# New reports show Uber 1.15 Billion leveraged loan.



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/07/new-reports-confirm-1-15b-leveraged-loan-raised-by-uber-at-5/

Two weeks ago, we reported that Uber was in talks to raise $1-2 billion in leveraged loans. The Wall Street Journal is circulating new information that the company has closed a $1.15 billion leveraged loan, with a 5 percent yield.

This number comes in on the low side of our previous estimates. Last month, sources confirmed to TechCrunch that Uber had plans to raise $1-2 billion in leveraged loans.

Uber initially targeted a 4-4.5 percent yield but ended up settling on 5 percent. In the last month, the company has brought in $4.65 billion in capital from debt and equity investments. A $3.5 billion equity round from the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund preceded today's leveraged loan led by Morgan Stanley. The loan also contained money from Barclays PLC, Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc according to the Wall Street Journal source.

All the capital originates from multinational institutions. This hints that CEO Travis Kalanick plans to add the money to his growing war-chest to fight Chinese ride-sharing rival Didi Chuxing.

Uber likely opted for the leveraged loan to avoid further dilution. The company has little in collateral to comfort bankers issuing debt. For reference, Apple, a publicly traded mature tech company, has previously issued bonds at a 3.22 percent blended interest rate excluding floating rate debt.

One more perk for Uber, private debt, like this leveraged loan, does not have to be publicly disclosed.

We have reached out to Uber for comment and will update with information if it becomes available.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

It's amazing all the idiots still investing in this ponzi scheme.


----------



## JoeJoseph (Nov 18, 2014)

How are they really growing? Its the same money circulating for them everyday.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

What's interesting to note is they originally were looking for 2 Billion at 4%. They were only able to get half what they were looking to fund at a higher cost. 

Investors ars getting very wary.


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

If Uber stopped paying referrals today for both riders and drivers, would they stay afloat?


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

JimS said:


> If Uber stopped paying referrals today for both riders and drivers, would they stay afloat?


You know, lots of things float...


----------



## SibeRescueBrian (May 10, 2015)

andaas said:


> You know, lots of things float...
> 
> View attachment 47917


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

observer said:


> What's interesting to note is they originally were looking for 2 Billion at 4%. They were only able to get half what they were looking to fund at a higher cost.
> 
> Investors ars getting very wary.


These weren't investors, it was a collateralised loan with the assumed purpose of battling for the largest market share in the world, China. It's a gamble, for certain, but not one that investors don't want to take or they wouldn't have invested $3.5 billion in the last month. That doesn't sound too wary to me, that sounds pretty positive don't you think?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

JimS said:


> If Uber stopped paying referrals today for both riders and drivers, would they stay afloat?


Probably. Referrals tend to be in newer markets. If they stopped and also stopped expanding, perhaps shutting some new markets, they would be profitable tomorrow from what has been leaked that I've seen.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Probably. Referrals tend to be in newer markets. If they stopped and also stopped expanding, perhaps shutting some new markets, they would be profitable tomorrow from what has been leaked that I've seen.


Maybe, but they won't do that until the wolves are at the door.

Which may be a few years because although he's a terrible businessman, Travis is very good at raising money. Astonishingly good by the looks of it.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Maybe, but they won't do that until the wolves are at the door.
> 
> Which may be a few years because although he's a terrible businessman, Travis is very good at raising money. Astonishingly good by the looks of it.


Terrible business man? He's built an industry and is worth over 50 billion on paper. A terrible person? Sure. But a terrible businessman? I don't see where that would come from. He sold his last business for 19 million.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Terrible business man? He's built an industry and is worth over 50 billion on paper. A terrible person? Sure. But a terrible businessman? I don't see where that would come from. He sold his last business for 19 million.


His last three business' were failures. 50bill or 60mil valuation doesn't mean squat. Most of that money came from investors. By your way of thinking, Bernie Madoff was a great businessman.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> His last three business' were failures. 50bill or 60mil valuation doesn't mean squat. Most of that money came from investors. By your way of thinking, Bernie Madoff was a great businessman.


What?

He's owned 3 businesses that I'm aware of. One was a P2P file sharing and search system like napster that got sued out of existence for copyright infringement but was successful before that point. The next he sold for $19M. Then came Uber, the highest valued startup in history. Sounds like a pretty good businessman to me. And yes, the valuation is very important because that's why investors want in and investors are allowing him to expand at this pace. In a startup industry, market share is everything after proof of concept. Valuation isn't real money unless he IPOs or sells, so I don't know what "most of it is from investors" even means.

Almost all major corporations get their starting and expanding money from investors. You know how stocks and angel investing works, yes?

By my way of thinking BM ran a ponzi scheme, not a business.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> These weren't investors, it was a collateralised loan with the assumed purpose of battling for the largest market share in the world, China. It's a gamble, for certain, but not one that investors don't want to take or they wouldn't have invested $3.5 billion in the last month. That doesn't sound too wary to me, that sounds pretty positive don't you think?


Did you miss where Didi, Ubers biggest competitor in China raised 7.3 Billion? To fight in the same market. Who knows, Didi might even take some of that money and buy Lyft. Bringing a bigger fight to Ubers home market.

Every week a new lawsuit is filed. Uber is growing way too fast and overextending itself.

If investing in Uber was a good idea CURRENT INVESTORS WOULD BUY MORE OF UBER.

Uber is grasping at lifelines. Time will tell.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

observer said:


> Every week a new lawsuit is filed. Uber is growing way too fast and overextending itself.


I agree about the lawsuits. They have no real competition in the US and if they slowed they could let the people fight their battles for them and enter markets unopposed. Buying politicians is way cheaper than fighting them. Politicians fight with YOUR money, not their own.

I will vote against, anti-support, and rally against, any anti-TNC politician. So will a lot of people. Taxis are useless in 95% of the country and it's time for an alternative. I'm 100% against drunk driving and taxis are useless in ending it for the most part.



observer said:


> If investing in Uber was a good idea CURRENT INVESTORS WOULD BUY MORE OF UBER.


Many investors in Uber, including some of the world's largest, just did invest more in them. Billions.



observer said:


> Uber is grasping at lifelines. Time will tell.


Uber isn't struggling in the slightest. Not one iota. None. Investors are breaking down their door to get in. This is the groundfloor of the future, however that shakes out, and investors are judging the risk worthwhile.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I agree about the lawsuits. They have no real competition in the US and if they slowed they could let the people fight their battles for them and enter markets unopposed. Buying politicians is way cheaper than fighting them. I will vote against, and rally against, any anti-TNC politician. So will a lot of people. Taxis are useless in 95% of the country and it's time for an alternative. I'm 100% against drunk driving and taxis are useless in ending it for the most part.
> 
> Many investors in Uber, including some of the world's largest, just did invest more in them. Billions.
> 
> Uber isn't struggling in the slightest. Not one iota. None. Investors are breaking down their door to get in. This is the groundfloor of the future, however that shakes out, and investors are judging the risk worthwhile.


Time will tell.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

China ain't letting no foreign interlopers into their markets to compete with one of their own.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

observer said:


> Time will tell.


Yes, time will tell. For now, none of what you said is being proven. They have no issue getting infusions of cash. They are valued at more than 107 year old GM, a massive company. They could buy GM, Ford, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Tesla, Renault, Lyft (easily), ETC. Investors are not scared of Uber. Competitors are scared of Uber.

However, Google, Microsoft, or Apple could buy Uber without breaking a sweat. My prediction is one will once Uber goes public unless Uber joins with an auto giant soon.

<This is not an endorsement of Uber, but a statement of facts>


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Gung-Ho said:


> China ain't letting no foreign interlopers into their markets to compete with one of their own.


Unless Trump wins. He'll build a wall to keep the Chinese out and the Chinese will pay for it, seriously, it will be uge. Then he will negotiate for Uber and win, because he's a winner who always wins at winning, trust me.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Even the Saudis investing in Uber think it's a high risk investment.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/bus...he-world-s-largest-venture-capital-fund-.html


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

observer said:


> Even the Saudis investing in Uber think it's a high risk investment.
> 
> http://english.alarabiya.net/en/bus...he-world-s-largest-venture-capital-fund-.html


Dude, really? The PIF made the biggest investment in Uber made into a private company EVER, like, in the history of mankind, EVER. THEY, the people WITH the money, said no such thing.

"Mohammed al-Suwayed, the head of capital and money markets at Riyadh-based asset management firm Adeem Capital" _is not a part of the investment and is purely speculating._

It amazes me that people say investor interest is waning when Uber just received the largest investment in the history of mankind. Come on. We can hate on Uber and still keep it real. Uber is winning and they are winning huge. Maybe we can fight back and maybe we can't, but insinuating they are not highly valued and expected to dominate is misleading. Many of the world's largest investors are deeply into Uber and like their business model.

Uber is flush with cash to go fight for market share. They are no more on the ropes than Apple, Facebook, or the Bank of China. Uber is on the who's who of every top list of companies.

<This is not an endorsement of Uber, but a statement of facts>


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Dude, really? The PIF made the biggest investment in Uber made into a private company EVER, like, in the history of mankind, EVER. THEY, the people WITH the money, said no such thing.
> 
> "Mohammed al-Suwayed, the head of capital and money markets at Riyadh-based asset management firm Adeem Capital" _is not a part of the investment and is purely speculating._
> 
> It amazes me that people say investor interest is waning when Uber just received the largest investment in the history of mankind. Come on. We can hate on Uber and still keep it real. Uber is winning and they are winning huge. Maybe we can fight back and maybe we can't, but insinuating they are not highly valued and expected to dominate is misleading. Many of the world's largest investors are deeply into Uber and like their business model.


Did you read the article.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

observer said:


> Did you read the article.


Yes, did you?

"The Uber deal has made headlines for being the largest single investment into a private company ever. All the signs indicate that this investment is only the start of something much larger. If this is the case it could be transformative not only for the Saudi economy, but the entire landscape of startup funding - something the young entrepreneurs in Stanford will want to know everything about. "


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I'll take al-Suwayeds opinion over yours or mine any day.

As I said earlier, time will tell.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

observer said:


> I'll take al-Suwayeds opinion over yours or mine any day.
> 
> As I said earlier, time will tell.


