# It Is Possible That Uber is Running Out Of Money?



## Bob Reynolds

Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.

Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.

It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly? 

Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is. 

I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service. 

Do you think Uber is low on money?

Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.

Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.

Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past? 

The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.

This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


----------



## Bill Collector

Good analysis.... I guess we will soon find out.


----------



## ABC123DEF

No matter how much money Fuber gets, it seems to NEVER be enough. This company becoming a thing of the past would be outstanding.


----------



## Blah

i think they are trying to make the numbers look pretty as possible before they go public.

It's a downward slope now. Running out of drivers (trying to let people with criminal records drive). Investments had a claus for Uber to go public in 4 years when investment was made (I forgot which bank) or they will start to incur interest from their investments and they will have to release financials.

Not enough time for Uber to look good now. Shoot they let my account stay active for 5 months without a single ride. I think they are trying to show driver retention as well.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Uber...the ever-hungry beast that's never satisfied


----------



## AceManShow

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


I was thinking the same thing when I heard about FUBER offering the investment "opportunity" to Morgan Stanley's clients. Institutional investors are very savvy and will catch on fast to "sinking ships...


----------



## uberparadise

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


Hookers and drugs cost a lot. Uber is partying like an out of control Frat House. Why would Travis spend time in Thailand? These guys are out of control. Strippers, drug parties, lavish lifestyles, it's in their culture.


----------



## AceManShow

uberparadise said:


> Hookers and drugs cost a lot. Uber is partying like an out of control Frat House. Why would Travis spend time in Thailand? These guys are out of control. Strippers, drug parties, lavish lifestyles, it's in their culture.


No doubt.


----------



## ABC123DEF

uberparadise said:


> Hookers and drugs cost a lot. Uber is partying like an out of control Frat House. Why would Travis spend time in Thailand? These guys are out of control. Strippers, drug parties, lavish lifestyles, it's in their culture.


You might be on to something here. No way it takes this kind of money to run a stupid app...does it??? Drivers may be on the bottom of the ladder...but we do deserve a lot better treatment than THIS!


----------



## Bob Reynolds

I'm looking through their funding rounds and it appears they are having trouble raising capital from the US. 

They have gotten over 4 billion from China out of the 10.2 billion total they have raised since they began. And that 4 billion in Chinese money has all come in the last 13 months.


----------



## BurgerTiime

One thing is for certain. Uber is burning through cash and burning through drivers. How long can that business model hold up?


----------



## uberissohonest

could you post a source for that 250k figure?


----------



## ABC123DEF

Is there anyone in Fuber upper management over the age of 45 or 50? I think that they willingly don't seek out people who are experienced in running large-scale operations.


----------



## Bob Reynolds

uberissohonest said:


> could you post a source for that 250k figure?


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...morgan-stanley-selling-uber-shares-to-clients


----------



## Bob Reynolds

ABC123DEF said:


> Is there anyone in Fuber upper management over the age of 45 or 50? I think that they willingly don't seek out people who are experienced in running large-scale operations.


I don't think there is anyone at Uber HQ over the age of 39. And that would be Travis. Almost all the employees appear to be in their 20's.


----------



## ABC123DEF

I knew most of their regional management were youngsters as all of them come off as being very wet behind the ears. I thought Travis *might* be 40. Just as I thought. No real experience in the business world. This very well may be their downfall.


----------



## SECOTIME

Their commission probably barely covers overhead and that SRF is probabaly put towards lawsuits , insurance and other misc payouts.

I can't see how they are valued at 50+ billion but like mark cuban said, "they can afford to get by on scraps for now because they are working on something much bigger that will come in the future"

Ie the autonomous ploy

I think shit is catching up with them though and its going to be make or break for them soon enough...

That Cali suit will inflict so much damage if they lose.

And that's just the beggining for ol goober


----------



## Coachman

The last job I left was at a company that was fast going out of business. Once I was gone I couldn't care less what happened. Six months ago I hadn't heard of Uber. Six months from now I hope I'll have no interest in it.


----------



## Drive777

I was working Lyft guarantees last weekend and picked up a new Lyft rider. She came over from Uber and said literally every Uber driver she's had lately has been on the job three weeks or less. They're all newbies, and that was "unnerving" in her words.

Pax are starting to notice that Uber drivers in general have NO experience as Uber drivers. I remember in 2014 picking up high-end clientele on UberX, including a CEO of a local company who was engaged in a business conference call during the whole ride. Back then, UberX was a scaled down affordable alternative to the luxury of UberBlack. Not anymore!

The brand has nearly been destroyed. Rather or not Travis and Co. will admit it is another story.


----------



## Kalee

I have worked for companies that I have not cared for - but I have _never _wished for their non-existence as I do with Uber.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Kalee said:


> I have worked for companies that I have not cared for - but I have _never _wished for their non-existence as I do with Uber.


BAM!!!!!


----------



## observer

Blah said:


> i think they are trying to make the numbers look pretty as possible before they go public.
> 
> It's a downward slope now. Running out of drivers (trying to let people with criminal records drive). Investments had a claus for Uber to go public in 4 years when investment was made (I forgot which bank) or they will start to incur interest from their investments and they will have to release financials.
> 
> Not enough time for Uber to look good now. Shoot they let my account stay active for 5 months without a single ride. I think they are trying to show driver retention as well.


Uber can't go public. They would have to release financials and if they did that, no one would be dumb enough to invest at this time.

Uber missed their IPO window and is scrambling to stay afloat.


----------



## Kalee

observer said:


> Uber can't go public. They would have to release financials and if they did that, no one would be dumb enough to invest at this time.
> 
> Uber missed their IPO window and is scrambling to stay afloat.


They're in trouble. You can... feel it.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Kalee said:


> They're in trouble. You can... feel it.


If that's the case, they deserve every ounce of hot steaming skunk feces they have coming their way.


----------



## frndthDuvel

uberissohonest said:


> could you post a source for that 250k figure?


It was posted around here the other day.
I just googled "morgan stanley high wealth clients uber" and it popped right up.


----------



## Null

If uber loses the IC/Employee battle in CA it'll probably sink them. If we're employees we have to be paid before investors, etc. as they liquidate their assets. 

You can stack on miles now as a form of speculating on the outcome of the lawsuit.


