Energies have been spent researching publicly-traded stocks that are relevant to mobility, such as Carvana (CVNA) and Lyft (LYFT); and also gaining past familiarity with Italy’s Piaggio (PIAGF), a firm that is most easily identified with motorized scooters.
Forbes magazine, once among those with print subscribers, might now be seen as a platform that mostly misses as opposed to hits. Still, credit is due for this past article that describes the Garcias, who are behind Carvana. It also mentions privately-held competitor Vroom.
Vroom appears very similar to Carvana, but is still at an earlier stage. To my knowledge, it has one retail, reconditioning and distribution center (outside of Houston, TX) and customers pay the same $499 delivery fee, that is non-refundable, for any vehicle bought through its platform. Comparatively, Carvana continues to invest in its multiple locations for processing used vehicles (inspection and reconditioning centers) and there usually are products for sale that can be purchased without any delivery fee; and also nearby ones shipped at a lower fee than those located further away. Carvana also has Car Vending Machines that some might say appear futuristic.
Carmax (KMX) is competition that is also publicly traded, though it is profitable and has far better financial stability than Carvana, and almost certainly Vroom. In fact, it buys back its stock, rather than issue shares to fund its operations. However, it is not experiencing the explosive growth that Carvana currently enjoys and seems likely for Vroom in maybe 18 to 36 months.
So, my account currently is positioned to profit on a future rise in Carvana’s stock. Oil and energy prices remain low, which favors the company. It appears that the firm will have solid data points ahead of it, such as when it announces its quarterly results next, which should be on or around November 6th. Its measure of gross margin per unit requires some effort: it does not make $3,000 on the difference between the cost of a vehicle and its sale price, but is overall gross profit divided by vehicles sold. It makes sense that with all the investments in inspection and reconditioning, the risk of warranty payouts are lowered and thus there would be potential for high profits when persons buy protection for their used automobile.
Though it is not easy to follow Piaggio, its shaft-driven motorcycle brand recently contributed to solid results. At one time, there were headlines indicating potential tariffs against small European motorcycles such as scooters. I have not paid close attention, and matters might not have reached an end state, but the parameters of affected products were ultimately different. There is also Piaggio’s domestic investment in a venture known as “Fast Forward,” responsible for a Gita robot project, which might be viewed questionably.
My account is short LYFT.
Economists have voiced background issues about income inequality. Since the time of the Occupy Wall Street movements matters have been hotly debated. Thomas Piketty published a strangely-popular book soon after, Capital in the 21st Century (which incidentally claims that there are anomalies that are obscured when using the Gini coefficient).
One relevant thing that happens with some corporations is their founders and leaders make a lot of money. Sometimes investors can do well also, but if they are enjoying high salary it might not be supported via the risks taken to support new firms (such as if a biotech issues stock before it needs to pay its bills and then its key product has negative data). Simultaneously, some pundits reference a “Gig economy,” which seems to mean, roughly, that persons work in exchange for sporadic pay and little structured relations with employers. There is no reason to digress with feelings toward commentary or publications that purvey their opinions on ventures and jobs.
However, it is somewhat satisfying that the State of California has passed a law recognizing the status of workers. Even if one is not a Democrat, it might not be difficult to see how it can support democracy if there is better pay and benefits for persons who work informally for corporations that would generate all sorts of wealth for investors and employees who get stock as compensation. My bet is that no one wants to back these types of ventures, particularly those that may be emblematic of a wealth gap.
The new law has consistency with positions of leaders who are known nationally. Here are some Tweets of leading Democratic candidates for president in support of strikes against Uber (UBER) and Lyft in May:
Aside form that, the City of Seattle’s mayor is also pursuing its own Fare Share plan. If implemented, there would be a new $0.51 fee on some rideshare rides, guarantee of a minimum wage for drivers, and coverage of their expenses by the corporations. Companies’ leaders must be trying to figure out ways to slow similar initiatives.
Through all of the above there is no description of a method that intends to invest in transportation or mobility and offset risk by selling short different stocks in the sector. Carvana has palpable prospects and should have separation from competition for some time. Democratic presidential candidates have already expressed their support for workers airing grievances at select rideshare companies. Evidently, better treatment is feasible for citizens in varied communities that can also gain funding through a fee structure. Such matters occur under persistent questions about problematic income inequality that may be measured by means of a Gini coefficient.
Forbes magazine, once among those with print subscribers, might now be seen as a platform that mostly misses as opposed to hits. Still, credit is due for this past article that describes the Garcias, who are behind Carvana. It also mentions privately-held competitor Vroom.