You don't need my opinion or yours. Money talks, BS walks. Largest investment in the history of mankind speaks volumes. Some non-involved person's statements mean nothing. I see talking head fund managers all the time who do nothing but chase surges. Mohammed al-Suwayed failed to see the coming investments in technology and is focused on petroleum.

Time has already told, *largest investment in a private company in the history of mankind*. It's pretty telling, talking heads notwithstanding. I mean, seriously, how do you beat that as a businessman or claim that means investor interest is waning? Really? Wouldn't a good businessman lure the _*largest investment in a private company in the history of mankind *_and also be able to claim investor confidence is not waning?

Do investor waning companies draw the _*largest investment in a private company in the history of mankind?
*_
If I owned 100% of the zero value of blockbuster or the slight value of Kodak, do you think I could lure the *largest investment in a private company in the history of mankind?
*
By the way, not that it matters, but I predicted the fall of Kodak and Blockbuster a decade before they happened based upon their corporate mentality and lack of foresight of the coming technology. People laughed. Professionals I knew in the industries laughed. In my face they didn't laugh, but they chuckled and shook their heads. Digital pictures and online video quality sucked ass and how would they ever overcome these giants? I grew up around both corporations and I knew their union people (Kodak) and directors were delusional.

So, as my next act, I'm going to GUARANTEE some company will provide tens or hundreds of thousands of SDCs successfully for Uber by 2020 - 2022. It's a multi-trillion dollar market, Uber is the leader for the TNC side, and the entire world is investing and dedicating the smartest minds to make it happen. This far exceeds the lunar landing contributions or dedication. The comparison is noteworthy. The Lunar landings were probably the largest investment by society to any effort ever undertaken and this far exceeds that. Blows it out of the water actually. This may be the largest effort ever undertaken by mankind. Trillions of dollars, ALL of the world's largest technology and auto corporations (the biggest corporations in the history of the world), and many of the world's smartest people all directed towards one cause with a race to be first.

Any sensible person at this moment would drop a few dollars on the SDC leaders to make a killing. Just sayin'. There are like 3-4 times in your life you can grab a bottom floor for a societal changing market, and this is one. Most can't afford the leaders, so look at the leading suppliers. For me, I'm looking at FLIR manufacturers because they are way undervalued. They are about to go from almost no market to a huge market. Watch who is buying from who and drop a few thousand on the leader. Spread it around. Just don't be that guy that could have bought Microsoft, google, or Apple and retired at 40 but they listened to idiots who said personal computers and the internet were a pipe dream and it couldn't be done.

I have a great friend who is a smart person who told me over and over the internet was a fad. He laughed at my 256 and 52K modem that I spent a fortune on years ago. He made a good living in real estate and, unfortunately, didn't invest in any new technologies because he had no foresight. He got hosed in the housing crash and is now living in a duplex renting out the other side. No sir, the internet isn't a fad and no sir, SDCs aren't a fad. Sooner or later, SDCs will dominate, and I'm betting (along with every expert anywhere) on sooner.

<This is not an endorsement of Uber, but a statement of facts>


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Terrible business man? He's built an industry and is worth over 50 billion on paper. A terrible person? Sure. But a terrible businessman? I don't see where that would come from. He sold his last business for 19 million.


I stand by my assessment. Travis convinced someone to pay him $19 million for his company and has convinced lots of people to give him $Billions to run Uber into the ground.

He's very good at raising money, not so good at making money. There is a difference.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> I stand by my assessment. Travis convinced someone to pay him $19 million for his company and has convinced lots of people to give him $Billions to run Uber into the ground.
> 
> He's very good at raising money, not so good at making money. There is a difference.


Man, that sucks that he convinced someone with 19 million dollars to be stupid. Oh well. You can't fix stupid, amirite?

Then he fools the smartest investors in the world? Damn he's clever. I'm glad you see through him and aren't investing your millions. Good on you!

Screw you TK! We see through your massive ponzi-scheme multi-trillion new market that every auto and technology company in the world is dumping billions into to be a part of and you aren't getting our millions you bastard! You think that just because almost every world leading investor believes in you, we should?!? Spit, spit, spit... spin twice... jump a broom stick... spit, spit, spit! Your evil is GONE!

So be it. Let me know when someone offers you 19 million for your product (offer good up to 60 billion, but no more) and I'll lay an extra $1,000 on you proudly. Please screen capture this as my official and irrevocable offer. You now have this going for you in all business ventures! You're welcome!

I have to admit, I thought making 19 million and being valued at 60+ billion was good at business. I feel a little humiliated. It's not your fault, I was the one who equated success with being good at business. My bad all around.

<This is not an endorsement of Uber, but a statement of facts>

(hey, shhhh, I don't mean to interrupt the hate fest, but he has already sold developed technology worth 19 million and much more. Don't tell the others! )


----------



## backstreets-trans (Aug 16, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> These weren't investors, it was a collateralised loan with the assumed purpose of battling for the largest market share in the world, China. It's a gamble, for certain, but not one that investors don't want to take or they wouldn't have invested $3.5 billion in the last month. That doesn't sound too wary to me, that sounds pretty positive don't you think?


They had to switch to loans because the initial investors investment keep getting watered down. Investors are very unhappy with uber and money is drying up. Uber has been on a spending spree for years and Daddy has cut off their cash flow. Now they're heading down to the pawn shop hoping for some more spending money.


----------



## backstreets-trans (Aug 16, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Dude, really? The PIF made the biggest investment in Uber made into a private company EVER, like, in the history of mankind, EVER. THEY, the people WITH the money, said no such thing.
> 
> "Mohammed al-Suwayed, the head of capital and money markets at Riyadh-based asset management firm Adeem Capital" _is not a part of the investment and is purely speculating._
> 
> ...


Man you are really drinking the Uber Koolaide. I guess you can't see all the signs of this Uber ponzi scheme. The old saying never throw good money after bad applies here. Uber will never open up it's books and go public because their numbers are so scary. If investors knew how much they are spending in legal fees the money would dry up.


----------



## jonhjax (Jun 24, 2016)

ramz fanz,
You wrote that taxis are useless, for the most part, at ending drunk driving. Are TNCs too? Do either service help decrease the numbers of drunk drivers? I'd like to read your opinion on this subject.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

backstreets-trans said:


> They had to switch to loans because the initial investors investment keep getting watered down. Investors are very unhappy with uber and money is drying up. Uber has been on a spending spree for years and Daddy has cut off their cash flow. Now they're heading down to the pawn shop hoping for some more spending money.


Did you not read my post? Investors gave them the largest investment in the history of mankind last month. $3,500,000,000. I don't get why people just make things up that are so obviously not true.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

backstreets-trans said:


> Man you are really drinking the Uber Koolaide. I guess you can't see all the signs of this Uber ponzi scheme. The old saying never throw good money after bad applies here. Uber will never open up it's books and go public because their numbers are so scary. If investors knew how much they are spending in legal fees the money would dry up.


Investors are given Uber's numbers in a portfolio. They know exactly what they're doing. No koolaid, I just have no reason to fabricate nonsense and look foolish.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Investors are given Uber's numbers in a portfolio. They know exactly what they're doing. No koolaid, I just have no reason to fabricate nonsense and look foolish.


And yet here you are.

Bernie Madoff convinced lots of very smart people to give him their money. Are you saying Bernie Madoff is a good businessman?

I know you can't understand it, but there's a difference between raising money and making money.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I agree about the lawsuits. They have no real competition in the US and if they slowed they could let the people fight their battles for them and enter markets unopposed. Buying politicians is way cheaper than fighting them. Politicians fight with YOUR money, not their own.
> 
> I will vote against, anti-support, and rally against, any anti-TNC politician. So will a lot of people. Taxis are useless in 95% of the country and it's time for an alternative. I'm 100% against drunk driving and taxis are useless in ending it for the most part.
> 
> ...


Can you please direct me to their financials that state they aren't struggling ? Last time I checked , in recent past, it was ALL foreign entities stupid enough to invest in a company that has yet to turn a profit(factoring in everything, not deliberately leaving out things so it looks like you're profitable), and keeps doing things like push UberPool, which is specifically designed to be cheaper and to throw away profit that would be made if pax took separate rides?

I look forward to seeing the financials that NO INVESTOR HAS EVER SEEN, but somehow you have seen and can conclude they are, in fact, profitable.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Investors are given Uber's numbers in a portfolio. They know exactly what they're doing. No koolaid, I just have no reason to fabricate nonsense and look foolish.


Wrong, it has been reported that ALL INVESTORS HAVE INVESTED BLIND. They do NOT get to see their financials. If they have, then I'm glad you would be nice as to share it with us.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Dude, really? The PIF made the biggest investment in Uber made into a private company EVER, like, in the history of mankind, EVER. THEY, the people WITH the money, said no such thing.
> 
> "Mohammed al-Suwayed, the head of capital and money markets at Riyadh-based asset management firm Adeem Capital" _is not a part of the investment and is purely speculating._
> 
> ...


Know who else received giant investments? Pets.com, Inktomi, Infospace, and what was the name of that foolish private equity firm that gave wamu 5 billion before they went **** up? Investors make foolish decisions all the time while praising at the mantle of "new technology". Let's take our tongues out of ubers buttcrack for a second and realize exactly what they are. They simply skirted the old taxi regulations by cleverly making up a new term (TNC) and abusing the independent contractor designation. This resulted in the successful avoidance of huge regulatory and employee costs giving them a pricing advantage. There is no "new" technology being used here.

We've had the ability to automate ships and planes for years now but its never done. Know why? Because human beings are needed to make judgement calls for the infinite amount of crazy situations that happen that can't be programed for (not to mention the myriad technological/mechanical failures that occur all the time). Simple as that. The ability of computers to do what the brain can do is nowhere close.