----------



## observer

Null said:


> If uber loses the IC/Employee battle in CA it'll probably sink them. If we're employees we have to be paid before investors, etc. as they liquidate their assets.
> 
> You can stack on miles now as a form of speculating on the outcome of the lawsuit.


And that's just California, every other state will probably follow suit.


----------



## Micmac

uberparadise said:


> Hookers and drugs cost a lot. Uber is partying like an out of control Frat House. Why would Travis spend time in Thailand? These guys are out of control. Strippers, drug parties, lavish lifestyles, it's in their culture.


You hit the spot bro!


----------



## Null

observer said:


> And that's just California, every other state will probably follow suit.


Not necessarily and I wouldn't even go so far as to say it'd be likely. Other states are not as employee friendly. CA has some of the strictest employee protections in the union. We have unemployment insurance boards, disability, etc. that have determined on case by case that we are employees. Cases in other states haven't been found as favorably.

IC/Employee is a state issue. The CA case wouldn't be binding precedence on a court of another state, but it could be persuasive precedence if they're substantially similar.


----------



## observer

Null said:


> Not necessarily and I wouldn't even go so far as to say it'd be likely. Other states are not as employee friendly. CA has some of the strictest employee protections in the union. We have unemployment insurance boards, disability, etc. that have determined on case by case that we are employees. Cases in other states haven't been found as favorably.
> 
> IC/Employee is a state issue. The CA case wouldn't be binding precedence on a court of another state, but it could be persuasive precedence if they're substantially similar.


I believe there are at least three possibly four employee missclassification class action suits.

If Uber loses, they will surely appeal to the Supreme Court. This fight is a long way from over.


----------



## Kalee

All I want in the end is to know that Bernie Madoff made Kalanick his bit*h.


----------



## observer

If Uber loses at the Supreme Court level, it would be a nationwide ruling.

Every day that Uber fights this case is adding thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars to the pay out.

That should really give FUTURE investors pause, since current investors will have already cashed out.


----------



## Ubernomics

BurgerTiime said:


> One thing is for certain. Uber is burning through cash and burning through drivers. How long can that business model hold up?


All bias aside I really do believe they are losing control, they have to be. They have spent so much money on their drivers just to let them slip away. I really believe that they are finally going to realize that there is so price bottom and you need to get drivers interested and keep their interest to make money.


----------



## Ubernomics

I 


observer said:


> Uber can't go public. They would have to release financials and if they did that, no one would be dumb enough to invest at this time.
> 
> Uber missed their IPO window and is scrambling to stay afloat.


I agree


----------



## Ubernomics

ABC123DEF said:


> If that's the case, they deserve every ounce of hot steaming skunk feces they have coming their way.


They qre gonna have to increase prices quickly. When that happens you will know they are in trouble, big trouble.


----------



## ABC123DEF

How can Fuber corporate manage to piss off EVERYBODY they come in contact with? One company can't pull the wool over the eyes of drivers, riders, AND investors and expect to stay afloat...can they? Oh yeah...they're so much smarter than everybody else. What was I thinking?


----------



## Seastriper

I don't think it will go public. If it does then books must be OPENED! If investors see how many drivers are jumping ship they will take what's left of there money and run!


----------



## Ubernomics

Ubernomics said:


> They qre gonna have to increase prices quickly. When that happens you will know they are in trouble, big trouble.


There are a few main ingredients here necessary to stay winning:
1. Driver retention
2. Driver Satisfaction 
3. Cost of acquiring new pax and drivers. The closer to 0 you are the more profitable you will be.
4. Price stability: profit (Prices must be elevated and remain unchanged to increase earnings. 
5. Earnings must increase equally. Driver and entrepreneur.
6. Pax retention.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Bob Reynolds said:


> I'm looking through their funding rounds and it appears they are having trouble raising capital from the US.
> 
> They have gotten over 4 billion from China out of the 10.2 billion total they have raised since they began. And that 4 billion in Chinese money has all come in the last 13 months.


Uber just entered the China market so getting funds there only makes sense, moreover, rich Chinese buy assets all over the world. That's not proof of anything.


SECOTIME said:


> I can't see how they are valued at 50+ billion but like mark cuban said, "they can afford to get by on scraps for now because they are working on something much bigger that will come in the future"


Numerous companies can launch autonomous car apps. Customers won't stay loyal to Uber, especially when richer companies undercut them until they go broke.


Null said:


> Not necessarily and I wouldn't even go so far as to say it'd be likely. Other states are not as employee friendly. CA has some of the strictest employee protections in the union. We have unemployment insurance boards, disability, etc. that have determined on case by case that we are employees. Cases in other states haven't been found as favorably.
> 
> IC/Employee is a state issue. The CA case wouldn't be binding precedence on a court of another state, but it could be persuasive precedence if they're substantially similar.


I couldn't agree more. Ohio has already shafted drivers by seeking NO INPUT into their TNC law about to take effect and it labels drivers as independent contractors. No matter what states say, I wonder about FEDERAL minimum wage laws.
From the IRS website: The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not what will be done and how it will be done. Does anyone feel acceptance rates, and the numerous rules of Uber including what cars you may use and their condition are exceeding only the result of the work?


----------



## UberXTampa

Most likely they are about to raise some more investment and revalue the company much higher... 

What better way for them to achieve a higher valuation if they succeed generating more profits by cutting rates in 100 markets? New investor will then think if this is possible with such a dramatic rate cut, just imagine the possibilities if rates were fair?


----------



## TaylorHamNCheez

Kalee said:


> All I want in the end is to know that Bernie Madoff made Kalanick his bit*h.


I want to see Martin Shkreli and Travis Kalanick be cell mates. They would make great friends.


----------



## Coffeekeepsmedriving

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


they are lowering the fares to drive lyft out! Than with no competition raise the fares anything they want to.


----------



## Nick781

Uber never had money


----------



## ABC123DEF

Coffeekeepsmedriving said:


> they are lowering the fares to drive lyft out! Than with no competition raise the fares anything they want to.


What would be hilarious is if the whole rate-lowering thing backfired and Big Fuber ran themselves out of business.


----------



## Lone-Wolf

observer said:


> Uber can't go public. They would have to release financials and if they did that, no one would be dumb enough to invest at this time.
> 
> Uber missed their IPO window and is scrambling to stay afloat.


