic value, is less, even 50% less than our current situation. Therefore, it is a gamble that does not provide a safety margin in the worst-case scenarios.
So, it's not a value investment bet , but a risk-and-reward bet that I won't accept.
现在又是一笔收购，以 23 亿收购 Foodpanda。他们把所有现金流都花在这种增长上，花在这种竞争环境下来建立自己的地位，但有了 robotaxi 或其他东西，切换起来足够快，你可以直接换掉。
他们很难在这个行业里享有可持续的、长期的竞争优势。没有人会拥有它。所以，对于那 140 亿来说，这是一个巨大的风险，而不是他们付给 Delivery Hero 的 80 亿。说到自动驾驶汽车，最终每个人都会拥有它们。
因此，你并没有一个可盈利的竞争优势。没有防御性护城河，没有利润，没有增长，也没有可扩展性，因为其他所有人都在做这件事。因此，Uber 不是我的选择。
And now another acquisition, "Foodpanda" for 2.3 billion. They spend all their cash flow for this growth, and for this competitive environment to build their position, but with robotaxi or others , it's quick enough that you can simply switch.
It is very difficult for them to enjoy a sustainable, long-term competitive advantage in this industry. No one will own it. So, it's a big risk for those 14 billion, not the 8 billion they paid to Delivery Hero.
When it comes to self-driving vehicles, eventually everyone will own them. Therefore, you do not have a profitable competitive advantage. No defensive trench, no profits, no growth, and no scalability, because everyone else is doing that. Therefore, Uber is not my choice.
和 Uber 一样，你可以建立起那些竞争壁垒。在这里做出区分非常重要。Adobe 有一个商业模式和一项商业活动，但这项活动在未来十年将经历缓慢的衰退。他们会用这些钱去建立一些东西，或者进行股票回购之类的事情。
新的东西是他们无法拥有的，因为你在别处可以更便宜、更优质地得到它。这就是那里的问题，就像 Uber 一样。
Like Uber, you can create those competitive barriers. It is very important to make a distinction here. Adobe has a business model and a commercial activity, but that activity will experience a slow decline over the next ten years.
They will use the money to build something, or to make stock buybacks and things like that. The new thing is what they cannot have, because you can get it cheaper and of better quality elsewhere.
And that's the problem there, just like with Uber.
这个频道对 $UBER 的历次判断
Value Investing with Sven Carlin, Ph.D. 在这只股票上共 2 条判断，这里只列相邻的几条。