Does everyone remember that article about how googles car would keep getting stuck at four way stops b/c other drivers were more aggressive? It was trying to be "safe" and ended up just sitting at the stop sign for long periods of time. Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/t...erless-cars-fault-its-other-drivers.html?_r=0

_It is not just a Google issue. Researchers in the fledgling field of autonomous vehicles say that one of the biggest challenges facing automated cars is blending them into a world in which humans don't behave by the book. "The real problem is that the car is too safe," said Donald Norman, director of the Design Lab at the University of California, San Diego, who studies autonomous vehicles._

I'm always amused by the extremely arrogant response of "well we'll just legislate human drivers away and force everyone into SDC's". Except for the part where that will never fly due to the millions and millions of people who love driving for pleasure, are (classic) car fanatics, love motorsports, or are otherwise involved in car culture is some shape or form. It really shows the subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) arrogance and overestimation that tech geeks exhibit so often. It is going to be so cathartic once angel/VC's wise/sober up and cut these dumb kids with their dumb ideas for an app off.

This guy sums things up pretty well: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/o...valley-driven-hype-for-self-driving-cars.html


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Probably. Referrals tend to be in newer markets. If they stopped and also stopped expanding, perhaps shutting some new markets, they would be profitable tomorrow from what has been leaked that I've seen.


I doubt that. Their attrition rate for drivers is 50% a year. They need the referrals just to maintain an adequate fleet size


----------



## uberparadise (Aug 2, 2015)

observer said:


> https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/07/new-reports-confirm-1-15b-leveraged-loan-raised-by-uber-at-5/
> 
> Two weeks ago, we reported that Uber was in talks to raise $1-2 billion in leveraged loans. The Wall Street Journal is circulating new information that the company has closed a $1.15 billion leveraged loan, with a 5 percent yield.
> 
> ...


UBER needs the money to continue to pay referal bonuses. They flood the market with drivers. They want a driver on every block and every street. 24/7 service at the expense of the driver's livlyhood!


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Can you please direct me to their financials that state they aren't struggling ? Last time I checked , in recent past, it was ALL foreign entities stupid enough to invest in a company that has yet to turn a profit(factoring in everything, not deliberately leaving out things so it looks like you're profitable), and keeps doing things like push UberPool, which is specifically designed to be cheaper and to throw away profit that would be made if pax took separate rides?
> 
> I look forward to seeing the financials that NO INVESTOR HAS EVER SEEN, but somehow you have seen and can conclude they are, in fact, profitable.


Goldman Sachs is foreign? Citigroup? Fidelity? Why do people just make things up?

Investors may or may not be allowed to go through the books, I don't know, but they are absolutely given a prospectus that contains financials and, apparently, they like what they see. Leaked documents show Uber is definitely profitable in their mature markets. They have proven the concept. Their expenditures are on grabbing market share. This is completely normal for a startup.

I don't like Uber. I would never invest in Uber. But we can keep it real.

<This is not an endorsement of Uber, but a statement of facts>


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Wrong, it has been reported that ALL INVESTORS HAVE INVESTED BLIND. They do NOT get to see their financials. If they have, then I'm glad you would be nice as to share it with us.


LOL, come on dude. The world's top investors don't drop billions of dollars on a company blind. Stop already.

*Leaked: Uber's Financials Show Huge Growth, Even Bigger Losses*

<This is not an endorsement of Uber, but a statement of facts>


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

ChortlingCrison said:


> His last three business' were failures. 50bill or 60mil valuation doesn't mean squat. Most of that money came from investors. By your way of thinking, Bernie Madoff was a great businessman.


....or Donald J Trump. I'm not convinced. But certainly, Kalanick is a super salesman. On the salesman Mount Rushmore along with Ron Popiel and PT Barnum, and the Pet Rock guy.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> Know who else received giant investments? Pets.com, Inktomi, Infospace, and what was the name of that foolish private equity firm that gave wamu 5 billion before they went **** up? Investors make foolish decisions all the time while praising at the mantle of "new technology". Let's take our tongues out of ubers buttcrack for a second and realize exactly what they are. They simply skirted the old taxi regulations by cleverly making up a new term (TNC) and abusing the independent contractor designation. This resulted in the successful avoidance of huge regulatory and employee costs giving them a pricing advantage. There is no "new" technology being used here.
> 
> We've had the ability to automate ships and planes for years now but its never done. Know why? Because human beings are needed to make judgement calls for the infinite amount of crazy situations that happen that can't be programed for (not to mention the myriad technological/mechanical failures that occur all the time). Simple as that. The ability of computers to do what the brain can do is nowhere close.
> 
> ...


Oh sure, investments are risky. Lots of startup companies fail. Heck, a lot of established and historically very successful companies fail. Uber may become the biggest failure of all time. That doesn't make it true that they aren't profitable in mature markets and have not proven the concept.

I remember when the Google car, over a year ago in testing, had problems with 4 way stops. Did you consider that is the very purpose of testing? Did you look to see if they solved it or did they just throw in the towel? You should move your reading list ahead a year, technology changes fast. No one is saying we will have to legislate away human drivers for SDCs to succeed. It's a strawman argument.

*Why Google wants its self-driving cars to drive more like you*

I read your NY Times opinion piece. The author is too ignorant to know a Tesla isn't a self driving car. His language reeks of clickbait hit piece. I'll go with the geniuses over a tech writer that, in 2014, said: Perhaps one day tech enthusiasts will be able to visit a Museum of the Future That Never Was, where the Jetsons' hover car and the Google super-robocar will sit side by side as showcase exhibits. His obvious bias is obvious.

Autonomous boats and planes don't offer the profit potential of SDCs, which is why they aren't being aggressively pursued. The cost savings is minimal. Still, if they chose to, they could. "In a recent survey of airline pilots, those operating Boeing 777s reported that they spent just seven minutes manually piloting their planes in a typical flight. Pilots operating Airbus planes spent half that time." There are absolutely situations where a human may save a plane, but there are far more where a computer could have had it been allowed to.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

observer said:


> Even the Saudis investing in Uber think it's a high risk investment.
> 
> http://english.alarabiya.net/en/bus...he-world-s-largest-venture-capital-fund-.html


"The investment in Uber was made to give publicity for the fund itself and for Saudi Arabia," said Mohammed al-Suwayed

I just love how Saudi's invest in everything and everybody but their own.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

LA Cabbie said:


> "The investment in Uber was made to give publicity for the fund itself and for Saudi Arabia," said Mohammed al-Suwayed
> 
> I just love how Saudi's invest in everything and everybody but their own.


No need to, we pay for it.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

observer said:


> https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/07/new-reports-confirm-1-15b-leveraged-loan-raised-by-uber-at-5/
> 
> Two weeks ago, we reported that Uber was in talks to raise $1-2 billion in leveraged loans. The Wall Street Journal is circulating new information that the company has closed a $1.15 billion leveraged loan, with a 5 percent yield.
> 
> ...


To me this signals the end of uber they are robbing Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## uberparadise (Aug 2, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> To me this signals the end of uber they are robbing Peter to pay Paul.


When they go public they will steal from the public as they watch the stock go lower and lower from the IPO price. Hopefully, Travis will be pushed aside and the new board will show the drivers respect and reward our efforts more than the present UBER does! At that point the stock may be a good buy at half off.


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

............................................................











RamzFanz said:


> I'm 100% against drunk driving and taxis are useless in ending it for the most part.


Sooooo now the taxi industry is responsible for drunk driving?

And for ending it?








............................................


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rex8976 said:


> ............................................................
> View attachment 48229
> 
> 
> ...


Taxis around here are next to worthless for abating drunk driving. Too expensive, unreliable, often repulsive, and many many people don't trust them. Drunk people aren't going to sit around outside a closed bar for an hour or two waiting on a taxi. So, yes, by not being a quality service, they don't get the drunks off the road they could have.


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Drunk people aren't going to sit around outside a closed bar for an hour or two waiting on a taxi. So, yes, by not being a quality service, they don't get the drunks off the road they could have.


Soooooo, notwithstanding the fact that people are under no obligation to get drunk, you would have us believe that the taxi industry in your neck of the woods is off hiding (presumably upgrading their repulsiveness) rather than servicing the prime demographic?

Yeah, I can see that.


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's amazing all the idiots still investing in this ponzi scheme.


Bernie madoff does not have anything on travis kalanick.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

backstreets-trans said:


> They had to switch to loans because the initial investors investment keep getting watered down. Investors are very unhappy with uber and money is drying up. Uber has been on a spending spree for years and Daddy has cut off their cash flow. Now they're heading down to the pawn shop hoping for some more spending money.


If the initial investors didn't want their investments watered down, they could have just invested more of their own money.

They didn't, why didn't they if Uber is such a great investment.

Aside from the reasons you stated, I think they know something we don't.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Saudi's mostly responsible for 9/11. Saudi's sponsor terrorism by supporting Isis. Saudi's invest in uber. Uber desires self driving cars to replace humans. 

Add it all up = Self driving Uber suicide bombing cars. 

You heard it here first.


----------



## iceman27 (May 26, 2016)

Who knows maybe the fed will just bail everyone out!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Goldman Sachs is foreign? Citigroup? Fidelity? Why do people just make things up?
> 
> Investors may or may not be allowed to go through the books, I don't know, but they are absolutely given a prospectus that contains financials and, apparently, they like what they see. Leaked documents show Uber is definitely profitable in their mature markets. They have proven the concept. Their expenditures are on grabbing market share. This is completely normal for a startup.
> 
> ...


Did even bother to read my post or are you posting blind ? I asked "in recent past". Nobody in the US in their right mind is going to be blowing money on money losing Uber as it stands right now. Uber could be killing it, but instead they like throwing money down the drain with the new driver bonuses and the UberPool money-losing proposition.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> LOL, come on dude. The world's top investors don't drop billions of dollars on a company blind. Stop already.
> 
> *Leaked: Uber's Financials Show Huge Growth, Even Bigger Losses*
> 
> <This is not an endorsement of Uber, but a statement of facts>


Did you miss the part where it said LEAKED?

1) LEAKED financials, especially for only one 6 month period over the 5 year history of Uber shows nothing of value except for what they want to show you because since it's not data that Uber is vouching for and saying is true you have to take it with a grain of salt...... however,
2) Did you even bother to read your LEAKED financials? It shows Uber completely blowing through(more like hemoraging, really) money left and right with no end in sight. They have nobody that is making sure that Uber stands to turn a profit at some point in time. There is no way they will ever be in the black at their current rate.
3) Did you notice that Uber continues having to raise money almost every single 6 months ?
4) You yourself noted that Uber continues having to raise an enormous amount of money every 6 months or so.
5) Feel free to step to me when you have some actual data regarding the profitability of Uber and doesn't exclude costs in a vain attempt to act like they are profitable.