Watch the video on this CNBC article about the $250k minimum investment from Morgan Stanley individual investors. Even that shill for the stock market Jim Cramer is saying, in a nice way, that Uber is a terrible investment at this price. When he says "last one in" he is saying anyone who invests in Uber now is a sucker and paying a very high price.


----------



## maui

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Uber just entered the China market so getting funds there only makes sense, moreover, rich Chinese buy assets all over the world. That's not proof of anything.


You might want to rethink the Chinese market, which may be the biggest bubble around. Do a search on empty cities, and you will see to "support" and boost their GDP, China has been building and building cities, that have few to no residents. China has the biggest mall in the world, but only has a few stores that are actually open.

China also has a strict economy - To buy a home you have a 50% down payment and the rest is due over 3 years (30 years... Nope... 3)

Most of the wealthy Chinese live in the US


----------



## Pablo750

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


I dont think they can run out of money easily hundreds of thousands of drivers providing 20% to 30% on daily basis when they dont have the expenses of a regular companies.

What I think it really happened is they have way too many drivers and they saw the opportunity to kill the taxi companies that have survived.
They knew many drivers will quit but that doesn't make a difference because they know a good amount of drivers would stay driving for Uber specially part time driver.

Risky and greedy movement that am sure lyft back them up.

Now ride sharing is the future but we need a new set of laws that protect drivers from an abusive company. 
Government should get 5% fee uber 5% (only provides the app) fare should be one dollars per mile but 50c per minute.

10 miles in 20 min = $20 - 10% =18
20 miles in 20 min = $30 -10%= 27
5 miles in 20 min = $15 - 10%=13.5 now we make like $3


----------



## UberXTampa

Pablo750 said:


> I dont think they can run out of money easily hundreds of thousands of drivers providing 20% to 30% on daily basis when they dont have the expenses of a regular companies.
> 
> What I think it really happened is they have way too many drivers and they saw the opportunity to kill the taxi companies that have survived.
> They knew many drivers will quit but that doesn't make a difference because they know a good amount of drivers would stay driving for Uber specially part time driver.
> 
> Risky and greedy movement that am sure lyft back them up.
> 
> Now ride sharing is the future but we need a new set of laws that protect drivers from an abusive company.
> Government should get 5% fee uber 5% (only provides the app) fare should be one dollars per mile but 50c per minute.
> 
> 10 miles in 20 min = $20 - 10% =18
> 20 miles in 20 min = $30 -10%= 27
> 5 miles in 20 min = $15 - 10%=13.5 now we make like $3


I agree and it is Uber's attempt to "go for the kill!".
If they can starve the competition during the typical slower months and inflict as much damage as possible on them, you can have less competition to deal with until next round of attacks. Unfortunately, this attempt of Uber is making the drivers a tool for its war machine. It is very unethical to do it this way. 
I am not driving at these insulting rates. I drive surge, get bad ratings for the surge and sooner or later will be deactivated for that.


----------



## PoorBasterd

ABC123DEF said:


> Is there anyone in Fuber upper management over the age of 45 or 50?


45-50? Your talking old-timers there, my son. I was more thinking no one over 25. Travis is probably the company's oldest employee.


----------



## Pablo750

UberXTampa said:


> I agree and it is Uber's attempt to "go for the kill!".
> If they can starve the competition during the typical slower months and inflict as much damage as possible on them, you can have less competition to deal with until next round of attacks. Unfortunately, this attempt of Uber is making the drivers a tool for its war machine. It is very unethical to do it this way.
> I am not driving at these insulting rates. I drive surge, get bad ratings for the surge and sooner or later will be deactivated for that.


I was working full time after the price cut , I stoped working for uber until i find my self a job , I just started yesterday and I would do Uber just like you.


----------



## PoorBasterd

Bob Reynolds said:


> I don't think there is anyone at Uber HQ over the age of 39. And that would be Travis. Almost all the employees appear to be in their 20's.


And I don't think any of them, including Travis, has actually driven a pax anywhere as an Uber driver. They really don't know what it is we do out there.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Oh no? But Travis says that he has a 5-star rating as a driver!


----------



## ATX 22

Uber's been working with investors money the whole time. Their starting rates with UberX were high enough and their commissions low enough in the beginning that it was a great gig for the drivers. As they have worked to increase their market share, they have done so by pushing rates down and raising their cut off the top. Here's their conundrum. They have been burning through the investors money with losses every quarter and every year. Their losses keep mounting, too. Every year they have gone further and further in the hole. 2014 leaked figures in the Forbes article from last week were in excess of $600 million. 2015 first half losses exceeded $900 million. That's $1.5 billion in losses in 18 months, and that's not including Uber China, which is its own entity, but losses there are significant as well. While I wouldn't call myself a seasoned investor by any means, I don't see how any of the leaked information would make me feel confident that this is a viable investment in which I could make money. It reeks of a Ponzi scheme, now they're going after $250k investors to begin paying back the big dogs. Last ones in will be left holding the bag. 
*These are my opinions, based upon what I have read and what I see in the marketplace at this time. You don't have to agree with anything I think. *


----------



## ATX 22

ABC123DEF said:


> Oh no? But Travis says that he has a 5-star rating as a driver!


That's proof he's not a driver. Or he manipulated his rating, which we aren't able to do.


----------



## ABC123DEF

ATX 22 said:


> That's proof he's not a driver. Or he manipulated his rating, which we aren't able to do.


Travis would never do anything like that!


----------



## Papa

Here's an answer: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianso...-even-bigger-losses/#48ded1575c993155029b5c99


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

UberXTampa said:


> I agree and it is Uber's attempt to "go for the kill!".
> If they can starve the competition during the typical slower months and inflict as much damage as possible on them, you can have less competition to deal with until next round of attacks. Unfortunately, this attempt of Uber is making the drivers a tool for its war machine. It is very unethical to do it this way.
> I am not driving at these insulting rates. I drive surge, get bad ratings for the surge and sooner or later will be deactivated for that.


Correct, it's a war. And using the same metaphor, Uber are sending drivers up hamburger hill every single day on a suicide mission.


----------



## Ziggy

Drive777 said:


> Pax are starting to notice that Uber drivers in general have NO experience as Uber drivers.