Vroom appears very similar to Carvana, but is still at an earlier stage. To my knowledge, it has one retail, reconditioning and distribution center (outside of Houston, TX) and customers pay the same $499 delivery fee, that is non-refundable, for any vehicle bought through its platform. Comparatively, Carvana continues to invest in its multiple locations for processing used vehicles (inspection and reconditioning centers) and there usually are products for sale that can be purchased without any delivery fee; and also nearby ones shipped at a lower fee than those located further away. Carvana also has Car Vending Machines that some might say appear futuristic.
Carmax (KMX) is competition that is also publicly traded, though it is profitable and has far better financial stability than Carvana, and almost certainly Vroom. In fact, it buys back its stock, rather than issue shares to fund its operations. However, it is not experiencing the explosive growth that Carvana currently enjoys and seems likely for Vroom in maybe 18 to 36 months.
So, my account currently is positioned to profit on a future rise in Carvana’s stock. Oil and energy prices remain low, which favors the company. It appears that the firm will have solid data points ahead of it, such as when it announces its quarterly results next, which should be on or around November 6th. Its measure of gross margin per unit requires some effort: it does not make $3,000 on the difference between the cost of a vehicle and its sale price, but is overall gross profit divided by vehicles sold. It makes sense that with all the investments in inspection and reconditioning, the risk of warranty payouts are lowered and thus there would be potential for high profits when persons buy protection for their used automobile.
Though it is not easy to follow Piaggio, its shaft-driven motorcycle brand recently contributed to solid results. At one time, there were headlines indicating potential tariffs against small European motorcycles such as scooters. I have not paid close attention, and matters might not have reached an end state, but the parameters of affected products were ultimately different. There is also Piaggio’s domestic investment in a venture known as “Fast Forward,” responsible for a Gita robot project, which might be viewed questionably.
 |
| Gita robot |
Economists have voiced background issues about income inequality. Since the time of the Occupy Wall Street movements matters have been hotly debated. Thomas Piketty published a strangely-popular book soon after, Capital in the 21st Century (which incidentally claims that there are anomalies that are obscured when using the Gini coefficient).
One relevant thing that happens with some corporations is their founders and leaders make a lot of money. Sometimes investors can do well also, but if they are enjoying high salary it might not be supported via the risks taken to support new firms (such as if a biotech issues stock before it needs to pay its bills and then its key product has negative data). Simultaneously, some pundits reference a “Gig economy,” which seems to mean, roughly, that persons work in exchange for sporadic pay and little structured relations with employers. There is no reason to digress with feelings toward commentary or publications that purvey their opinions on ventures and jobs.
However, it is somewhat satisfying that the State of California has passed a law recognizing the status of workers. Even if one is not a Democrat, it might not be difficult to see how it can support democracy if there is better pay and benefits for persons who work informally for corporations that would generate all sorts of wealth for investors and employees who get stock as compensation. My bet is that no one wants to back these types of ventures, particularly those that may be emblematic of a wealth gap.
The new law has consistency with positions of leaders who are known nationally. Here are some Tweets of leading Democratic candidates for president in support of strikes against Uber (UBER) and Lyft in May:
I’m proud to stand with Uber and Lyft drivers across the country today. Every worker in this country deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 8, 2019
.@Uber and @lyft executives are preparing to cash in by taking their companies public, so they’re squeezing their drivers and slashing their pay. The drivers are fighting for living wages and better working conditions—and I stand with them.https://t.co/pjWvOCLHYC— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 30, 2019
Is investment in these companies tenable? Not everyone can sell stocks short, or trade options in such a way as to earn a profit if a share price declines as I have with LYFT. It could be correct to say that there are a lot of quacks who claim to do it–but my own account probably should be turning a profit before casting aspersions–after all, this is not The Wall Steet Journal’s “Heard on the Street” section. Nor is it a standard piece by The Economist in which an analyst at a banking firm is interviewed and referenced twice within a dour article on a security. The people behind such pieces can be paid well to do what they do–it evidently is not correlated with being right about future change in share prices.Uber says it can’t pay its drivers more money, but rewarded its CEO with nearly $50 million last year. People who work for multibillion-dollar companies should not have to work 70 or 80 hours a week to get by. I stand with the Uber and Lyft drivers going on strike on May 8.— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 3, 2019
Aside form that, the City of Seattle’s mayor is also pursuing its own Fare Share plan. If implemented, there would be a new $0.51 fee on some rideshare rides, guarantee of a minimum wage for drivers, and coverage of their expenses by the corporations. Companies’ leaders must be trying to figure out ways to slow similar initiatives.
Through all of the above there is no description of a method that intends to invest in transportation or mobility and offset risk by selling short different stocks in the sector. Carvana has palpable prospects and should have separation from competition for some time. Democratic presidential candidates have already expressed their support for workers airing grievances at select rideshare companies. Evidently, better treatment is feasible for citizens in varied communities that can also gain funding through a fee structure. Such matters occur under persistent questions about problematic income inequality that may be measured by means of a Gini coefficient.