----------



## lubi571 (Nov 26, 2015)

Yup top investors in the world GS bailed out by Buffett. Citi bailed out by taxpayers and the Federal Reserve etc.
I have yet to see a company of any size that survives by not rewarding their workers (top performers). That's why Uber needs the driverless technology today. I Just read an article on Yahoo about a study done by J.P. Morgan that although taxi business in NYC is down it's still very strong with new technology available. JPM's conclusion is that Uber may not be the great investment everyone thinks it is.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

uberparadise said:


> When they go public they will steal from the public as they watch the stock go lower and lower from the IPO price. Hopefully, Travis will be pushed aside and the new board will show the drivers respect and reward our efforts more than the present UBER does! At that point the stock may be a good buy at half off.


Uber has no chance of ever going public at this rate. They would have to open up the books to everyone and there is nothing to suggest people would like what they see.

Uber has a great concept but they got the wrong people in charge who have no vision for how to be a good company and how to be profitable.


----------



## Tart Convoy (Jul 9, 2016)

ChortlingCrison said:


> His last three business' were failures. 50bill or 60mil valuation doesn't mean squat. Most of that money came from investors. By your way of thinking, Bernie Madoff was a great businessman.


Madoff never filed bankruptcy . Trump filed 4 times


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Tart Convoy said:


> Madoff never filed bankruptcy . Trump filed 4 times


Madoff is sitting in a jail cell for the next 115 years. Trump is maybe going to be President.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Taxis around here are next to worthless for abating drunk driving. Too expensive, unreliable, often repulsive, and many many people don't trust them. Drunk people aren't going to sit around outside a closed bar for an hour or two waiting on a taxi. So, yes, by not being a quality service, they don't get the drunks off the road they could have.


Well if they want to get drunk and not have to worry about transportation, they can buy beer/liquor at a local convience store (sober) and get sloshed at home. Saves money all the way around. Or some other options like, finding other ways of entertainment staying sober.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Tart Convoy said:


> Madoff never filed bankruptcy . Trump filed 4 times


Where does it say in my post any thing about bankruptcy?


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Taxis around here are next to worthless for abating drunk driving. Too expensive, unreliable, often repulsive, and many many people don't trust them. Drunk people aren't going to sit around outside a closed bar for an hour or two waiting on a taxi. So, yes, by not being a quality service, they don't get the drunks off the road they could have.


My only wish is that Uber would just focus on what they do best: Driving drunk people around. They're really good at that.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rex8976 said:


> Soooooo, notwithstanding the fact that people are under no obligation to get drunk, you would have us believe that the taxi industry in your neck of the woods is off hiding (presumably upgrading their repulsiveness) rather than servicing the prime demographic?
> 
> Yeah, I can see that.


Nope. There aren't enough of them and they will be on the way to a rider and take the first hail. Zero accountability. Waiting hours was commonplace.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Did you miss the part where it said LEAKED?
> 
> 1) LEAKED financials, especially for only one 6 month period over the 5 year history of Uber shows nothing of value except for what they want to show you because since it's not data that Uber is vouching for and saying is true you have to take it with a grain of salt...... however,
> 2) Did you even bother to read your LEAKED financials? It shows Uber completely blowing through(more like hemoraging, really) money left and right with no end in sight. They have nobody that is making sure that Uber stands to turn a profit at some point in time. There is no way they will ever be in the black at their current rate.
> ...


Leaked from the _investor portfolios_. Did you read it? Or are you sticking with "I look forward to seeing the financials that NO INVESTOR HAS EVER SEEN"?

So now Uber is defrauding investors. The things we can just make up has no end.

If you want to think they are incapable of profitability, that's up to you, but you're just wildly guessing. I don't need to prove anything. I'm just stating facts. You're the one prognosticating.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Well if they want to get drunk and not have to worry about transportation, they can buy beer/liquor at a local convience store (sober) and get sloshed at home. Saves money all the way around. Or some other options like, finding other ways of entertainment staying sober.


I agree. If we had a perfect world, that's what people would do. It's not what they do though.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Rex8976 said:


> Soooooo, notwithstanding the fact that people are under no obligation to get drunk, you would have us believe that the taxi industry in your neck of the woods is off hiding (presumably upgrading their repulsiveness) rather than servicing the prime demographic?
> 
> Yeah, I can see that.


Clearly, you've never need a cab during bar rush. If you had, you would know you can wait hours or not get a cab at all


Gung-Ho said:


> Saudi's mostly responsible for 9/11. Saudi's sponsor terrorism by supporting Isis. Saudi's invest in uber. Uber desires self driving cars to replace humans.
> 
> Add it all up = Self driving Uber suicide bombing cars.
> 
> You heard it here first.


not really suicide now. More like a smart bomb or drone


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Clearly, you've never need a cab during bar rush. If you had, you would know you can wait hours or not get a cab at all

Why is this always the justification for the pro uber argument are better than cabs. You take the most extreme circumstance to make your argument. Can't get a cab on New Years Eve. Can't get a cab during a snowstorm. Ever need a tow truck during a snowstorm? Ever try to get a reservation at a popular restaurant on a Saturday night? Sometimes the demand out strips the supply. Instant gratification is not a guarantee.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Gung-Ho said:


> Clearly, you've never need a cab during bar rush. If you had, you would know you can wait hours or not get a cab at all
> 
> Why is this always the justification for the pro uber argument are better than cabs. You take the most extreme circumstance to make your argument. Can't get a cab on New Years Eve. Can't get a cab during a snowstorm. Ever need a tow truck during a snowstorm? Ever try to get a reservation at a popular restaurant on a Saturday night? Sometimes the demand out strips the supply. Instant gratification is not a guarantee.


Bar rush occurs everyday-not an extreme. With Uber, demand almost never outstrips the supply. That's why it is the argument.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Gung-Ho said:


> Clearly, you've never need a cab during bar rush. If you had, you would know you can wait hours or not get a cab at all
> 
> Why is this always the justification for the pro uber argument are better than cabs. You take the most extreme circumstance to make your argument. Can't get a cab on New Years Eve. Can't get a cab during a snowstorm. Ever need a tow truck during a snowstorm? Ever try to get a reservation at a popular restaurant on a Saturday night? Sometimes the demand out strips the supply. Instant gratification is not a guarantee.


Which is what Uber solves with surge and ratings. You don't seem to get the business model. Instant gratification is indeed guaranteed (almost) IF you are willing to pay for it. Taxis are not on-demand and the system for getting rid of bad drivers is difficult and inefficient.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Leaked from the _investor portfolios_. Did you read it? Or are you sticking with "I look forward to seeing the financials that NO INVESTOR HAS EVER SEEN"?
> 
> So now Uber is defrauding investors. The things we can just make up has no end.
> 
> If you want to think they are incapable of profitability, that's up to you, but you're just wildly guessing. I don't need to prove anything. I'm just stating facts. You're the one prognosticating.


lol so it says LEAKED but you're not buying it?

I've seen some gullible people in my days but you really take the cake here. I'm still waiting for you to show me actual profitability info. Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

Enron had $63.4 BILLION in assets. Then, they had nothing.

I'm not a finance expert, but people who are have expressed concern about an Uber IPO and what they might be trying to hide.


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

RamzFanz



RamzFanz said:


> Waiting hours was commonplace.


No certain _which_ backwater dung heaps you frequent, but experience says:

- 87% chance of getting shit from the crowd when you yell, "TAXI!"
- 25% chance of finding your customer.
- 96% chance destination is within one mile.
- 94% chance of heated discussion regarding drinking in cab.
- 73% chance of hearing the N word (if you're white)
- 91% chance that every personal problem is the drivers fault.
- 84% chance of tearful apology followed immediately by reignited drinking argument.
- 95% chance of 8 minute monologue while looking for money. 
-100% chance driver thinks twice next time he is dispatched there.

Uber On!

_Did you know that 83% of all statistics are made up?_


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Which is what Uber solves with surge and ratings. You don't seem to get the business model. Instant gratification is indeed guaranteed (almost) IF you are willing to pay for it. Taxis are not on-demand and the system for getting rid of bad drivers is difficult and inefficient.





Rat said:


> Bar rush occurs everyday-not an extreme. With Uber, demand almost never outstrips the supply. That's why it is the argument.


Combing these two replies. Then the way uber is able to meet the demand is by DESTROYING THE DEMAND by charging surge prices. That's not efficient. Just because the pings go away doesn't mean the public was adequately served. They just weren't willing to be gouged. Great model.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Gung-Ho said:


> Combing these two replies. Then the way uber is able to meet the demand is by DESTROYING THE DEMAND by charging surge prices. That's not efficient. Just because the pings go away doesn't mean the public was adequately served. They just weren't willing to be gouged. Great model.


No, demand is mostly delayed, not destroyed. At 2x, Uber is still cheaper than a taxi.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Rat said:


> No, demand is mostly delayed, not destroyed. At 2x, Uber is still cheaper than a taxi.


Demand is delayed? Well if cab customers delayed their demand at bar closing then the cabs would adequately serve them as well.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Gung-Ho said:


> Demand is delayed? Well if cab customers delayed their demand at bar closing then the cabs would adequately serve them as well.


Nope. I drove a cab before there was an Uber. People waited all night or never even got a cab. With Uber, there are large multiples a cars at peak demand, with seldom more than a short wait for surge to end. Or pay the premium if you're in a hurry. The number of cabs on the road fluctuates little, while Uber can flucuate greatly. You seem to have little experience with either


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Rat said:


> Nope. I drove a cab before there was an Uber. People waited all night or never even got a cab. With Uber, there are large multiples a cars at peak demand, with seldom more than a short wait for surge to end. Or pay the premium if you're in a hurry. The number of cabs on the road fluctuates little, while Uber can flucuate greatly. You seem to have little experience with either


25+ years driving cab/livery.
And how is you are sure that every person looking for a ride waits patiently for uber surge to end as opposed to just jumping in a cab? Do you sit in front of bars and monitor such things? uber isn't as magical as you seem to so desperately want to believe.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Gung-Ho said:


> 25+ years driving cab/livery.
> And how is you are sure that every person looking for a ride waits patiently for uber surge to end as opposed to just jumping in a cab? Do you sit in front of bars and monitor such things? uber isn't as magical as you seem to so desperately want to believe.