Neither Lyft nor Uber are "professional drivers" hence neither has experience ... since the biz model was designed to take advantage of people with cars, regardless of how much experience they had. However, some Uber drivers are prior cabbies ... at least here in Austin, most cabbies that switch to TNC, drive for Uber and not Lyft ... because Uber pays a premium for Luxury cars and many former cabbies have purchased MBenz, Lexus, Tahoe, etc to get the higher Lux fare ... and there's no way we're going to operate X or Lyft for min fares.


Drive777 said:


> The brand has nearly been destroyed


Uber & Lyft have both destroyed their brands, Uber more so than Lyft ... but the beginning of the end was allowing city managers to specify what cars fit within each class of service on a city-by-city level (rather than having a consistent level of service nationwide or worldwide); and the real writing on the wall happened when Uber increased SRF and decreased fares ... so basically Uber made more money, drivers got shafted.


----------



## ABC123DEF

It should be illegal to play with people's livelihoods using us as experimental lab rats like this. Yes, I know this is what we signed up for with the 1,000-page partner agreements that we should have taken hours to read and understand. This is nothing more than modern-day high-tech indentured servitude. Social responsibility is NOT what this company is about.


----------



## Ziggy

observer said:


> Uber can't go public. They would have to release financials and if they did that, no one would be dumb enough to invest at this time.


You can't live like fat cats using Uber as your personal piggy bank; if Uber does go public ... Travis might have to get an orange jumpsuit.


----------



## Ziggy

Pablo750 said:


> uber 5%


considering that most credit card companies charge +2% or AMEX 3.5% ... Uber would need to get at least 10% to remain viable.


----------



## nutzareus

In the not-too-distant future we'll be talking about Fuber like we do about the circa-2000 dotcom bubble companies such as Pets.com Webvans.com etc. there were so many train wrecks.


----------



## backstreets-trans

observer said:


> I believe there are at least three possibly four employee missclassification class action suits.
> 
> If Uber loses, they will surely appeal to the Supreme Court. This fight is a long way from over.


Paying legal fees is like burning money. The supreme Court lawyers have to double down on the fees. They can't be cheap.


----------



## space ghost

Something is going on. Remember the heads of the venture capitalists that invested all the money have the power to eliminate travis. They must be growing anxiouß at this point. The more time that goes by the more competition catches up.


----------



## observer

space ghost said:


> Something is going on. Remember the heads of the venture capitalists that invested all the money have the power to eliminate travis. They must be growing anxiouß at this point. The more time that goes by the more competition catches up.


They have no power over firing Travis.

They can stop investing more money, which seems to be happening.

They could badmouth Uber/Kalanick. Probably not going to happen if they want to keep valuation high.


----------



## Coffeekeepsmedriving

Yes i could believe that..Lyft is taken over


----------



## space ghost

The present rates are comical. I would think the average person has to understand that, though most dont care. I believe the recently leaked financials are a bunch of crap. That was done to show plenty of available capital to individual investors, when that simply doesnt make sense. Why look for more investors if you still have 4 billion in the bank? Time is running out for this buffoon.


----------



## space ghost

Actually they do have the power to remove him as CEO, that is standard practice to protect their money.


----------



## Bob Reynolds

Those cash on hand numbers are not as strong as they look. 

In January 2015, Uber took on 1.6 billion in DEBT financing from Goldman Sachs.


----------



## observer

space ghost said:


> Actually they do have the power to remove him as CEO, that is standard practice to protect their money.


Kalanick is firmly in control of Uber.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber...luation-heres-how-thats-even-possible-2015-11


----------



## Seastriper

Unless they own a majority of shares they can't do squat. Travis can jump out with his golden parachute at anytime. He will have many lawsuits, but he bankrupt the company when the time is right...


----------



## everythingsuber

The driver retention thing is the interesting one. Starts as off the books after 3 months now they just leave them be. Propaganda over substance. The desperation in sending current drivers broke to show cash flow is stable after a decline in demand. Throw the drivers under the bus rather than give negative news to investors. There's plenty there that looks sus if you at the company's lack of transparency and have a suspicious mind. I seen too many companies with no substance buy silence from the media though the advertising dollar not to be suspicious. The media is desperate for dollars they will sell their soul if there's something in it for them. When the media starts looking closer at them it will tell you money is drying up.


----------



## observer

Seastriper said:


> Unless they own a majority of shares they can't do squat. Travis can jump out with his golden parachute at anytime. He will have many lawsuits, but he bankrupt the company when the time is right...


No one owns a majority, Kalanick is making sure of that.


----------



## space ghost

observer said:


> Kalanick is firmly in control of Uber.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/uber...luation-heres-how-thats-even-possible-2015-11


Good article, thank you


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Its not a publicly traded corporation.
Its a privately held company. 
The only people with power are Kalanik, and his investors.
They could yank their money, but no one can fire a CEO from a privately held company.


----------



## howo3579

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Its not a publicly traded corporation.
> Its a privately held company.
> The only people with power are Kalanik, and his investors.
> They could yank their money, but no one can fire a CEO from a privately held company.


You still can if Kalanik doesn't have more than 50% of shares.


----------



## space ghost

Wow, I misunderstood a few things in regard to the setup of uber's financial standing. Thanks for enlightening me on a few things guys. Makes me think even less of Travis, if thats possible. Greed is a terrible thing, really sad for all the drivers.


----------



## howo3579

Guys Uber might be running out of money but don't bet on it. Institutions love earnings and growth. They don't really care about profit. Check out Amazon's evaluation. They were operating at a loss until recently and every now and then, they still lose money in some qtrs as they're expanding other ventures.


----------



## Uber Uber

The idea that you might think Huber is losing money is absolutely the most ridiculous thing anyone could ever think Of?!!!


----------



## UberXTampa

Losing money is a business strategy used to improve the bottom line. 
Even going bankrupt is. 
If you don't believe me, ask Trump.


----------



## Bart McCoy

uber has a very low overhead: insurance,corporate jobs,advertising, and maintaining an app....... what thee hell are they burning all their money on?


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

uberparadise said:


> Hookers and drugs cost a lot. Uber is partying like an out of control Frat House. Why would Travis spend time in Thailand? These guys are out of control. Strippers, drug parties, lavish lifestyles, it's in their culture.


POST # 7/uberparadise: When mention-
ing Scandalous Details
it would be helpful for the Readership
to know that the Source is more than
Rumor and Innuendo.

HYPERLINKS, Please!

Mentoring Bison: "Just the FACTS, ma'am."


