# Lyft’s IPO Prospectus Tells Investors That It Has No Idea How Ridesharing Could Ever Be Profitable



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Entire article - https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...tors-no-idea-ridesharing-ever-profitable.html

"The critical characteristic of ridesharing companies (such as US based Uber and Lyft, or Asian based Didi, Grab or Ola) has nothing to do with smartphone apps or competitive advantage or operational efficiency. It is the fact that they are backed by billions in cash from venture capitalists who have been willing to subsidize years of massive losses. Instead of consumers choosing the most efficient car service, those subsidies led them to choose the company that didn't charge them for the actual cost of the service, and provided far more capacity than could be economically justified. Instead of funding the companies with the strongest sustainable competitive advantage, those subsidies led investors to fund the companies with the artificially inflated growth rates that suggested a path to quasi-monopoly market dominance."

"Last Friday was the first time investors ever had the chance to review actual Lyft financial results. In the next few weeks they will have to decide whether they want to risk real money on the chance that Lyft's value will continue to appreciate above the IPO price. If investors line up to buy Lyft stock at the company's hoped-for $20-25 billion valuation, then the efforts to create ridesharing value out of thin air have succeeded, and it will make it much easier to Uber to achieve a strong valuation. Significant investor resistance to Lyft's valuation objectives could cause serious problems for both companies, and could possibly burst the widespread public perceptions about ridesharing "

"Lyft's prospectus provides absolute no data demonstrating that it has the ability to profitably raise prices over time, increase operational efficiency or win significantly greater market share. It cites "growing the rider base" as the first plank of its future growth strategy, but provides no data showing what it thinks its current share of the market is, no estimates of future aggregate market growth, no evidence of what might drive that growth, and no explanation of what its future growth potential might be. Lyft makes no attempt to lay out a possible path to future profitability, or even a timeline as to when breakeven might be achieved. "

"The prospectus mentions several new markets Lyft is pursuing (scooter rentals, autonomous vehicles) but says absolutely nothing about the economics of those businesses, their near-term capital requirements or how they might contribute to future profitability. It acknowledges that the scooter business is currently an immaterial part of the business, but makes no attempt to explain where returns from its recent scooter company acquisition might come from, or when scooters might become a material part of the business. It mentions investments in a new "autonomous vehicle engineering center" and several AV-related joint ventures, but doesn't say how big those investments were, or how they might eventually contribute to profitability. "

"The prospectus claims that "within 10 years, our goal is to have deployed a low-cost, scaled autonomous vehicle network that is capable of delivering a majority of the rides on the Lyft platform." But it provides absolutely no explanation as to why investors should believe that Lyft will be able to more profitably operate much more expensive and risky new technology than the other companies pursuing this (still hypothetical) opportunity. It doesn't even bother to explain why investors should believe Lyft's claim that widespread commercial use of AVs will be possible in this timeframe, given that just two years ago Lyft was predicting this would be achieved just two years from now. "

*Lyft's prospectus shows that its largest source (over $1 billion) of recent margin improvement- cutting driver take home pay to minimum wage levels-is unsustainable*
"While driver welfare may not be a major concern for some of the investors evaluating Lyft's IPO, they should be able to recognize that there will be very little potential to use even deeper driver pay cuts to improve unit economics going forward. Lyft's recent emphasis on ensuring the driver/vehicle capacity needed to capture additional share from Uber suggests that Lyft's unit economics will likely worsen, and its margin gains cannot be extrapolated into the future. "

Ridesharing growth is simply a function of investor willingness to fund losses in pursuit of market share or the growth rates that naive investors might misperceive as an indicator of future value. 

"Lyft is the only large scale ridesharing company that claims it is worth tens of billions of dollars but does not have, and will never have a dominant market position, and has never attempted to explain how a secondary position could become viable. Even if one ignores more fundamental economic problems (such as the inability to produce car service at a cost consumers are willing to pay for) Lyft's future viability depends on the ability of both Uber and Lyft to achieve sustainable profitability. Ridesharing has none of the characteristics (profitability, market maturity) that allow other competitive industries to maintain a stable pricing/competitive environment. "

"Undoubtedly some investors may buy the stock based on purely speculative logic, hoping for short term appreciation based on pent-up demand for new IPO issues, or mass market misperceptions about ridesharing. But the economics of ridesharing are not that complicated, and any investor willing to do a bit of research will fail to find evidence of sustainable profitability, much less the evidence that could justify these extremely rich valuations."

"Lyft's central prospectus claim is that investors should anticipate huge future growth because "Transportation is a Massive Market Opportunity" ("twice as large as healthcare"), because Lyft's real business is "transportation as a service (TaaS)" and "we are one of only two companies that have established a TaaS network at scale across the United States. This scale positions us to be a leader in the transportation revolution."
*This claim is complete garbage*. Lyft's only business is its highly unprofitable urban car service, unless one wants to give them credit for their (currently immaterial) scooter rentals. The prospectus makes no effort to explain what a fully developed TaaS business might look like, or the investment future shareholders would be required to fund in order to create it. Lyft began publicizing its "vision" about a "transportation revolution" several years ago, [12] but fails to explain why none of its revolutionary predictions ("By 2025, private car ownership will all-but end in major U.S. cities") have any chance of becoming true."

"As with Uber's past claims, Lyft's TaaS "vision" rests on the false supposition that ridesharing will not only achieve sustainable profitability, but will continue to drive its costs down so dramatically that ridesharing becomes more economical than transit and car ownership. Instead of laying out delusional fantasies about the long-term future, Lyft might more usefully explain how it might someday drive its costs down to the level that the typical Yellow Cab company achieved years ago.

Lyft's IPO prospectus appears targeted at investors who are willfully ignorant of industry economics but are willing to risk their capital on the basis of emotive narratives.[14] People willing to respond to long term industry "visions" but unwilling to think about the (false) claims about cost competitiveness they are based on, or recognize that the predictions based on that vision were all wrong. People willing to respond to claims about "core values focus on authenticity, empathy and support for others" but unwilling to recognize that the IPO that could make its founders billionaires depends on having unilaterally cut driver take-home pay down to minimum wage levels."