They sometimes do. But that only happens if there is a cab to jump into. Pretending I want to believe in magic isn't an argument. I'm just stating Uber's on demand model works better than a mostly set number of taxis.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

m1a1mg said:


> Enron had $63.4 BILLION in assets. Then, they had nothing.
> 
> I'm not a finance expert, but people who are have expressed concern about an Uber IPO and what they might be trying to hide.


Enron was lying. If you want to just fabricate an allegation against Uber, have at it, but it's baseless.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol so it says LEAKED but you're not buying it?


I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

Uber gives a financial portfolio to potential investors. Some of that, which claims they are indeed profitable in mature markets, has leaked. Do you even have a point anymore or is this just an Uber bash fest?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Enron was lying. If you want to just fabricate an allegation against Uber, have at it, but it's baseless.


Uber may be lying, too. I think Uber may be losing money. Why else would they need to keep raising cash?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rex8976 said:


> RamzFanz
> 
> No certain _which_ backwater dung heaps you frequent, but experience says:
> 
> ...


Yes, I totally believe that's what happens where you live, which is why I don't live there. So we agree, taxis are some of the reason drunk drivers drive drunk.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Gung-Ho said:


> Combing these two replies. Then the way uber is able to meet the demand is by DESTROYING THE DEMAND by charging surge prices. That's not efficient. Just because the pings go away doesn't mean the public was adequately served. They just weren't willing to be gouged. Great model.


They were able to make a decision for themselves. With both Uber and taxis in a market, you have choices. Ride now at a higher cost or wait. Before, the only choice was wait. It is efficient in that it works to maintain and even increase availability of an on demand service.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> They were able to make a decision for themselves. With both Uber and taxis in a market, you have choices. Ride now at a higher cost or wait. Before, the only choice was wait.


Even at 2x surge, Uber is still cheaper. So usually it's not even at a higher rate. Actually, it seldom surges at all in my market, and when it does, it's only a short wait till surge is gone.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Uber may be lying, too. I think Uber may be losing money. Why else would they need to keep raising cash?


For the reasons they state, expansion and market share acquisition? Or are we assuming they are committing fraud?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Even at 2x surge, Uber is still cheaper. So usually it's not even at a higher rate. Actually, it seldom surges at all in my market, and when it does, it's only a short wait till surge is gone.


Mine too.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> For the reasons they state, expansion and market share acquisition? Or are we assuming they are committing fraud?


 It's not an assumption, there are committing fraud. It's just a question of whether or not the government has the guts to stand up to uber and call them out on their misdeeds.


----------



## backstreets-trans (Aug 16, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> It's not an assumption, there are committing fraud. It's just a question of whether or not the government has the guts to stand up to uber and call them out on their misdeeds.


Our government took the bribes but the European governments are starting to give them the boot. I find it really sad that the top players of the democratic party are now big wigs in uber management. I thought the democratics were pro labor but now they're getting bought out.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> It's not an assumption, there are committing fraud. It's just a question of whether or not the government has the guts to stand up to uber and call them out on their misdeeds.


Evidence?

You know what that is? That pesky thing used to support a claim.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> For the reasons they state, expansion and market share acquisition? Or are we assuming they are committing fraud?


Fraud requires a victim. Just lying isn't enough. If it should turn out their investors lose money, then it might be fraud. Since they can't sell their stock as yet, they can't "lose" their money. Then it would probably be a civil matter anyway.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Fraud requires a victim. Just lying isn't enough. If it should turn out their investors lose money, then it might be fraud. Since they can't sell their stock as yet, they can't "lose" their money. Then it would probably be a civil matter anyway.


It's fraud either way. Lying in order to get an investment is fraud, regardless of the outcome.

fraud
frôd/
_noun_

wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
"he was convicted of fraud"
synonyms: fraudulence, cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, double-dealing,chicanery, sharp practice; More
a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
It could be civil, criminal, or both.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> For the reasons they state, expansion and market share acquisition? Or are we assuming they are committing fraud?


They invest almost no money at all to move into a new market. The drivers supply the vehicles and labor. Uber just buys a server and hires a couple employees. No matter what they spend the money on, if they are losing money, they are still losing money.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Evidence?
> 
> You know what that is? That pesky thing used to support a claim.


 Well if you're not going to show any of your evidence why should I show mine.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> They invest almost no money at all to move into a new market. The drivers supply the vehicles and labor. Uber just buys a server and hires a couple employees. No matter what they spend the money on, if they are losing money, they are still losing money.


No, they pay referral fees and give free rides to pax. They also advertise. It's a normal business practise in a new market and means nothing scandalous. It does matter and it matters a lot. One is market share acquisition after proof of concept, the other is no proof of concept and just bleeding investor cash.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> It's fraud either way. Lying in order to get an investment is fraud, regardless of the outcome.
> 
> fraud
> frôd/
> ...


Corporations can't serve time, tho. So nobody goes to jail. I think they are gambling with other people's money. If they win, everybodys happy, if they lose, they just walk away. Leaving the investors to hold the bag.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> No, they pay referral fees and give free rides to pax. They also advertise. It's a normal business practise in a new market and means nothing scandalous. It does matter and it matters a lot. One is market share acquisition after proof of concept, the other is no proof of concept and just bleeding investor cash.


 You must be one of uber's attorneys.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Well if you're not going to show any of your evidence why should I show mine.


I have. All we have are leaked documents which I have linked and which are also easily located in a simple google search. Have at it.

So, you have made a claim, can you substantiate it or is this another unicorn game?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> No, they pay referral fees and give free rides to pax. They also advertise. It's a normal business practise in a new market and means nothing scandalous. It does matter and it matters a lot. One is market share acquisition after proof of concept, the other is no proof of concept and just bleeding investor cash.


The referral fees are an ongoing expense. I've never seen an advertisement for riders, but thousands for drivers. The referral fees and incentives are where they're losing money.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Corporations can't serve time, tho. So nobody goes to jail. I think they are gambling with other people's money. If they win, everybodys happy, if they lose, they just walk away. Leaving the investors to hold the bag.


Company executives go to jail all the time for committing fraud.

Your opinion is based upon what? Where have you gotten the idea, other than from the bash Uber crowd here, that Uber is doing anything outside of the norm?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> You must be one of uber's attorneys.


Na, I just prefer people are honest and not deceiving others.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I have. All we have are leaked documents which I have linked and which are also easily located in a simple google search. Have at it.
> 
> So, you have made a claim, can you substantiate it or is this another unicorn game?


 I can substantitate it! The crisons word is gold!!

The crison is now chortling!!


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> The referral fees are an ongoing expense. I've never seen an advertisement for riders, but thousands for drivers. The referral fees and incentives are where they're losing money.


Do you have any evidence that Uber is not profitable in mature markets as they claim?


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Rat said:


> They sometimes do. But that only happens if there is a cab to jump into. Pretending I want to believe in magic isn't an argument. I'm just stating Uber's on demand model works better than a mostly set number of taxis.


One other thing from a previous post. If I as a cab could tell my customers that because it's busy I will charge them 2x or 3x normal rates but I'll be there in a jiffy. I can assure you they wouldn't be waiting for long.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Gung-Ho said:


> One other thing from a previous post. If I as a cab could tell my customers that because it's busy I will charge them 2x or 3x normal rates but I'll be there in a jiffy. I can assure you they wouldn't be waiting for long.


In my market, every cab ride is 2x what an Uber would be and they still have terrible service.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

backstreets-trans said:


> Our government took the bribes but the European governments are starting to give them the boot. I find it really sad that the top players of the democratic party are now big wigs in uber management. I thought the democratics were pro labor but now they're getting bought out.


The Democrats fought against Emancipation and the Civil Rights Act. The "pro labor" is just a carefully crafted (and successful) lie. The guy who murdered 49 people in Orlando was a Democrat. Immediately after the massacre, Democrats blamed Republicans for it.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Gung-Ho said:


> One other thing from a previous post. If I as a cab could tell my customers that because it's busy I will charge them 2x or 3x normal rates but I'll be there in a jiffy. I can assure you they wouldn't be waiting for long.


Your base rate is already 2.5x. Haven't you noticed how much of your business has gone?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Company executives go to jail all the time for committing fraud.
> 
> Your opinion is based upon what? Where have you gotten the idea, other than from the bash Uber crowd here, that Uber is doing anything outside of the norm?


Actually no, they seldom go to jail. Everything Uber does is outside the norm. It's a completely new business model. It was completely unregulated at first, but that is changing.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Rat said:


> Your base rate is already 2.5x. Haven't you noticed how much of your business has gone?


Actually where I am the base rate for uber is only 1.8x taxi. But factoring in the uber also simultaneously charges .25 per minute considering the traffic it reduces to more like 1.4 x Base rate. Any surge multiplier and the uber here is no cheaper than a taxi. My business is fine thanks for the concern.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Actually no, they seldom go to jail. Everything Uber does is outside the norm. It's a completely new business model. It was completely unregulated at first, but that is changing.


So now we're migrating from "never" to "seldom?" At least we're moving the needle in the more honest direction.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

backstreets-trans said:


> I thought the democratics were pro labor but now they're getting bought out.


The Democrats aren't pro labor, they are pro Union donations.



Rat said:


> Everything Uber does is outside the norm. It's a completely new business model.


Not at all. They are following the same path as almost all new industries. Proof of concept, expansion, then profitability.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Do you have any evidence that Uber is not profitable in mature markets as they claim?


The high attrition rate for drivers and the nessecary referral fees and incentives I think out weigh the income in those markets. Can I prove that? No, since they don't disclose their financials. Do you have any evidence they are profitable, other than the word of Travis?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> So now we're migrating from "never" to "seldom?" At least we're moving the needle in the more honest direction.