----------



## ABC123DEF

Bart McCoy said:


> uber has a very low overhead: insurance,corporate jobs,advertising, and maintaining an app....... what thee hell are they burning all their money on?


See the post made by member <uberparadise> on page 1 of this thread. There may be some truth to that!


----------



## Kruhn

observer said:


> And that's just California, every other state will probably follow suit.


 Perhaps not, as the idiot Uber lawyers incorporated the company in that state. Why did they not incorporate in the corporate paradise of Delaware. Their idiocy, like the one when they wrote the arbitration clause so badly that they had to rewrite it, is going to bite them in the rear end.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Bob Reynolds said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...morgan-stanley-selling-uber-shares-to-clients


POST # 14/Bob Reynolds: Bostonian
Bison Thanks You for
this Hyperlinked Bloomberg.com Article
regarding the w i d e n i n g ... b a s e... o f
Inve$tors that Travi$ has Hoodwinked.

OF SPECIAL Interest is the Link at the
Article's Conclusion that Announces
the "End of Sidecar" with its Absorption
by....drumroll please....GENERAL MOTORS!

Bison: "Mom, Apple Pie & Chevrolet!"


----------



## USArmy31B30

I can't wait until they make the Uber "American Greed" episode...


----------



## scrurbscrud

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 7/uberparadise: When mention-
> ing Scandalous Details
> it would be helpful for the Readership
> to know that the Source is more than
> Rumor and Innuendo.
> 
> HYPERLINKS, Please!
> 
> Mentoring Bison: "Just the FACTS, ma'am."


Yeah, I'm gonna take some of my UberX "make" and join them!


----------



## scrurbscrud

USArmy31B30 said:


> I can't wait until they make the Uber "American Greed" episode...


Probably be more like "How I squandered all my lottery winnings."


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bob Reynolds said:


> I'm looking through their funding rounds and it appears they are having trouble raising capital from the US.
> 
> They have gotten over 4 billion from China out of the 10.2 billion total they have raised since they began. And that 4 billion in Chinese money has all come in the last 13 months.


and you don't think that has anything to do with the fact that Uber's stated top priority for gowth and expansion is the Chinese market?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

BurgerTiime said:


> One thing is for certain. Uber is burning through cash and burning through drivers. How long can that business model hold up?


IMO - if Uber is "burning through cash", it's not in operations.
Just my opinion, but I think they could be profitable at any time with little more than a flip of the switch.


----------



## scrurbscrud

Michael - Cleveland said:


> IMO - if Uber is "burning through cash", it's not in operations.
> Just my opinion, but I think they could profitable at anytime with little more than a flip of the switch.


It takes a whole lotta SRF fees to grease the politicians and pay the lawyers and lobbyists. That ain't a cheap game by any means.


----------



## Ziggy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> if Uber is "burning through cash", it's not in operations.


considering that Uber exported CSRs to Philippines


----------



## observer

Michael - Cleveland said:


> and you don't think that has anything to do with the fact that Uber's stated top priority for gowth and expansion is the Chinese market?


Do you mean THIS Chinese market?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bob Reynolds said:


> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.


Here's why I don't believe that for a minute - and I believe the whole "SRF=Uber Profit" story is just that, a myth.

An individual commercial auto policy runs anywhere from $4-$10,ooo/yr.
Let's say that Uber leverages their buying power and the fact that the majority of drivers only drive part-time and they neogiate coverage for each driver to be only $2,000/yr - 50% less than the lowest price out there for an individual policy.
If the average driver does 20 trips a week, that comes out to only (20 X 52 x $1.70) $1,768/yr.
And Uber still has to pay for other 'safety' services like background checks and whatever.

To say that Uber is profiting from the SRF just doesn't make any sense - the number don't add up.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Ziggy said:


> considering that Uber exported CSRs to Philippines


It costs a LOT to send a CSR from Iowa to the Phillipines!


----------



## observer

This could be why Uber is running out of money. 

They pinned their hopes and growth on a market that may no longer exist.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

observer said:


> Do you mean THIS Chinese market?
> 
> View attachment 24584


hehe... I make no judgment as to the smartness of their investment in the Chinese market -
only observing that it would make perfect sense for Chinese investment money
to invest in compaines that are investing in China!


----------



## cleansafepolite

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


we all asume uber is in this for the long haul, could be they are getting ready to sell out or call it quits at thr apex of thier value.Before regulation and before the impending swarm of class action lawsuits. Just another tangent to throw in there..


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

observer said:


> They pinned their hopes and growth on a market that may no longer exist.


You're kidding, right?
You don't really believe that the largest population in the world 
- one that has gone from a non-impact financial market to 'we sneeze, you catch a cold' over the last 40 years -
is going to "no longer exist"... do you?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/china-s-economy-may-be-even-bigger-than-you-think


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

cleansafepolite said:


> we all asume uber is in this for the long haul, could be they are getting ready to sell out or call it quits at thr apex of thier value.Before regulation and before the impending swarm of class action lawsuits. Just another tangent to throw in there..


There is no money in it for Uber to call it quits.
Payday comes only when the corporation goes public (or is bought out).


----------



## sellkatsell44

Ziggy said:


> considering that Uber exported CSRs to Philippines





Michael - Cleveland said:


> It costs a LOT to send a CSR from Iowa to the Phillipines!


I think he means that instead of having CSRs in the US, they let those folks go or used tactics that would make them quit and started a satellite office in the phillipines as hiring a CSR there is less $.

I mean, it doesn't make sense to send a CSR from Iowa to phillipines and you see a drop in the quality of responses from CSR


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

sellkatsell44 said:


> I think he means that instead of having CSRs in the US, they let those folks go or used tactics that would make them quit and started a satellite office in the phillipines as hiring a CSR there is less $.
> 
> I mean, it doesn't make sense to send a CSR from Iowa to phillipines and you see a drop in the quality of responses from CSR


I'm sorry my attempt at humor sailed right over your head. 

(_still picturing in my mind, boxes of US CSRs being taped up for 'exporting' to the Phillipines_)


----------



## sellkatsell44

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm sorry my attempt at humor sailed right over your head.
> 
> (_still picturing in my mind, boxes of US CSRs being taped up for 'exporting' to the Phillipines_)


It did! But only because I do know of companies that will send folks from one area to another and still pay them the former area's pay (eg from San Francisco to Atlanta and still pay SF salary ) granted its not the same as Iowa to phillipines but I imagine if the wage was same in phillipines what they got in Iowa...heck, I'll sign up!