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Who hooo..

The media is jumping on this hardcore..

And the message is..










The investors arn't going to get in on this which means the rideshare nightmare might actually be coming to an end.


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

https://www.inc.com/peter-cohan/lyf...po-here-are-3-reasons-they-should-accept.html


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

All Uber and Lyft have done is make ridiculous promises with no chance at fruition. There is no oversight whatsoever to bring anything reasonable about.

Nobody at the helm is making it their duty to constantly and consistently make the app and the service better so it's more efficient at making a profit. It's basically all about just getting to the IPO.

It's crazy that there is actually a chance that investors will invest billions in companies that have no chance at ever making a profit. Lyft almost lost as much as Uber did last quarter. That's amazing.

Instead of taking feedback from driver, riders, and the general public they basically ignore all advice on how to make the apps better and just come up with products that have no chance at generating a profit(Pool, Express Pool, Shared, Shared Saver, SDC's, Scooters, Bikes).

All you gotta do to make a profit is stop blowing money on stupid shit and make sure you take more money in from riders than you are paying drivers and try to make the app as efficient as possible you to can extract as much revenue as possible. They do none of that.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Dumbest prospectus ever. Also the most honest. To translate:
"This company will never make a penny of profit. Please invest. We're pUrsuing something something something stuff and garbage SELF DRIVING CARS!!!"


----------



## 1.5xorbust (Nov 22, 2017)

Very difficult to cook the books for an IPO. Savvy investors will avoid it or short it.


----------



## dohdoh (Mar 7, 2019)

they could easily be profitable between lyft & Uber they give 20+ million rides per day

charge a finders or connection fee of $1-2 each ride

actually PAY labor the rest like a real cab company

boom 20-40 million profit per month

1 billion profit per month


almost 100% acceptence rates 0% cancel rates because everyone gets picked up even if going 1/8th of a mile to starbuck because its worth it & covers costs

but thats not enough they need to change the world, make self driving fantasy bots, flying cars, millions of square feet of office space in the most expensive real estate market on the planet, 37 million dollar condos, oh lets spend billions on scooters that average 23 days & 75 miles before scraped, & lawsuits for breaking laws every single day

greed slaughtered this hog

they want 50-90% of fares without the car, gas, time, labor, maintenance, depreciation, risk..& since thyre all evil sociopaths have no clue the resentment that builds so every driver that doesn't fail all 4% still bad mouth the company to riders & try to degrade the service every chance they get

the people at the top of the ponzi dont care theyve skimmed their billions already

but what do i know, i just have to ignore or cancel 90+% of rides


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

These stupid companies rates were $2.50 a mile and now it’s whatever rate your city is and they wonder why they’re not profitable? Ok then, as a reward you get an ipo and multi-billion dollar valuation! ?


----------



## JaredJ (Aug 7, 2015)

"The pricing for Uber X rides will be a $5 base fee, with a $3.25 per-mile charge there afterward. This is 35% cheaper than Uber's current black car rates and will open the service up to a more price-conscious clientele."
*Source: **TechCrunch* 

Uber X is currently at $1.06/mi & $0.24/min in Los Angeles.

I've seen how Uber/Lyft operate after 6 years on the system. They will add a higher upfront fee before they increase rates. Bottom line: they're unethical companies. Uber/Lyft make sweeping generalizations and nonsequitur fallacies intent on manipulating drivers and riders. Their estimated fare practice is absurd for a tech company. Their new surge model does not abide by an honest supply/demand model after the changes in 12/2018.


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

Hmm, if you have "no idea" how you can ever be profitable then perhaps you don't belong in business. The level of entitlement of these TNC companies is staggering from their self-given right to exist to their right to all the money paid from the customer despite essentially being a fancy broker.

One interesting development was that Lyft's insurance costs ballooned. Apparently cutting pay to these minimum wage levels and the type of driver it attracts is not without risk just as slashing rates to 1979 levels have given riders unrealistic expectations of the costs of car service in 2019. What a mess...

_As of EoY 2018, Lyft was holding nearly $865M in an insurance claims payment account (more than doubled from $360M in 2017). The S-1 attributes a significant increase in insurance costs in Q1 2018 due to "increased frequency and severity of claims," though the company still appears to be somewhat cautious in estimating reserves. From 2016-2018, only 20-35% of the year's reserves were paid out in losses._


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> come up with products that have no chance at generating a profit


So far, because they've had investor money to burn at their discretion, they were not after profits (as any corporation will do), but after market share, because that market share number (sometimes presented in monthly growth percentages) it will allow them to make a projection/assumption and sell the POTENTIAL. As the author mentions, that is complete garbage.

Please listen to Travis Kalanick, speaking at Startup Fest Europe [24.05.16] and recognize the same language used by Lyft and Uber today to convince the public how ride share is a 1000% business success. Always telling people what they want to hear and ignoring the realities because they have no clue about that or because they simply want to believe they'll get rich overnight.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Entire article - https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...tors-no-idea-ridesharing-ever-profitable.html
> 
> "The critical characteristic of ridesharing companies (such as US based Uber and Lyft, or Asian based Didi, Grab or Ola) has nothing to do with smartphone apps or competitive advantage or operational efficiency. It is the fact that they are backed by billions in cash from venture capitalists who have been willing to subsidize years of massive losses. Instead of consumers choosing the most efficient car service, those subsidies led them to choose the company that didn't charge them for the actual cost of the service, and provided far more capacity than could be economically justified. Instead of funding the companies with the strongest sustainable competitive advantage, those subsidies led investors to fund the companies with the artificially inflated growth rates that suggested a path to quasi-monopoly market dominance."
> 
> ...


I wonder if Didi or Grab have ever shown a profit?


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

dohdoh said:


> they could easily be profitable between lyft & Uber they give 20+ million rides per day
> 
> charge a finders or connection fee of $1-2 each ride
> 
> ...


Actually uber Drivers have already confirmed they'll work for peanuts ? and less. No reason to increase drivers pay.

?Drivers have continually demonstrated No resistance with each fare decrease while newbie signups increased

To maximize profits Uber should increase pax fares while not increasing driver's end
AND charge the drivers a monthly driver's app access fee of $25.