I didn't say "never", so it seems we aren't moving that direction. I notice you aren't disagreeing with my claim.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> The Democrats aren't pro labor, they are pro Union donations.
> 
> Not at all. They are following the same path as almost all new industries. Proof of concept, expansion, then profitability.


Is the concept not new? Your response indicates profitability comes AFTER proof and expansion. I think they are still having trouble proving the concept. Driver retention is a problem they seem only willing to throw invester money at. At some point they will run out of investor money and new drivers. They can only survive a limited time unless they can solve their driver retention problem.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Gung-Ho said:


> Actually where I am the base rate for uber is only 1.8x taxi. But factoring in the uber also simultaneously charges .25 per minute considering the traffic it reduces to more like 1.4 x Base rate. Any surge multiplier and the uber here is no cheaper than a taxi. My business is fine thanks for the concern.


Our base rate here is 40% of taxis and 0.13 per min. Taxis were 0.25 per min 20 years ago when I drove a cab. Your numbers state Uber's base rate is almost twice that of a taxi and the time charge makes it cheaper. Perhaps you haven't stated them correctly? Rates vary greatly from town to town. I can get the Uber rate for any city, but taxi rates aren't so easily acquired. But I think it's safe to assume Uber rates are cheaper than taxis almost everywhere. I suspect you wouldn't be posting here if your business hasn't been affected.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> The high attrition rate for drivers and the nessecary referral fees and incentives I think out weigh the income in those markets.
> 
> Do you have any evidence they are profitable, other than the word of Travis?


So now we'll pile new assumptions about operating costs on the old ones?

No, I have nothing more than the leaked documents. And yes, I am assuming at least general honesty in the reports so as to avoid losing his company and going to prison until I see something otherwise.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Can I prove that? No


Exactly.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> I didn't say "never", so it seems we aren't moving that direction. I notice you aren't disagreeing with my claim.


"Corporations can't serve time, tho. So nobody goes to jail."

Nobody goes to jail implies never.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Is the concept not new? Your response indicates profitability comes AFTER proof and expansion. I think they are still having trouble proving the concept. Driver retention is a problem they seem only willing to throw invester money at. At some point they will run out of investor money and new drivers. They can only survive a limited time unless they can solve their driver retention problem.


All assumption. You have no idea what their driver turnover and driver acquisition costs are in any market.

Besides, they almost certainly make that referral fee, or most of it, back from the driver before they even pay it out.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> So now we'll pile new assumptions about operating costs on the old ones?
> 
> No, I have nothing more than the leaked documents. And yes, I am assuming at least general honesty in the reports so as to avoid losing his company and going to prison until I see something otherwise.


The high attrition rate is well documented and Uber widely advertises its sign on bonuses and incentives so not an assumption at all. Claiming it as such was extremely dishonest of you. Assuming honesty in a report he says he didn't issue and supposedly a person with a record of dishonesty is beyond foolish.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Uber sucks the big one. The proof that they over all suuck is scattered everywhere. Do you really think we need proof that driving in Detroit at .30/mile was unprofitable? And even at .70cents mile currently.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> All assumption. You have no idea what their driver turnover and driver acquisition costs are in any market.
> 
> Besides, they almost certainly make that referral fee, or most of it, back from the driver before they even pay it out.


Yeah, because 20 rides times $2 or $3 is $500. Their turnover is 50% a year overall. Numerous sources, including Uber itself have stated so.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> The high attrition rate is well documented and Uber widely advertises its sign on bonuses and incentives so not an assumption at all. Claiming it as such was extremely dishonest of you. Assuming honesty in a report he says he didn't issue and supposedly a person with a record of dishonesty is beyond foolish.


You're assuming high turnover rates anecdotally based on who is vocal about driving and/or quitting. I assume, and will continue to assume, the repercussions of committing multi-billion dollar fraud is enough motivation to keep him honest for the most part.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Yeah, because 20 rides times $2 or $3 is $500. Their turnover is 50% a year overall. Numerous sources, including Uber itself have stated so.


And you think 50% a year, assuming that is a valid number, would be unprofitable, why? I paid them back my referral fee in less than a week.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> You're assuming high turnover rates anecdotally based on who is vocal about driving and/or quitting. I assume, and will continue to assume, the repercussions of committing multi-billion dollar fraud is enough motivation to keep him honest for the most part.


I am assuming nothing. Uber itself has published those figures. Does the phrase "tip is included" ring a bell? Yeah, "honest". You are an extremely dishonest person. You have lied in every post you have made. I don't think I care to converse with a lying prick anymore.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> I am assuming nothing. Uber itself has published those figures. Does the phrase "tip is included" ring a bell? Yeah, "honest". You are an extremely dishonest person. You have lied in every post you have made. I don't think I care to converse with a lying prick anymore.


"Tip is included" was definitely a bad choice of words. In fairness, back when they would say that, the rates were much better than now. You assume malice and deceit where there is evidence of none because that's the way you want it, not because you have proof, as always.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
> 
> Uber gives a financial portfolio to potential investors. Some of that, which claims they are indeed profitable in mature markets, has leaked. Do you even have a point anymore or is this just an Uber bash fest?


You are, again, completely talking out of your ass. You have no data, you are simply pulling information completely out of your ass. You have posted no real data showing any profitability regarding Uber. You continue putting Uber on a pedestal for no particular reason. The only data you have tried to pump up, is unofficial "leaked" data, that, even on its own face, shows Uber hemorrhaging through money left and right.

I speak about what I know, you continue speaking on behalf of Uber as if they are some kind of incredibly profitable company where there is NO CREDIBLE info to sustain that position.

When you have actual data showing Uber is actually turning a profit then step to me. Til then, you lose, again.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You are, again, completely talking out of your ass. You have no data, you are simply pulling information completely out of your ass. You have posted no real data showing any profitability regarding Uber. You continue putting Uber on a pedestal for no particular reason. The only data you have tried to pump up, is unofficial "leaked" data, that, even on its own face, shows Uber hemorrhaging through money left and right.
> 
> I speak about what I know, you continue speaking on behalf of Uber as if they are some kind of incredibly profitable company where there is NO CREDIBLE info to sustain that position.
> 
> When you have actual data showing Uber is actually turning a profit then step to me. Til then, you lose, again.


I'm sorry your Google is broken. If it were working you could easily verify what I'm saying before bloviating.

I do not support Uber or even like them as a company in the abstract. I hope a fair competitor comes along and collapses them. I'm just not going to make false statements like you and rat.

I also never said they were turning a profit, so keep your strawman arguments, I don't need them.

The data we have is the data we have and it says Uber is profitable in mature markets which equals proof of concept. Believe it or not, that's up to you. What we don't have is anything saying they are not profitable in mature markets, that's all assumption based on smoke.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I'm sorry your Google is broken. If it were working you could easily verify what I'm saying before bloviating.
> 
> I do not support Uber or even like them as a company in the abstract. I hope a fair competitor comes along and collapses them. I'm just not going to make false statements like you and rat.
> 
> ...


Do you really want me to go back through this thread and find all your posts where you insinuate Uber is doing great ? I will also quote the same "leaked" financial document YOU POSTED where it states plainly that Uber is blowing through money left and right. The only thing keeping them afloat is the constant flow of investor money from naive investors combined with people stupid enough to give them lines of credit at higher interest than they were originally asking for.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

I want to make it clear that Uber can be profitable. I am not against Uber, per say. I am in a lucky market where there is so much travel that it is possible to make a living, but for how long ?

However Uber has made it clear that they have no people in charge that have a plan to profitability or that are dedicated to making the Uber service better.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Do you really want me to go back through this thread and find all your posts where you insinuate Uber is doing great ? I will also quote the same "leaked" financial document YOU POSTED where it states plainly that Uber is blowing through money left and right. The only thing keeping them afloat is the constant flow of investor money from naive investors combined with people stupid enough to give them lines of credit at higher interest than they were originally asking for.


I insinuate nothing. I speak pretty clearly. TK has stated that Uber is in fact profitable in over 100 cities and the profit and investments are going towards expansion. Call him a liar if you wish, but we both know you have no supporting evidence. You don't like Uber so you fabricate scenarios about them.

*Uber CEO: 'We have hundreds of cities that are profitable globally'*

So, false. Investor money is going towards acquiring market share. Uber, according to TK, could be profitable tomorrow if it chose to be. Is that clear enough? Did I insinuate anything?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I insinuate nothing. I speak pretty clearly. TK has stated that Uber is in fact profitable in over 100 cities and the profit and investments are going to expansion. Call him a liar if you wish, but we both know you have no supporting evidence. You don't like Uber so you fabricate scenarios about them.
> 
> *Uber CEO: 'We have hundreds of cities that are profitable globally'*


lol

If only we could pick and choose areas of a failing business where we are profitable and ignore the areas we are not profitable and be able to still call the company, as a whole, profitable. If that's the case, I'm sure we could find a way to make Enron still look profitable.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol
> 
> If only we could pick and choose areas of a failing business where we are profitable and ignore the areas we are not profitable and be able to still call the company, as a whole, profitable. If that's the case, I'm sure we could find a way to make Enron still look profitable.


Except, of course, and as you full well know, I never once said they were profitable. Most tech companies aren't at this stage.

But, again according to TK, they could be if they chose to be which, by default, demonstrates proof of concept, if you believe him.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I want to make it clear that Uber can be profitable. I am not against Uber, per say. I am in a lucky market where there is so much travel that it is possible to make a living, but for how long ?
> 
> However Uber has made it clear that they have no people in charge that have a plan to profitability or that are dedicated to making the Uber service better.


I don't like Uber because of what they have done in other markets. I don't look at things selfishly. That doesn't motivate me to lie to other people about them though, so we are polar opposites.

Uber has made no such thing clear. Again, for the record since you want to dodge, they claim profitability in over 100 cities. Tell us how that is no plan?

"We have hundreds of cities that are profitable globally," Kalanick told the FT. "That allows us to invest in new places, and to sustainably invest in a very expensive place like China."