----------



## Fuzzy1

Drivers are what built this company to whatever it is and whatever it is worth today. Drivers control the rates and the future of this company by what they "accept" and are willing to take. Drivers have a lot more power than they think. The problem is that those that drive don't realize that.


----------



## observer

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're kidding, right?
> You don't really believe that the largest population in the world
> - one that has gone from a non-impact financial market to 'we sneeze, you catch a cold' over the last 40 years -
> is going to "no longer exist"... do you?
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/china-s-economy-may-be-even-bigger-than-you-think


No, but Ubers market will be significantly reduced, which shoots down their projected profits in Asia.

BTW, we sneezed and China caught the cold, not the other way around. The only thing is that China had the money to "doctor" their economy for a long time.


----------



## howo3579

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Let's say that Uber leverages their buying power and the fact that the majority of drivers only drive part-time and they neogiate coverage for each driver to be only $2,000/yr - 50% less than the lowest price out there for an individual policy.


Yes Uber has insurance for the riders but there's no insurance or the car and the drivers. Drivers are responsible for those. So what you really need to compare is to breakdown the insurance for transitional taxi and see how much taxi owners pay for the passenger insurance. Remember James river only covers up to 1 million for the pax. Taxi pax can sue the taxi companies for more money but Uber's pax can't because the clause in the contract that Uber pax agrees when they download the app. If I were Uber I'd set up a system with insurance to pay them a fix amount each time a driver picks up a pax. This way you won't have to worry about if the drivers part time or full time. They have probably already been doing that if you think about it. If not Uber still has to keep paying insurance even when the driver stop driving for Uber.


----------



## howo3579

observer said:


> No, but Ubers market will be significantly reduced, which shoots down their projected profits in Asia.
> 
> BTW, we sneezed and China caught the cold, not the other way around. The only thing is that China had the money to "doctor" their economy for a long time.


China will be a bigger market for Uber not just because of the population. Most people there don't own a car. If once a while they want to go for a trip that's too long by bicycle, Uber is no brainer.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

UberXTampa said:


> Most likely they are about to raise some more investment and revalue the company much higher...
> 
> What better way for them to achieve a higher valuation if they succeed generating more profits by cutting rates in 100 markets? New investor will then think if this is possible with such a dramatic rate cut, just imagine the possibilities if rates were fair?


POST#40/UberXTampa: A P O S T A T E 
How dare You Contra-
dict the Prime Disruptive DIRECTIVE
from his August Exigency [may $Billions
be Upon him] Emperor @$$hat the Fist!

"LOWER RATE$ = GREATER EARNING$"

therefore, Profit$ will be Maximized
when Ride$ are Free.

ALL HAIL ANTICHRIST KAKANICKY !

Bison: RocketSled-2-HELL-4-U-Travis !


----------



## scrurbscrud

http://www.businessinsider.com/ceo-more-likely-psychopaths-jon-ronson-2016-1


----------



## sellkatsell44

Fuzzy1 said:


> Drivers are what built this company to whatever it is and whatever it is worth today. Drivers control the rates and the future of this company by what they "accept" and are willing to take. Drivers have a lot more power than they think. The problem is that those that drive don't realize that.


And the phrase "work smarter not harder" comes into mind.

I get where you're coming from and the part of me (which is also the part that's keeping me human and not advancing as much) that agrees with you; also recognizes that most folks out there don't care. Oh, they'll fluff it on the surface, just enough that they don't appear inhuman but we all know that if they wanted to, they could pay the folks whose back they're building this company upon, more.

The sad fact is that you're a dime a dozen and so your importance is not as great (sorry).

It's like when companies are failing so bad but they're still not firing their CEO and when they do, they still give them damn parachutes.

There's not a huge pool of folks they can draw from to hire CEOs...not as easy as they can hire drivers.

And then you not only need someone with CEO experience but also the right type of background to help navigate the waters, and right social groomings.

You want to disrupt an occupation that you think is paying too much? Make folks want to go after that occupation and flood the market with so many choices, as there is drivers now, so that they can't command as high of a value


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Nick781 said:


> Uber never had money


POST # 43/Nick781: Yeah.........but,
it wasn't Long Ago
that Some Pol quipped: "A $Billion here.
A $Billion there. Pretty soon you're
T A L K I N '....R E A L ....M O N E Y ! ! !"

Bison Chortling !


----------



## cleansafepolite

Michael - Cleveland said:


> There is no money in it for Uber to call it quits.
> Payday comes only when the corporation goes public (or is bought out).


maybee they are getting value up as high as they can before going public? I would like to learn more about this for sure...right now they are private, as in nobody can just buy uber stocks? So all of. these coorperations dumping money into uber are expecting to get some kind of return for thier investments..when uber goes public, when they make that announcement...pandemonium!! I duno..i need to read up on it.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

cleansafepolite said:


> maybee they are getting value up as high as they can before going public? I would like to learn more about this for sure...right now they are private, as in nobody can just buy uber stocks? So all of. these coorperations dumping money into uber are expecting to get some kind of return for thier investments..when uber goes public, when they make that announcement...pandemonium!! I duno..i need to read up on it.


POST # 112/cleansafepolite : W O R D !


----------



## rickybobby

Lone-Wolf said:


> Watch the video on this CNBC article about the $250k minimum investment from Morgan Stanley individual investors. Even that shill for the stock market Jim Cramer is saying, in a nice way, that Uber is a terrible investment at this price. When he says "last one in" he is saying anyone who invests in Uber now is a sucker and paying a very high price.


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/11/uber-seeks-new-funding-valuing-the-company-at-625b-sources.html

Cramer is super smart folks. He knows something here


----------



## scrurbscrud

Maybe Uber has some bad vibes coming on the class action in CA and it hitting drivers across the U.S. with one last retribution shot with low rates.


----------



## observer

rickybobby said:


> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/11/uber-seeks-new-funding-valuing-the-company-at-625b-sources.html
> 
> Cramer is super smart folks. He knows something here


Cramer "Kinda just doesn't seem like a bargain".

"I would offer it (Uber), but not push it".


----------



## SECOTIME

Uber must be treating the investors well because I just caught the latest shark tank and Chris Sacca had about 13 orgasms on TV talking about Uber.