?By Drivers own past inaction, they have confirmed to have no power nor interest in their security and uber knows it.

Charge the pax more while taking more ? from drivers should bring uber /Lyft into the black


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> I wonder if Didi or Grab have ever shown a profit?


Will Uber, Grab and Didi ever make money?

"Yet, as the land grab in the ride-hailing space gathers pace, focus is turning to why the big players, such as Uber, Didi, Grab and Ola, have yet to reach anywhere near the scale that guarantees a pathway to profitability nearly nine years after their founding. What will it take for them to make money? "

"*Ride-hailing business 'not sustainable'*
Until now, many of the big players have been willing to pay a very high price for customer acquisition to get scale and that has delayed their path to profitability. Uber, Didi and Grab have traditionally heavily subsidised both customers and drivers to gain market share. "When you have VC firms funding you for years, you initially see more value destruction than value creation, unlike in the public listed space, where shareholders need to see profits every quarter and if you can't perform, your stock gets punished," Ma says."

""The ride-hailing business, as it is currently structured, is not sustainable," says Aswath Damodaran, a professor who teaches equity valuation at New York University. "What Uber and other ride-hailing companies have found is that it is easy to grow the business, but actually very difficult to make money," he notes. "What allowed Uber to grow as fast as it did was its creation of a low cost-of-entry business," he adds. "It's really an asset-light, low-capital-intensive business. They don't own the cabs. They go into a new city, hire drivers and ramp up the business, but the drivers don't work for them."

"While they have yet to come up with a sustainable model, he points out, ride-hailing firms are trying hard to change the structure of their business by experimenting with a range of things, from delivery services to driverless cars, in the hope that something will work. "They really need to go into Google's or Amazon's or Apple's turf and become real technology companies" with proprietary technology and a sticky ecosystem, says the NYU professor. "


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

jocker12 said:


> Will Uber, Grab and Didi ever make money?
> 
> "Yet, as the land grab in the ride-hailing space gathers pace, focus is turning to why the big players, such as Uber, Didi, Grab and Ola, have yet to reach anywhere near the scale that guarantees a pathway to profitability nearly nine years after their founding. What will it take for them to make money? "
> 
> ...


Thxs for all the info.
I'm sure All the uber drivers involved in the stock market and IPO investing will take your supplied information into consideration.

Be4 ur info I had planned to invest $550k in ubers IPO.?


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

And the next Big Bust since the Dot Com bust is upon us...


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

Buckiemohawk said:


> And the next Big Bust since the Dot Com bust is upon us...


Not so fast Capt @Buckiemohawk

https://gizmodo.com/theres-only-one-surviving-blockbuster-left-on-planet-ea-1833075071


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

goneubering said:


> I wonder if Didi or Grab have ever shown a profit?


Didi has a monopoly in China. Loses money. Looking to IPO and get out this year as well.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> Entire article - https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...tors-no-idea-ridesharing-ever-profitable.html
> 
> "The critical characteristic of ridesharing companies (such as US based Uber and Lyft, or Asian based Didi, Grab or Ola) has nothing to do with smartphone apps or competitive advantage or operational efficiency. It is the fact that they are backed by billions in cash from venture capitalists who have been willing to subsidize years of massive losses. Instead of consumers choosing the most efficient car service, those subsidies led them to choose the company that didn't charge them for the actual cost of the service, and provided far more capacity than could be economically justified. Instead of funding the companies with the strongest sustainable competitive advantage, those subsidies led investors to fund the companies with the artificially inflated growth rates that suggested a path to quasi-monopoly market dominance."
> 
> ...


All prospectus written like that ... from Enron to TSLA to Msft

Underwriters all buddy buddy with Uber and Lyft financial guys...

If they can raise little extra billions , maybe it will trickle down to little extra $$$ per run, or a long pick up fee, s like that


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Buckiemohawk said:


> And the next Big Bust since the Dot Com bust is upon us...


This is what Silicon Valley hopes for - "Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and Pinterest plan to go public. California's newly minted rich will be hungry for parties, houses, boats, bikes - and ice sculptures."

And this is the reality - "Amid fears of an impending recession, some employees at Silicon Valley's IPO-bound startups say they're starting to get anxious":


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

jocker12 said:


> This is what Silicon Valley hopes for - "Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and Pinterest plan to go public. California's newly minted rich will be hungry for parties, houses, boats, bikes - and ice sculptures."
> 
> And this is the reality - "Amid fears of an impending recession, some employees at Silicon Valley's IPO-bound startups say they're starting to get anxious":


All that constant purveying of negativity, Hate & despair.
U must be exhausted at day's end
Beating a dead horse ?

All that bad karma manifest into your low driver rating
and the numerous passenger complaints of "inappropriate conversation"


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

“You go into business to make money.”
Apparently not included in the combined ridesharing brains trust’s re-write of ‘The Things They Didn’t Teach You In Harvard Business School’.
Along with “Always concentrate on your core business”.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Thousands of millionares overnight? Buying frenzy in real estate in an already bloated SF market?

Unicorn powers..

ACTIVATE..

My prediction?

IPO FLOPS...

Followed by thousands of dipstick techiodiots going upside down in mortgages they expected to pay off.

OR

Thousands of people cashing out their uber stock and fleeing SF to a city they can retire in a house twice or more the size and half or less the cost of a house in SF. With everyone who DID buy in to the housing market in SF losing their tales when the market "adjusts" as all the "smarter" millionares put in their two week notices.

ALSO?

When uber slashes it's budget to operate at a profit... that's going to come with budget cuts...

Tons and tons of uber/lyft job are going to get cut or people are just going to quit {with their huge piles of money, or get canned to move back into their parents house with $0. (either way same effect)


SFs housing market could crash big time whether or not these IPOs are a success or a failure... so there are going to be less tech jobs in SF this time next year.



2 million...

Do I buy a house in SF for 2 million and look for a new job?

Or do i pack it in, break my lease, and pay $350,000 for a much bigger house in Orlando with 1.65 million left over to retire on?