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I don't like Uber because of what they have done in other markets. I don't look at things selfishly. That doesn't motivate me to lie to other people about them though, so we are polar opposites.
> 
> Uber has made no such thing clear. Again, for the record since you want to dodge, they claim profitability in over 100 cities. Tell us how that is no plan?


Let me get this straight, you posted your "leaked" financial data that shows Uber hemorrhaging through money with no end in sight, combined with their constant need for "billions" of dollars and you expect me to blindly believe the word of the CEO who simply says that they are profitable in certain cities, without showing any real data ?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Let me get this straight, you posted your "leaked" financial data that shows Uber hemorrhaging through money with no end in sight, combined with their constant need for "billions" of dollars and you expect me to blindly believe the word of the CEO who simply says that they are profitable in certain cities, without showing any real data ?


As I've said over and over, believe if you want or not. I have no reason not to. The investors, who look at the summarised financials and are experts, like what they see. No employees have blown any whistles. There is no evidence leaked stating otherwise. Lying to investors is a huge risk so it is always the less likely scenario.

At this time, I accept the combined faith in Uber by the experts, who are investing, to be acceptable. I also accept that TK is being honest because I have no reason not to.

You realise they just raised 5.5B last month, yes? 3.5B from investors? Largest investment in the history of mankind? Did you hear about it?


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Rat said:


> Our base rate here is 40% of taxis and 0.13 per min. Taxis were 0.25 per min 20 years ago when I drove a cab. Your numbers state Uber's base rate is almost twice that of a taxi and the time charge makes it cheaper. Perhaps you haven't stated them correctly? Rates vary greatly from town to town. I can get the Uber rate for any city, but taxi rates aren't so easily acquired. But I think it's safe to assume Uber rates are cheaper than taxis almost everywhere. I suspect you wouldn't be posting here if your business hasn't been affected.


I wasn't clear. 
Uber here is $1.90 per mile .25 per minute. Taxi is $3.50 per mile there is no time charge simultaneous to mileage. Time drops only drop if on a stop or stuck in heavy traffic.
The taxi rate is 1.8x the uber rate lowered to 1.4x factoring in ubers simultaneous time charge.

If you want to know taxi rates for a city call a cab company that services the city and ask them what their rates are. It's not a trade secret the information will be readily forthcoming.

I'm doing fine. Driving my taxi today from 9:00 to 3:15 and I've made just over $200. I got all night if I choose to make more.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Gung-Ho said:


> I wasn't clear.
> Uber here is $1.90 per mile .25 per minute. Taxi is $3.50 per mile there is no time charge simultaneous to mileage. Time drops only drop if on a stop or stuck in heavy traffic.
> The taxi rate is 1.8x the uber rate lowered to 1.4x factoring in ubers simultaneous time charge.
> 
> ...


What city has $1.90/mile Uber rates? Most of the US, to my knowledge, is closer to half that. Taxi rates much lower, also. My rate here is $1.05/mile. $1.90 a mile would more than triple my profit margin.
Maybe I need to move? Probably Uber would slash rates as soon as I did, tho.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> What city has $1.90/mile Uber rates? Most of the US, to my knowledge, is closer to half that. Taxi rates much lower, also. My rate here is $1.05/mile. $1.90 a mile would more than triple my profit margin.
> Maybe I need to move? Probably Uber would slash rates as soon as I did, tho.


New York has high rates but the cost of living and oppressive taxes destroys them.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Rat said:


> What city has $1.90/mile Uber rates? Most of the US, to my knowledge, is closer to half that. Taxi rates much lower, also. My rate here is $1.05/mile. $1.90 a mile would more than triple my profit margin.
> Maybe I need to move? Probably Uber would slash rates as soon as I did, tho.


He's probably talking about UberTaxi, which operates in New York.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> He's probably talking about UberTaxi, which operates in New York.


So he's not even talking about an Uber, but a full-fledged taxi using Uber's dispatch. Well, cab drivers are pretty much an uneducated lot.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Rat said:


> So he's not even talking about an Uber, but a full-fledged taxi using Uber's dispatch. Well, cab drivers are pretty much an uneducated lot.


UberX was slashed to $1.75/mile in January. In NYC.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Actually you are all wrong. Those are the rates for Cape Cod. I'm registered uberx with a personal car. I also do Livery/cab my own business. 

What I said I made today was taxi income. I haven't uber'd today. Maybe tonight if there is a juicy surge I'll swap over.


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

RamzFanz

I'm not certain if your twisted logic is intentional or if you are such a shill 
that you simply refuse to see any side but your own.

This thread, and you, have lost their amusement value for me.


----------



## RedoBeach (Feb 27, 2016)

Rat said:


> The referral fees are an ongoing expense. I've never seen an advertisement for riders, but thousands for drivers. The referral fees and incentives are where they're losing money.


I think most drivers have forgotten that Uber has diversified over recent years and earns revenue through many resources beyond just "fares."

Generally speaking, examples of Uber's alternate sources of revenue include: vehicle financing incentives, excess fare from Pool trips paid flat rate by passenger but not transferred to drivers (a bigger one than most know), fuel rewards cards (Uber pays a wholesale rate & pockets the excess amount of what the consumer pays for that same charge), food and goods delivery, & advance/pay day loan type commissions.


----------



## RedoBeach (Feb 27, 2016)

Rat said:


> The guy who murdered 49 people in Orlando was a Democrat. Immediately after the massacre, Democrats blamed Republicans for it.


I'm not sure I understand the reference to Dems and Rep's as it relates to this comment, but it has been reported that guy in Orlando was a patsy. The FBI's report indicated that no one died inside until 5:13am. Mateen shot & killed at 5:16am. That's a pretty short time to shoot/injure 100 people on your from inside a bathroom in the back of the club. Orlando police admitted they may have accidentally shot victims.

It has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican, because they work for the same team. Party Division is an illusion that keeps people distracted.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RedoBeach said:


> I'm not sure I understand the reference to Dems and Rep's as it relates to this comment, but it has been reported that guy in Orlando was a patsy. The FBI's report indicated that no one died inside until 5:13am. Mateen shot & killed at 5:16am. That's a pretty short time to shoot/injure 100 people on your from inside a bathroom in the back of the club. Orlando police admitted they may have accidentally shot victims.
> 
> It has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican, because they work for the same team. Party Division is an illusion that keeps people distracted.


I think you have been spending too much time on conspiracy theory websites


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RedoBeach said:


> I think most drivers have forgotten that Uber has diversified over recent years and earns revenue through many resources beyond just "fares."
> 
> Generally speaking, examples of Uber's alternate sources of revenue include: vehicle financing incentives, excess fare from Pool trips paid flat rate by passenger but not transferred to drivers (a bigger one than most know), fuel rewards cards (Uber pays a wholesale rate & pockets the excess amount of what the consumer pays for that same charge), food and goods delivery, & advance/pay day loan type commissions.


The pool trips are a money maker for sure but the rest are incremental


----------



## RedoBeach (Feb 27, 2016)

Yeah, I have no published figures to know for sure if those things truly generate revenue for them, but my guess is they do, otherwise they would not have made those partnerships. Uber has a well known history amongst the public and reporters of not being transparent regarding their numbers. A lot of the numbers Uber has used historically were purposely misrepresented to lure new drivers to the company. Over the years, many have caught onto this and Uber began decreasing their claims as a result. But that is not to suggest they have become more transparent in their claims. To my knowledge, they haven't.


----------



## RedoBeach (Feb 27, 2016)

Rat said:


> I think you have been spending too much time on conspiracy theory websites


Nahhh.. I don't want to hijack this thread with this conversation, because it is not relevant to the topic, but all governments have long histories of insuing false flags to skew public opinion and fulfill specific agendas. That's why there have been so many Craigslist ads requesting crisis actors for "drills" relative to these specific times and locations and many of the same actors have coincidentally popped up in similar events in separate times and locations. The most recent ad found is for paid rioters at the upcoming DNC and RNC this week, coupled by hacked Twitter messages discussing that exact plan.

The U.S. itself has admitted to many of them long past. I can provide many facts of this incident that blatantly contradict the story we were provided, but I'll let you look into that on your own and develop your own opinion.

"Conspiracy theorist" was a term created by the CIA during the Nixon campaign to discredit anyone questioning the official government narrative. They created the term as a psychological operation to sway the public toward automatically dismissing valid questions as crazy, so people would be less inclined to investigate them. There is a declassified CIA document released through the FOIA that goes into further detail about this.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RedoBeach said:


> Nahhh.. I don't want to hijack this thread with this conversation, because it is not relevant to the topic, but all governments have long histories of insuing false flags to skew public opinion and fulfill specific agendas. That's why there have been so many Craigslist ads requesting crisis actors for "drills" relative to these specific times and locations and many of the same actors have coincidentally popped up in similar events in separate times and locations. The most recent ad found is for paid rioters at the upcoming DNC and RNC this week, coupled by hacked Twitter messages discussing that exact plan.
> 
> The U.S. itself has admitted to many of them long past. I can provide many facts of this incident that blatantly contradict the story we were provided, but I'll let you look into that on your own and develop your own opinion.
> 
> "Conspiracy theorist" was a term created by the CIA during the Nixon campaign to discredit anyone questioning the official government narrative. They created the term as a psychological operation to sway the public toward automatically dismissing valid questions as crazy, so people would be less inclined to investigate them. There is a declassified CIA document released through the FOIA that goes into further detail about this.


Yep, definitely too much time on wacko websites.


----------



## RedoBeach (Feb 27, 2016)

Rat said:


> Yep, definitely too much time on wacko websites.


Most certainly Uberpeople.net!

No offense, but when you are ready to wake up, there are thousands of declassified documents provided directly from the agencies through the Freedom of Information Act and countless testimonies from high profile former FBI, military, and government whistleblowers (more and more everyday). I highly doubt most would risk their lives to share such information (many have mysteriously died already) if there wasn't some level of truth.

"The United States Army's 1994 publication _Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces_ - updated in 2004 - recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA's "Dirty Wars". And see this."