----------



## sellkatsell44

SECOTIME said:


> Uber must be treating the investors well because I just caught the latest shark tank and Chris Sacca had about 13 orgasms on TV talking about Uber.


Eh, he just wants to brag that he got in at such a low evaluation as opposed to what it's now costing the average joe to get in.

Also, it doesn't hurt to have such a name like uber or Twitter on his portfolio, so you know he "invests" right


----------



## Teksaz

Cramer is the man and knows his sh*t. Uber is in trouble and everyone is sensing it. They are exhausting all sources, both investments and drivers. It's a sinking ship and I can't wait to see it at the bottom of the ocean with Travis at the helm.


----------



## backstreets-trans

Another expense is opening up in certain markets and then closing operations because local officials won't relax regulations in ubers favor. I read where they got the boot out of certain cities in Germany.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/145846...an-cities-blames-complex-harsh-regulation.htm
http://www.pymnts.com/news/2016/ubers-european-challenges-continue/


----------



## Skurt

I'm sure Uber is doing horrible if they are valued at $62.5B. $$ all day errrrrday!


----------



## UberXTampa

Uber has about 400k drivers we are told. Not all of them are active. If every driver is active and generating $10k/year in gross fares on average, that's 400,000 X 10,000 = 4,000,000,000 = $4billion in gross revenue
Uber on average keeps 34% of my gross fares. Assuming every driver pays 34% to uber:

$4b X 0.34 = $1.36b in operational income.

As much as this being a huge number, for the aggressive expansion strategy this is not enough.
Uber actually might be in desperate need of 2 things:
1. Proof that it can destroy all competition in at least 100 markets and hence the shock and awe carpet bombing low fu&ing fares!
2. Investors willing to inject cash at a much higher valuation than all previous ones

We are being played to justify an aggressive expansion policy. And the cost of having new investors coming in will be even lower fares sustained for even longer time frames with much higher investor return expectations that would result in higher uber commissions.

Uber must quickly accept that this is it and the only future growth should be organic growth and not this type of campaign that hits driver earnings hard.


----------



## observer

sellkatsell44 said:


> Eh, he just wants to brag that he got in at such a low evaluation as opposed to what it's now costing the average joe to get in.
> 
> Also, it doesn't hurt to have such a name like uber or Twitter on his portfolio, so you know he "invests" right


Dunno about investing "right". Twitters stock is in the toilet and losing money. Uber, mmmm who really knows what is going on. Sacca sure doesn't, he and Kalanick don't get along.


----------



## scrurbscrud

btw it's not unusual for startups to run huge cash flow negatives. That's what investor money is for. They are paying for growth multiples and forward projections. Companies like Amazon and Netflix still haven't turned an actual profit cause they're still growing. They don't even have profit margins to speak of.


----------



## Ppl.Mover

Our local mechanic who is on the list to do ye Uber vehicle inspection reports told us today that yesterday he had 10 UBER inspections. We were amazed at the number in one day. He said that it was obvious to him that 3 of the people were sleeping in their cars. He said to one of them that he wouldn't make very much money with UBER unless he got the car cleaned up. She responded by saying, "Oh you think so?? I guess I should get the car washed." Another one was unable to print out the Raiser form at home so he asked the mechanic to print it so the mechanic told him that there would be a two dollar charge for the form. The prospective Uber driver said he didn't want to pay for it and the mechanic held firm at $22 for the inspection plus the form. The drive had only $21.68 so the mechanic accepted it and did the inspection. The mechanic told us that it was obvious to him that this guy was homeless and that 3 of the 4 tires were bald, but he didn't have the heart to fail the car for the inspection. Bottom line: Thisbis the new Uber driver. Congratulations Travis.... You are on your way to successfully trashing a beautiful brand.


----------



## Uberman8263

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


You nailed it 100%. When the little guy is invited to the party, he is invited only to help clean up.


----------



## Uberman8263

uberissohonest said:


> could you post a source for that 250k figure?


I saw it mentioned in the WSJ a few days ago


----------



## Uberman8263

UberXTampa said:


> Most likely they are about to raise some more investment and revalue the company much higher...
> 
> What better way for them to achieve a higher valuation if they succeed generating more profits by cutting rates in 100 markets? New investor will then think if this is possible with such a dramatic rate cut, just imagine the possibilities if rates were fair?


The second that they can not raise the value by attracting newbies the bubble will burst.


----------



## backstreets-trans

They probably hit a saturation point with the people who use taxi's. Now they lower the rate to go after the bus riders. The problem here is that most city bus companies are operating at a loss. They're going after the bus clients while us drivers absorb the losses.


----------



## SECOTIME

I predict Travis getting Uber to look extravagant enough to sell for 25 billion and he walks away smiling

That's as far fetched as them believing (they truly believe ) that car ownership will be a thing of the past and everyone will use Uber..

Ok............ Rolls eyes very dramaticaly


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

observer said:


> BTW, we sneezed and China caught the cold, not the other way around.


Really? - you think that the US equity markets acheiving the most lack luster performance since 2008 is not related to the slow down of growth in China - but rather the slow-down in China has casued the lack luster performance of US markets... even though China imports little from the US - and the cost of Chinese imports to US companies/manufacturers has dropped, making Chinese goods even more affordable?

I'm not buying that for a second.


----------



## observer

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Really? - you think that the US equity markets acheiving the most lack luster performance since 2008 is not related to the slow down of growth in China - but rather the slow-down in China has casued the lack luster performance of US markets... even though China imports little from the US - and the cost of Chinese imports to US companies/manufacturers has dropped, making Chinese goods even more affordable?
> 
> I'm not buying that for a second.


I'm saying we sneezed in 2008 and China was able to prop up their economy with the billions of dollars we spent buying their junk and manipulating their currency.

So, we sneezed first. They finally got their cold and now it's spreading back to us again.

Chinas economy correcting was just a matter of time.


----------



## tohellwithu

Why are we all talking about this shitt UBER roll. We ain't getting any money from uber for talk or discussion.. So just chill and be uber off. Who gives a shitt even though it goes high as 100 billion or bankrupt.....