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

Lowestformofwit said:


> "You go into business to make money."
> Apparently not included in the combined ridesharing brains trust's re-write of 'The Things They Didn't Teach You In Harvard Business School'.
> Along with "Always concentrate on your core business".


I bet the last best buggy whip manufacturer was focused on his core business.

Technology is the disruptor in all industries globally.

Diversification is insurance

Uber likes the transportation sector: uber, ubereats, scooters, uber freight.
Most forum members are too emotional, certainly not objective which limits credibility.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Entire article - https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...tors-no-idea-ridesharing-ever-profitable.html
> 
> "The critical characteristic of ridesharing companies (such as US based Uber and Lyft, or Asian based Didi, Grab or Ola) has nothing to do with smartphone apps or competitive advantage or operational efficiency. It is the fact that they are backed by billions in cash from venture capitalists who have been willing to subsidize years of massive losses. Instead of consumers choosing the most efficient car service, those subsidies led them to choose the company that didn't charge them for the actual cost of the service, and provided far more capacity than could be economically justified. Instead of funding the companies with the strongest sustainable competitive advantage, those subsidies led investors to fund the companies with the artificially inflated growth rates that suggested a path to quasi-monopoly market dominance."
> 
> ...


Charles Ponzi smiles at this article !


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Do I buy a house in SF for 2 million and look for a new job?
> 
> Or do i pack it in, break my lease, and pay $350,000 for a much bigger house in Orlando with 1.65 million left over to retire on?


You've just described the typical people in the above quote as "techidiots".
Which option to do think they'll take?
Remember to factor in 'big egos' when coming to your answer.



bonum exactoris said:


> I bet the last best buggy whip manufacturer was focused on his core business.
> 
> Technology is the disruptor in all industries globally.
> 
> ...


Ever been in business, other than as a rideshare 'independent contractor'?
Common sense usually dictates getting one arm of a business profitable before diversifying into other yet-to-be-profitable businesses.
But - no worries, it's only someone else's money, perhaps someone else's pension fund subsidising all these schemes?


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

It can be profitable, they just don't know how to run it. It can't be profitable for the driver for the most part but for the company to take the first $3 of every ride plus 25% plus all the extra it charges and keeps after they pay you 75% there is no reason it can't be profitable.


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

Lowestformofwit said:


> You've just described the typical people in the above quote as "techidiots".
> Which option to do think they'll take?
> Remember to factor in 'big egos' when coming to your answer.
> 
> ...


Ol' school Smoke stack industry common sense.
I'd venture to say your given profile location is very accurate

Next you'll be a proponent of brick & mortar retail for the "customer experience"












Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Thousands of millionares overnight? Buying frenzy in real estate in an already bloated SF market?
> 
> Unicorn powers..
> 
> ...


Ur writing Tone seems like someone about to attempt to even the score with an AK47 and building of IT workers. May be time to re-evaluate ur dosage

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/style/uber-ipo-san-francisco-rich.html

"At Radio Habana Social Club in the Mission district, housing rights activists gathered one recent evening for a drink. By now, there is a well-known choreography:

the cash comes flooding in to a few
and the stock-less masses begin to gather.
They will protest evictions, fight developers, organize against tax breaks and unfurl banners in front of tech buses."
And the same result: mass displacement

You can't fight it so u better plan for it


----------



## warsaw (Apr 8, 2017)

Lee239 said:


> It can be profitable, they just don't know how to run it. It can't be profitable for the driver for the most part but for the company to take the first $3 of every ride plus 25% plus all the extra it charges and keeps after they pay you 75% there is no reason it can't be profitable.


The big reason is that it's very expensive to recruit new drivers and with over about 95% quitting after one years, it's indeed very costly to keep on signing up new drivers.

Here is some news about their attrition rates for new drivers:









Only 4% of Uber drivers remain on the platform a year later, says report


Add to the list of problems at Uber: Driver retention.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

warsaw said:


> The big reason is that it's very expensive to recruit new drivers and with over about 95% quitting after one years, it's indeed very costly to keep on signing up new drivers.
> 
> Here is some news about their attrition rates for new drivers:
> 
> ...


actually, that works into Uber's plan.
With all the "drop off" there is still an over saturation of drivers
As 1000 bolt, 2000 sign on.

*Low Skill Low Wage gigs throughout the World, in Every Industry, have ALWAYS had (and expected) High Turnover.*

Here's my concern,
that 4 % that stick around (according to "the study" ?,) what's going on in their head? Immigrants with no options?
Frankly, I suspect the majority of uber drivers in the USA are PT. Work one day, disappear for 2 weeks, then work another day.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/3/14792174/half-scientific-studies-news-are-wrong


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

https://www.recode.net/2019/3/6/18249997/lyft-uber-ipo-public-profit
Because IPOs by money-losing companies are more common than ever. In 2018, 81 percent of US companies** were unprofitable in the year leading up to their public offerings, according to data from Jay Ritter, an IPO specialist and finance professor at the University of Florida. That's a statistical dead heat with the rate in 2000, the year the dot-com bubble burst, plunging the US economy into recession. It's the only other time unprofitability was this high, according to Ritter's data, which goes back to 1980.



Lowestformofwit said:


> You've just described the typical people in the above quote as "techidiots".
> Which option to do think they'll take?
> Remember to factor in 'big egos' when coming to your answer.
> 
> ...


*Why would people invest in unprofitable IPOs?*
"The rise in unprofitable IPOs reflects the general preference in both public and private markets for growth over profitability," Paul Condra, lead analyst of emerging technologies at startup research firm PitchBook, told *Recode*.

"As we've seen during most of the recovery period since the Great Recession, investors are not so margin-focused, but continue to put a premium on businesses with long-term future expansion or disruption potential."

In other words, investors are willing to buy in now in order to subsidize and grow a company that could make lots of money later. They believe that the companies' future profits will eclipse these current losses.

https://www.recode.net/2019/3/6/18249997/lyft-uber-ipo-public-profit


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

bonum exactoris said:


> Ol' school Smoke stack industry common sense.
> I'd venture to say your given profile location is very accurate
> 
> Next you'll be a proponent of brick & mortar retail for the "customer experience"


I do a majority of my monthly shopping at "brick and Mortar" stores. I like trying on my clothes before i buy them... I like test driving cars before i buy them.