"Similarly, a CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that - during the 1984 presidential debate - President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

There are hundreds of other admissions, too many to list.. Some attached for reference.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RedoBeach said:


> Most certainly Uberpeople.net!
> 
> No offense, but when you are ready to wake up, there are thousands of declassified documents provided directly from the agencies through the Freedom of Information Act and countless testimonies from high profile former FBI, military, and government whistleblowers (more and more everyday). I highly doubt most would risk their lives to share such information (many have mysteriously died already) if there wasn't some level of truth.
> 
> ...


So ZeroHedge is your favorite wacko website(


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Enron was lying. If you want to just fabricate an allegation against Uber, have at it, but it's baseless.


I fabricated nothing. Enron had ASSETS. Uber has potential. All I'm saying is it can all be gone in seconds. It's happened too many times in the past. 
Uber has brand recognition, but the technology is no longer exceptional.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You're assuming high turnover rates anecdotally based on who is vocal about driving and/or quitting. I assume, and will continue to assume, the repercussions of committing multi-billion dollar fraud is enough motivation to keep him honest for the most part.


That's what people thought about the boys at Enron and Bernie Madoff.

Or Martha Stewart. Or Leona Helmsley.

The larger the potential payoff, the more likely someone is to lie, cheat, and steal for that payoff.

People like Travis with outsized egos think they're too smart to be caught.

History is littered with examples of egomaniacs like Travis being hoisted on their own petard.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

Rat said:


> So ZeroHedge is your favorite wacko website(


I prefer GodLikeProductions myself.


----------



## RedoBeach (Feb 27, 2016)

Rat said:


> So ZeroHedge is your favorite wacko website(


Nahhhh.. Like I said, Uberpeople.net is! 

To be honest, I don't have much free time to read outside of business & school & I don't normally discuss news or politics. ..Except when I'm sitting in my vehicle waiting verrrrrry long in between pings recently! I've never read anything on ZeroHedge before so I can't say I'm familiar with the whacko site. It came up in a search to show you in something specific in regards to PH attack and that's what came up.

What's your favorite whacko site?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rex8976 said:


> RamzFanz
> 
> I'm not certain if your twisted logic is intentional or if you are such a shill
> that you simply refuse to see any side but your own.
> ...


That's good. I'm stating facts, not entertaining you. There's only one side, and that's called _the truth as we know it._


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

m1a1mg said:


> I fabricated nothing. Enron had ASSETS. Uber has potential. All I'm saying is it can all be gone in seconds. It's happened too many times in the past.
> Uber has brand recognition, but the technology is no longer exceptional.


"but people who are have expressed concern about an Uber IPO and _what they might be trying to hide._"

That's a fabrication unless you have some evidence they may be hiding something and/or lying to investors.

Uber could collapse at any point and I have no problem with that at all. I hope it does and I hope a better company causes it but that's not on the horizon. And yes, they have very little in way of assets. I would never invest in Uber as it is and I've stated that. Now, if they merge with an auto giant with assets and become public while releasing strong financials, that may change.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> That's what people thought about the boys at Enron and Bernie Madoff.
> 
> Or Martha Stewart. Or Leona Helmsley.
> 
> ...


It's also littered with many thousands of times more people who didn't. Most people are honest or fear the repercussions too much to cheat at that scale. You're giving the exceptions to the rule. For every Bernie Madoff, there are how many authentic investment managers not pulling a ponzi scheme? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

We don't have Uber's financials. Whatever they are giving the experts who are investing in them is satisfying them.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

RedoBeach said:


> I'm not sure I understand the reference to Dems and Rep's as it relates to this comment, but it has been reported that guy in Orlando was a patsy. The FBI's report indicated that no one died inside until 5:13am. Mateen shot & killed at 5:16am. That's a pretty short time to shoot/injure 100 people on your from inside a bathroom in the back of the club. Orlando police admitted they may have accidentally shot victims.
> 
> It has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican, because they work for the same team. Party Division is an illusion that keeps people distracted.


JET STEEL CAN'T MELT FUEL BEAMS!!!

So now all of the victims are lying? The cop that was in the bar working when it started? The swat team that arrived minutes later? The hospital staff that were taking in gunshot patients before your timeline?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People making things up and ignoring the body of evidence, just like with Uber.

Opens kitchen drawer, removes foil, tears off large piece, folds into pirate hat, hands it to you.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

RedoBeach said:


> Yeah, I have no published figures to know for sure if those things truly generate revenue for them, but my guess is they do, otherwise they would not have made those partnerships. Uber has a well known history amongst the public and reporters of not being transparent regarding their numbers. A lot of the numbers Uber has used historically were purposely misrepresented to lure new drivers to the company. Over the years, many have caught onto this and Uber began decreasing their claims as a result. But that is not to suggest they have become more transparent in their claims. To my knowledge, they haven't.


Uber used advertisements stating what "top drivers" made. They didn't say how many drivers made that amount, how many hours it took, and neglected the costs. It was true, as far as we know, but somewhat deceptive in that it set unrealistic expectations. Uber changed their ads because people caught on to it? And you came to that conclusion how? You sure it wasn't rate changes that changed annual income?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

RedoBeach said:


> Most certainly Uberpeople.net!
> 
> No offense, but when you are ready to wake up, there are thousands of declassified documents provided directly from the agencies through the Freedom of Information Act and countless testimonies from high profile former FBI, military, and government whistleblowers (more and more everyday). I highly doubt most would risk their lives to share such information (many have mysteriously died already) if there wasn't some level of truth.
> 
> ...


Hilarious. Dude, you had me at crisis actors from craigslist! Everyone's in on it! I'm waking up!

By the way, none of your attachments support anything you're claiming.


----------



## oregonuberduber (Jul 8, 2016)

I'll keep this simple. If uber ever goes IPO and discloses their financial statement and the net income is in the black, then I might be more inclined to believe their making a profit.


----------



## RedoBeach (Feb 27, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Dude, you had me at crisis actors from craigslist!


GS4 was the company the shooter worked for.. Coincidence that GS4 is listed as a client on their webpage? Strange one, albeit.

Amputees in Action.. "So real it might as well be real."

FBI's report states that no one died prior to 5:13am & suspect was killed at 5:16am. That's pretty skillful to shoot/kill over 100 people in a couple minutes and load several clips in between while hiding in the bathroom at the rear of the club away from 6 other available exits. Orlando PD reported that unfortunately, some people may have been shot by his men. News showed patrons carrying injured parties down the street and towards the club.. Why towards the club? Why were other patrons carrying injured victims & throwing them in the back of private vehicles instead of emergency responders when they had 3 hours to arrive to treat & transport them? Why were no video/pics of coroners removing bodies or ambulance emts attending to victims as media normally loves to show, aerial shots? Why were the IMBD acting resumes of 3 people (2 of them conveniently interviewed by news & 1 belonging to the shooter) scrubbed from the Internet following the shooting? Why did Google show in its search results for the shooting news articles written about the shooting time stamped 6 hours prior to the incident happening? That's one hell of a coincidence! Why would the FBI put gag orders on the Santa Monica officers that arrested the guy in LA after calling them requesting protection from the CIA?

http://getoffthebs.com/fbi-agents-posing-as-islamic-terrorists/

Just saying.. It's awfully strange.


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

Ignore time.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

RedoBeach said:


> GS4 was the company the shooter worked for.. Coincidence that GS4 is listed as a client on their webpage? Strange one, albeit.
> 
> Amputees in Action.. "So real it might as well be real."
> 
> ...


All nonsense. This is just silly. Hundreds of crisis actors? Really? All witness accounts dismissed as inconvenient?

It's not strange, it's the exact same as 9/11 twoofers, lies, omissions, alterations, and embellishment for entertainment.


----------



## RedoBeach (Feb 27, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> It's not strange, it's the exact same as 9/11 twoofers, lies, omissions, alterations, and embellishment for entertainment.


That flouride must be yummy!! You're right, it's not strange, it's blatantly obvious when you turn off your programming.

Tell that to the thousands of professional engineers, pilots & architects who examined the evidence & developed their own conclusion.. Or the 100 million Americans that agree. They must have figured that out by refusing to look at the evidence offered and accounts of whistleblowers who have "mysteriously" died since.

How the hell do can you even propose such an argument with so much available information?


----------



## RedoBeach (Feb 27, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Hundreds of crisis actors? Really? All witness accounts dismissed as inconvenient?


Who are the 100's of crisis actors you are referring to? I never said "100's of crisis actors."

If you are referring to the select few people interviewed over and over by different news outlets, that hardly counts as "100's." You also might want to look into why so many of the same people interviewed by the news have shown up at multiple events including Sandy Hook (no death certificates which are a matter of public record btw & school closed for Asbestos 4 yrs prior to shooting), Paris, and the Boston Bombings. Why would the Aurora shooter's attorney be the same person as a Sandy Hook victim and a CNN reporter for yet another event? If you don't see any of this it's because you simply choose to claim ignorance and bury your head in the sand.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

RedoBeach said:


> That flouride must be yummy!! You're right, it's not strange, it's blatantly obvious when you turn off your programming.
> 
> Tell that to the thousands of professional engineers, pilots & architects who examined the evidence & developed their own conclusion.. Or the 100 million Americans that agree. They must have figured that out by refusing to look at the evidence offered and accounts of whistleblowers who have "mysteriously" died since.
> 
> How the hell do can you even propose such an argument with so much available information?


Thank you for proving my point with specific examples. Perfect.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

RedoBeach said:


> Who are the 100's of crisis actors you are referring to? I never said "100's of crisis actors."
> 
> If you are referring to the select few people interviewed over and over by different news outlets, that hardly counts as "100's." You also might want to look into why so many of the same people interviewed by the news have shown up at multiple events including Sandy Hook (no death certificates which are a matter of public record btw & school closed for Asbestos 4 yrs prior to shooting), Paris, and the Boston Bombings. Why would the Aurora shooter's attorney be the same person as a Sandy Hook victim and a CNN reporter for yet another event? If you don't see any of this it's because you simply choose to claim ignorance and bury your head in the sand.


Dude, pure unadulterated entertainment! You almost sound like you believe what you say!


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's amazing all the idiots still investing in this ponzi scheme.


Sad think is this is going to effect someone 401k,just read fidelity and trow price are investors.


----------