The most recent technology purchase i made?

I priced it out and it was cheaper at best buy than amazon (not sure how the heck that happened)

Online retail is a different beast.



bonum exactoris said:


> Ol' school Smoke stack industry common sense.
> I'd venture to say your given profile location is very accurate
> 
> Next you'll be a proponent of brick & mortar retail for the "customer experience"
> ...


A semi-auto century arms AK variant rifle is a crap gun,

Unless you can get a hold of an illegal Kalashnikov your point is moot.

And i don't harbor hatred to the techidiots either. It's the founders and upper management i have a problem with. The ones who insulated themselves from the world at this point.

But they will get what's coming to them.

if they piss off the Saudis royal family bad enough _Ri'āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-'Āmah_ will be the ones dishing out justice.

If the Saudis billion dollar investment turns into a pumpkin... i wouldn't want to be TK or Dhara.

If not in this world...


----------



## dohdoh (Mar 7, 2019)

bonum exactoris said:


> actually, that works into Uber's plan.
> With all the "drop off" there is still an over saturation of drivers
> As 1000 bolt, 2000 sign on.
> 
> ...


its the 4% that figure it out i make $40-74xl per trip/hour + 10 minutes

uber lyft cant advertise making that money if none do but 4% do so loophole lmao

i also get rides from my bed instead of circling burning gas/profits

id say this gig is like real estate location location location

96% cant afford to move to the best spots or to pick & choose rides because they have other jobs & schedules so 96% fail like a proper Ponzi scam


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I do a majority of my monthly shopping at "brick and Mortar" stores. I like trying on my clothes before i buy them... I like test driving cars before i buy them.
> 
> The most recent technology purchase i made?
> 
> ...


LOL ? I'm guessing from ur position, image choices and speculations you're happy there's No Uber Driver mandatory drug testing ?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

warsaw said:


> The big reason is that it's very expensive to recruit new drivers and with over about 95% quitting after one years, it's indeed very costly to keep on signing up new drivers.
> 
> Here is some news about their attrition rates for new drivers:
> 
> ...


That article is 2 years old, when rates were double than they are today.

Lyft and Uber are losing drivers on an alarming pace, and that is part of Lyft and Ubers problem. You only attract drivers if they will make decent money, not if you cut the rates in half. All the claims saying Uber and Lyft are increasing their independent contractor partners.drivers numbers, are simply idiotic.

And this is another detail Lyft and Uber alike will need to disclose before their IPOs - how they'll attract more drivers, because the incentives model requires additional money to subsidize/reward driver performance, and that is not sustainable either. If the drivers continue to stop driving, in addition to the general consensus that the existing rates are not worth it anymore (Uber has a major problem with the surge elimination), there is no rideshare anymore, consequently is no Lyft or Uber anymore.

Ironically enough, there will be no UberPeople.net anymore either.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Lee239 said:


> It can be profitable, they just don't know how to run it. It can't be profitable for the driver for the most part but for the company to take the first $3 of every ride plus 25% plus all the extra it charges and keeps after they pay you 75% there is no reason it can't be profitable.


They could turn a profit now if they wanted too but they want the growth.


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

jocker12 said:


> That article is 2 years old, when rates were double than they are today.
> 
> Lyft and Uber are losing drivers on an alarming pace, and that is part of Lyft and Ubers problem. You only attract drivers if they will make decent money, not if you cut the rates in half. All the claims saying Uber and Lyft are increasing their independent contractor partners.drivers numbers, are simply idiotic.
> 
> ...


Nonsense, "alarming rate"
Many leave and even more sign up.
That's life in the low skill world.

Ask any driver and he'll tell u there's an over statuation.

"Alarming" LOL ??

https://www.recode.net/2019/3/6/18249997/lyft-uber-ipo-public-profit
*Why would people invest in unprofitable IPOs?*
"The rise in unprofitable IPOs reflects the general preference in both public and private markets for growth over profitability," Paul Condra, lead analyst of emerging technologies at startup research firm PitchBook, told *Recode*.

"As we've seen during most of the recovery period since the Great Recession, investors are not so margin-focused, but continue to put a premium on businesses with long-term future expansion or disruption potential."

In other words, investors are willing to buy in now in order to subsidize and grow a company that could make lots of money later. They believe that the companies' future profits will eclipse these current losses.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

bonum exactoris said:


> Nonsense, "alarming rate"
> Many leave and even more sign up.
> That's life in the low skill world.
> 
> ...


It's called a fad. Amazon damn near took over the world with massive growth. Investors are just hoping Uber is the next Amazon.


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> It's called a fad. Amazon damn near took over the world with massive growth. Investors are just hoping Uber is the next Amazon.


I think between Amazon & Google they do control the planet.
Image politicians & congress just being figureheads, doing the bidding and controlled by huge global corporations

Wait, what opsies: ‼


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

bonum exactoris said:


> I think between Amazon & Google they do control the planet.
> Image politicians & congress just being figureheads, doing the bidding and controlled by huge global corporations
> 
> Wait, what opsies:‼


Bill to increase corporate tax...


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> This is what Silicon Valley hopes for - "Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and Pinterest plan to go public. California's newly minted rich will be hungry for parties, houses, boats, bikes - and ice sculptures."
> 
> And this is the reality - "Amid fears of an impending recession, some employees at Silicon Valley's IPO-bound startups say they're starting to get anxious":


It is fraud committed by the VC's ,mutual funds and pension funds
They will value at billions, 75% don't make any profit, then do the ipo...underwriters will get the spread difference plus some shares..
they have friends at all the mutual funds, pension funds and they will sell shares to these guys.
Valuation will be kept in the billions for years , and insiders will cash out.

Then they buy houses and land,unloading the free gift of cash from stock options . Board of directors will also have humans from previous administrations, and they get free shares. Money will slowly make its way to other states.
1% of Californians pay close to 46-50% of states tax ...majority of the 1% cashed out bloated stocks , so it is free money

Warren Buffet never buys shares in these companies.. why not??


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

mbd said:


> Warren Buffet never buys shares in these companies.. why not??


Read in a book about Buffett that he liked companies where there was an upfront positive cashflow - insurance, etc. via premiums.
No immediate chance of such cashflow with rideshare.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Lowestformofwit said:


> Read in a book about Buffett that he liked companies where there was an upfront positive cashflow - insurance, etc. via premiums.
> No immediate chance of such cashflow with rideshare.


He has 2 tech companies in his Berkshire H portfolio , aapl and ibm...I think

He also has Aal and luv, both just under 10% of the company


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

Lowestformofwit said:


> Read in a book about Buffett that he liked companies where there was an upfront positive cashflow - insurance, etc. via premiums.
> No immediate chance of such cashflow with rideshare.


http://fortune.com/2018/05/31/warren-buffett-uber-investment-deal/


mbd said:


> He has 2 tech companies in his Berkshire H portfolio , aapl and ibm...I think
> 
> He also has Aal and luv, both just under 10% of the company


http://fortune.com/2018/05/31/warren-buffett-uber-investment-deal/


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> It's called a fad. Amazon damn near took over the world with massive growth. Investors are just hoping Uber is the next Amazon.


That's what they are hoping for...
Amazon didn't burn billions in a desperate attempt to get new independent contractors.. they invested it in warehouses and such.

If amazon spends a billion on warehouses they have... a billion in warehouses. That's a useful asset they have for the next 30 years. That's something that they can utilize as a warehouse which is something that their business depends on.

If Uber spends a billion... it's on subsidizing money losing fares...

Uber is one of the first things people think of when they need a ride..

Throwing away money into growth is when your breaking into a new market.. trying to get repeat customers. These times it makes sense.

Uber and lyft?

They are burning money to keep their services cheaper the. Owning your own car. Which is an impossible pipe dream.

When these companies go public.. it's the end. Public companies can't waste money like Uber and lyft do. Management has to awnser to their shareholders... it's sort of the law...

There's no companies with the international recognition and market share that are money losers.

With a business that subs out all it's labor... they should have accidentally made money at least 1 quarter.

I mean... if I imagine for instance... that McDonalds had no restaraunts... collected money from franchises... and used investor capital to price a hamburger at less than the cost of a burger...

For four fricken YEARS!

There would be no question as to why McDonald's lost money....

And if McDonald's keep pricing their burgers below cost and keep losing money but selling incredible amounts of burgers...

Their stock holders... they are gonna nip that in the bud real quick.

Then sales are gonna plummet when they jack up prices...


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> That's what they are hoping for...
> Amazon didn't burn billions in a desperate attempt to get new independent contractors.. they invested it in warehouses and such.
> 
> If amazon spends a billion on warehouses they have... a billion in warehouses. That's a useful asset they have for the next 30 years. That's something that they can utilize as a warehouse which is something that their business depends on.
> ...


That's why I believe this is going to be the biggest pump and dump in history.

Ideally if Uber and lyft were both on the cusps of SDC and turning massive profits from no longer paying drivers, they would wait till well after to go public.

Simply put if current investors knew they where 1 year from the next gold rush, they wouldn't be so quick to divide the pie.


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> That's what they are hoping for...
> Amazon didn't burn billions in a desperate attempt to get new independent contractors.. they invested it in warehouses and such.
> 
> If amazon spends a billion on warehouses they have... a billion in warehouses. That's a useful asset they have for the next 30 years. That's something that they can utilize as a warehouse which is something that their business depends on.
> ...


https://www.recode.net/2019/3/6/18249997/lyft-uber-ipo-public-profit
As investors have seen during most of the recovery period since the Great Recession, investors are not so margin-focused, but continue to put a premium on businesses with long-term future expansion or disruption potential."
In other words, investors are willing to buy in now in order to subsidize and grow a company that could make lots of money later. They believe that the companies' future profits will eclipse these current losses.


----------



## majxl (Jan 6, 2017)

"Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and Pinterest plan to go public. California's newly minted rich will be hungry for parties, houses, boats, bikes - and ice sculptures."
.......And building card castle.


----------



## Liteorfree (Jul 31, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> Entire article - https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...tors-no-idea-ridesharing-ever-profitable.html
> 
> "The critical characteristic of ridesharing companies (such as US based Uber and Lyft, or Asian based Didi, Grab or Ola) has nothing to do with smartphone apps or competitive advantage or operational efficiency. It is the fact that they are backed by billions in cash from venture capitalists who have been willing to subsidize years of massive losses. Instead of consumers choosing the most efficient car service, those subsidies led them to choose the company that didn't charge them for the actual cost of the service, and provided far more capacity than could be economically justified. Instead of funding the companies with the strongest sustainable competitive advantage, those subsidies led investors to fund the companies with the artificially inflated growth rates that suggested a path to quasi-monopoly market dominance."
> 
> ...


Poor lyft and while we're at it poor Uber


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

bonum exactoris said:


> Not so fast Capt @Buckiemohawk
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/theres-only-one-surviving-blockbuster-left-on-planet-ea-1833075071


Blockbuster was actually profitable until Netflix and streaming came along


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> collected money from franchises


I see the franchise model an interesting option for the future of rideshare.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

All they have to do is get rid of the drivers and watch their profits SORE! :biggrin:


----------



## Humphrey (Aug 18, 2018)

Eventually Uber and Lyft will bring the drivers pay down to about 25 cents a mile. And start charging ants a monthly fee to use the app. And there will still be tons of idiots willing to drive under those conditions


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

Humphrey said:


> And start charging ants a monthly fee to use the app.


Surprised they haven't hit on that upfront "access fee" charging previously.
A yearly fee, with no pro-rata refund for "early retirees" would establish a regular income for TNC's.
I previously worked for an irrigation water selling firm, who found that record rainfalls reduced their water-usage-based income drastically, when farmers didn't need channelled water.
So they trotted out a hefty "channel access fee" model to go with their water usage charges.
Then it didn't matter if farmers took no water - the firm's core income was collected upfront.


----------



## CarpeNoctem (Sep 12, 2018)

It seems most of this discussion center around the influx of new drivers willing to drive for minimum wage while stuffing U/L pockets full of money. If that is the case, what type of cars do you expect those people to be driving? And does anyone think people will want to pay ANY kind of premium to ride in shitbox?


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

BurgerTiime said:


> All they have to do is get rid of the drivers and watch their profits SORE! :biggrin:


SORE = soar? As in like a bird soars in the air...or as in sore after you fall and hurt yourself? -o:


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> I see the franchise model an interesting option for the future of rideshare.


Which is what the medallion system is. BAM!!!
Full circle.


----------



## Gone_in_60_seconds (Jan 21, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> Entire article - https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...tors-no-idea-ridesharing-ever-profitable.html
> 
> "The critical characteristic of ridesharing companies (such as US based Uber and Lyft, or Asian based Didi, Grab or Ola) has nothing to do with smartphone apps or competitive advantage or operational efficiency. It is the fact that they are backed by billions in cash from venture capitalists who have been willing to subsidize years of massive losses. Instead of consumers choosing the most efficient car service, those subsidies led them to choose the company that didn't charge them for the actual cost of the service, and provided far more capacity than could be economically justified. Instead of funding the companies with the strongest sustainable competitive advantage, those subsidies led investors to fund the companies with the artificially inflated growth rates that suggested a path to quasi-monopoly market dominance."
> 
> ...


The market is still bullish on the ridesharing IPOs. Sometimes, logic is overwhelmed, as long as enough people buy the hype and cause the IPO share prices to rise. The only problem is when you're riding that rocket, you may get greedy and not know when to jump off the rocket in time, before it crashes!!!


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Which is what the medallion system is. BAM!!!
> Full circle.


This is the moment of truth for the drivers (having 30% of them quitting every quarter now) because driving is not for everybody.

Also for the companies to raise the rates and start making profits, stop subsidizing rides, be creative and reward driver performance, and cut the BS about self driving baloney.

There is no way drivers will put their cars on the road for the existing rates, under the promise the actual private owners make before the IPOs, that those rates are going to get lower.... Whaaat!


----------



## EphLux (Aug 10, 2018)

JaredJ said:


> "The pricing for Uber X rides will be a $5 base fee, with a $3.25 per-mile charge there afterward. This is 35% cheaper than Uber's current black car rates and will open the service up to a more price-conscious clientele."
> *Source: **TechCrunch*
> 
> Uber X is currently at $1.06/mi & $0.24/min in Los Angeles.
> ...


uber x in Los Angeles costs the passenger 0.80 a mile as of March 11 2019. Driver gets 0.60 a mile.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

If it doesn't see a way to ever be profitable they should not be allowed to offer an IPO. It's like gambling by betting on a horse that you know is going to lose.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Lee239 said:


> If it doesn't see a way to ever be profitable they should not be allowed to offer an IPO. It's like gambling by betting on a horse that you know is going to lose.


Some people proudly and mistakingly see fraud as succesfull capitalism. They'll say if that horse has all 4 legs (and there is only one winner out of them all), then he can be a winner. Problem is all horses have 4 legs, and if they don't, you put them down immediately.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

The problem with these companies is that no higher ups are held accountable for failure as it's the usual thing going on in corporate environments, pool and shared are utter failures that disrupt the whole rideshare experience for the rider and driver, yet somehow... someone is trying to spin this around all the way at the top, saying it works because occasionally some random moron takes 2-3 pax and they bank a little extra, pools and shared through long haul (which most drivers are doing now) is pure loss for them, the fact people don't like being with multiple people as both rider and driver screams of failure, to think you could at least keep one of the sides content to attempt to mitigate the imminent disaster about to happen (reports, confrontations) but no, rob the driver of what little extra is being picked up instead, what the **** do you think was going to happen? No more second riders, I don't need to be a throughly bred CFO or higher management to see that, strong arm them and lose drivers, pay the next bonus batch to the new ants who will be doing that 2 months later, rinse and repeat cash drains that will ultimately explain why you are short on revenue.

Start holding these people accountable for their failures, replace them and you'll see how you start making money.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Shared is simply to make them "eco friendly" as apposed to being way worse than just driving yourself.

(IE the drivers like me who rarely hit 40% paid miles, meaning for every mile I drive a passenger, there is 1 1/2 miles that i don't.)

All of ubers eco friendly stuff is a bunch of complete BS but they still try to sell it. Shared is the manifestation of pretending to be good for the environment when we know that passengers who do shared rarely do it often and they have a weird/bad experience that kills it for them


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

The Entomologist said:


> The problem with these companies is that no higher ups are held accountable for failure as it's the usual thing going on in corporate environments, pool and shared are utter failures that disrupt the whole rideshare experience for the rider and driver, yet somehow... someone is trying to spin this around all the way at the top, saying it works because occasionally some random moron takes 2-3 pax and they bank a little extra, pools and shared through long haul (which most drivers are doing now) is pure loss for them, the fact people don't like being with multiple people as both rider and driver screams of failure, to think you could at least keep one of the sides content to attempt to mitigate the imminent disaster about to happen (reports, confrontations) but no, rob the driver of what little extra is being picked up instead, what the @@@@ do you think was going to happen? No more second riders, I don't need to be a throughly bred CFO or higher management to see that, strong arm them and lose drivers, pay the next bonus batch to the new ants who will be doing that 2 months later, rinse and repeat cash drains that will ultimately explain why you are short on revenue.
> 
> Start holding these people accountable for their failures, replace them and you'll see how you start making money.


At a personal level people should ask themselves if they want to associate with these predatory companies and encourage or try to keep the lie going.

Probably, for a short time, any public investor could find himself or herself on the other side of this business, the side creating and enforcing absurd limitations as business standards.

The most disturbing thing of them all, is that all the private shares owners as well as initial investors, want to get their money back with a fat profit and GET OUT.

When you hear them promising great potential but you know they want to get their money back and run, you know what the real projections are.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> At a personal level people should ask themselves if they want to associate with these predatory companies and encourage or try to keep the lie going.
> 
> Probably, for a short time, any public investor could find himself or herself on the other side of this business, the side creating and enforcing absurd limitations as business standards.
> 
> ...


When TK wanted to get rid of ALL his stock when they gave him the boot I KNEW they had no plan of ever turning a profit.

Your not one of the founders of a company like uber and sell out all your stocks... you hold onto it. Based on what profits a company the size of uber would normally generate...

One would expect you would hold onto a sizable chunk of the company anyway. It's not like he's 70... he's young (for a corporate executive.

Them selling out is a huge indicator that they never had any intentions of ever turning a profit.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> When TK wanted to get rid of ALL his stock when they gave him the boot I KNEW they had no plan of ever turning a profit.
> 
> Your not one of the founders of a company like uber and sell out all your stocks... you hold onto it. Based on what profits a company the size of uber would normally generate...
> 
> ...


 In Uber's case, I think the moment they asked Kalanick to step down they've already known Uber was damaged beyond any possible recovery and brought Dara to deliver the IPO under the "culture radical change" premise. This could be the reason a few possible CEO candidates refused the position when they've understood how the opportunity was not for a real change, but for a clean liquidation.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> In Uber's case, I think the moment they asked Kalanick to step down they've already known Uber was damaged beyond any possible recovery and brought Dara to deliver the IPO under the "culture radical change" premise. This could be the reason a few possible CEO candidates refused the position when they've understood how the opportunity was not for a real change, but for a clean liquidation.


Yeah your right... when CEOS were refusing to work for uber I kinda knew it was circling the drain, i forgot about how i felt from that news.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Yeah your right... when CEOS were refusing to work for uber I kinda knew it was circling the drain, i forgot about how i felt from that news.


Here is another great article about Lyft IPO https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/03/14/steer-clear-of-lyfts-ipo/#186ebb18544d

*The scale of Lyft's losses is staggering, even accounting for the structural problems it faces.

No IPO in recent history can match those losses. *

"Lyft claims bike, scooters, and even public transportation as a part of its platform, but the most critical part of Figure 2 is autonomous vehicles in the far right corner. Self-driving cars are often presented as the silver bullet that will turn ridesharing platforms into profitable enterprises.

At first glance, this theory makes sense. Currently, drivers claim ~71 cents for every dollar spent on Lyft's platform.[1] If all that money went to Lyft instead, it would earn substantial profits.

However, this overly simplistic model doesn't translate into reality. Self-driving cars would cut out the need for drivers, but they would add new costs for maintenance, R&D, and insurance, as well as much higher initial capital requirements. Further, Lyft remains vulnerable to competition pushing down prices and margins unless it develops proprietary technology with which no one else can compete.

Lyft seems to recognize that it's unlikely to be a leader in self-driving tech due to disadvantages in resources and scale compared to Uber, Waymo, and GM. Consequently, the company has focused on partnering with leaders through its Open Platform, which allows other companies to deploy their self-driving vehicles on Lyft's platform.

This strategy reduces the costs to Lyft, but it also reduces the reward. If, for instance, Waymo develops self-driving technology at scale, it could simply license that technology to all rideshare companies and earn a significant cut of each ride. In effect, Waymo replaces the driver in this situation, while the rideshare companies remain as relatively undifferentiated middle-men."

*"Dual Class Shares Hurt IPO Investors*

In case IPO investors need another sign that LYFT is a bad deal for them, they should review the voting rights (or lack thereof) of the IPO shares.

Lyft plans to list shares using the dual class structure that has become the default for recent IPOs. The company's founders will receive Class B shares that have 20x the voting rights of the Class A shares sold to the public. I showed how the dual-class structure that prevents investors from holding executives accountable contributes to the dysfunction and falling share price at Snap Inc. (SNAP).

Lyft's S-1 currently does not specify what the ratio of Class B to Class A shares will be after the IPO. It may be that the founders will not have complete voting control over the company, but at the very least they will have a disproportionate influence that will make it difficult for the average investor to have a meaningful say on corporate governance.

This poor corporate governance, combined with the unrealistic valuation and total lack of expectation for future profits, suggests that Lyft has little interest in creating long-term value for investors. Instead, *this IPO is a way for employees and early investors to cash out and leave people who buy the IPO holding the bag."*


----------



## FaaaUber (Feb 18, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Who hooo..
> 
> The media is jumping on this hardcore..
> 
> ...


??


----------



## FaaaUber (Feb 18, 2016)

EphLux said:


> uber x in Los Angeles costs the passenger 0.80 a mile as of March 11 2019. Driver gets 0.60 a mile.


I never knew there were so many fools in L.A


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> In Uber's case, I think the moment they asked Kalanick to step down they've already known Uber was damaged beyond any possible recovery and brought Dara to deliver the IPO under the "culture radical change" premise. This could be the reason a few possible CEO candidates refused the position when they've understood how the opportunity was not for a real change, but for a clean liquidation.


You are 100% correct. Remember the media campaign after dara was hired that was designed to make people feel good?


----------



## EphLux (Aug 10, 2018)

Anyone else have more respect for Kalanick than Dara? I actually like how Kalanick told that "Uber Black" service driver off.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

EphLux said:


> Anyone else have more respect for Kalanick than Dara? I actually like how Kalanick told that "Uber Black" service driver off.


You like the video that got Travis removed from Uber? Okay.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> because Lyft's real business is "transportation as a service (TaaS)" and "we are one of only two companies that have established a TaaS network at scale across the United States.


Absolute nonsense. "Transportation as a Service", ROFLMAO. It's laughable that ten years on, they still act like they've invented something new and incredible. In reality ie. everywhere outside tech startup gagaland, _all_ competing transport options (bus / taxi / etc) are transportation as a service. Unless you go out and buy a bus or a taxi.

What a bunch of morons.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Truth is...

The only "innovation" that they came up with was using People Idiots in their own personal car to pretend to be a taxi,

Then slashing pay to so near cost that it takes experience in the taxi industry or an MBA to understand what the expenses really are and how little profit they are making.

Lets face it, if the IRS doesn't think your making money, your not...


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Truth is...
> 
> The only "innovation" that they came up with was using People Idiots in their own personal car to pretend to be a taxi,
> 
> ...


Yes, before UberLyft even started, automated dispatch systems that allocate jobs to the nearest driver were already being used in Europe, in the same-day parcel delivery industry.


----------