----------



## SECOTIME

I'm so cynical that when I heard the news that China increased its child limit it was because they were planning way in advance for war and getting a head start on a population boom.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

observer said:


> I'm saying we sneezed in 2008 and China was able to prop up their economy with the billions of dollars we spent buying their junk and manipulating their currency.
> So, we sneezed first. They finally got their cold and now it's spreading back to us again.


Our sneeze was a decade ago - and you may remembr the FED poured billions into the US economy to prop it up.
Today - the market we exist in now - China's slow down and currency corrections (sneeze) are causing US markets to have a heart attack.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

SECOTIME said:


> I'm so cynical that when I heard the news that China increased its child limit it was because they were planning way in advance for war and getting a head start on a population boom.


Nope - just making enough babies so there are drivers available for rideshare.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

howo3579 said:


> Yes Uber has insurance for the riders but there's no insurance [f]or the car and the drivers.


 Collision insurance is inexpensive relative to the cost of liability insurance. It's liability insurance - covering the cost of damage to life and property that Uber's policy covers. The SRF pays for the liability insurance to protect OTHERS from damage caused by an Uber driver.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

rickybobby said:


> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/11/uber-seeks-new-funding-valuing-the-company-at-625b-sources.html
> Cramer is super smart folks. He knows something here


Cramer is a joke in the investment community.
Lemmings follow Cramer's picks...
http://consumerist.com/2008/12/23/*jim-cramers-advice-slightly-worse-than-a-coin-toss*/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/09/29/*jim-cramer-gives-worst-investing-advice-ever*/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/*a-statistical-look-at-jim-cramers-skill-level*/
http://caps.fool.com/player/*trackjimcramer.aspx*
... I'm bored - you can find the scores of other reports via google.


----------



## Tommy Tours

Maybe Uber should give themselves a petty cash cut, instead of caviar & steak, bologna sandwich. I know I have, Tues. night 8 rides for 40.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

SECOTIME said:


> Uber must be treating the investors well because I just caught the latest shark tank and Chris Sacca had about 13 orgasms on TV talking about Uber.


POST # 117/SECOTIME: Chris Sacca
would GLADLY
live out his days as a Suppository
nestled deep within T.K.'s Ayn Ran-
dian-scented-Posterior !

Bison: Chris' Safe Word: "Genius".


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Uber China is a joke with no punchline.
40% of trips are fraudulent.
Didi Kuwaldi (sic) owns the chinese rideshare market.
Uber is only in China to further its Ponzi/Madoff capital grabbing scheme.


----------



## glados

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber China is a joke with no punchline.
> 40% of trips are fraudulent.
> Didi Kuwaldi (sic) owns the chinese rideshare market.
> Uber is only in China to further its Ponzi/Madoff capital grabbing scheme.


Absolutely not.


----------



## ATX 22

glados said:


> Absolutely not.


Oh, please elaborate oh all knowing glados.
The numbers bear this out in numerous articles all over the web by reporters not suckling at the Uber teat.


----------



## iheartuber

Kalee said:


> They're in trouble. You can... feel it.


Just a thought-- if uber had made it a priority to take care of drivers... Would they still be in this mess?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

iheartuber said:


> Just a thought-- if uber had made it a priority to take care of drivers... Would they still be in this mess?


IMnsHO, Uber chose 'this mess' to deal with in order to grow as rapidly as they have.
The alternative would have been the long, slow path of negotiating regulatory issues city by city, state by state, country by country - and death by a thousand pin-pricks before they even got off the ground.

As obnoxious and frightening as it has been, the path chosen and how it was executed has thus far (from an investor's perspective) been proven brilliant.

Evil, but brilliant.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Yes, Big Fuber has no shame. They never cease to amaze themselves.


----------



## JHawk

ABC123DEF said:


> I knew most of their regional management were youngsters as all of them come off as being very wet behind the ears. I thought Travis *might* be 40. Just as I thought. No real experience in the business world. This very well may be their downfall.


This was one of the more subtle themes in the "Social Network" movie which apparently has been a bit of a rallying cry for the current generation of founder/CEO startups. Sean Parker was ousted from Plaxo after starting the company because the VC 's wanted a more seasoned, experienced, business based CEO running the operation built on the back of Parker's ideas. Several other stories from that same time period in the early 2000's where the VC's pushed around the startup creators in favor of more "established" management, and the scene with Parker/Zukerberg in the night club is "line in the sand" moment that the current group of "brogrammers" idolizes. They're not going to be pushed around and set themselves up in ways to protect their management interests, regardless of whether they are suitably equipped to actually manage and grow the results of their initial ideas.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Its not a publicly traded corporation.
> Its a privately held company.
> The only people with power are Kalanik, and his investors.
> They could yank their money, but no one can fire a CEO from a privately held company.


Actually the board of directors typically has the authority to fire the CEO. However in the case of most startups, the Founder/CEO is often a member of the board as well, and tends to stock the board with their friends/allies for protection. One case where that dynamic is upset is when early investors demand board seats as part of their investment. If the founder/CEO takes the company in a direction the investors think puts their capital at risk, the board can then vote to remove/replace the CEO with someone more aligned with their corporate perspective.


----------



## ABC123DEF

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber China is a joke with no punchline.
> 40% of trips are fraudulent.
> Didi Kuwaldi (sic) owns the chinese rideshare market.
> Uber is only in China to further its Ponzi/Madoff capital grabbing scheme.


You'd think these geniuses would cut their losses and get the eff outta there?! You can't win 'em all! Selfishly, I hope that some of this Big Fuber novelty is starting to wear off.


----------



## Kalee

Michael - Cleveland said:


> IMnsHO, Uber chose 'this mess' to deal with in order to grow as rapidly as they have.
> The alternative would have been the long, slow path of negotiating regulatory issues city by city, state by state, country by country - and death by a thousand pin-pricks before they even got off the ground.
> 
> As obnoxious and frightening as it has been, the path chosen and how it was executed has thus far (from an investor's perspective) been proven brilliant.
> 
> Evil, but brilliant.


The same could have been said about Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme.
Look how that one ended. Brilliant.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Kalee said:


> The same could have been said about Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme.
> Look how that one ended. Brilliant.


Here we go again...
complete misapplication of the term 'ponzi scheme'.


----------



## backstreets-trans

Kalee said:


> The same could have been said about Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme.
> Look how that one ended. Brilliant.


Initial investors had to get a big percentage of the company. Each additional investor gets a piece of the pie. I wonder if they sold more than a 100% of the pie. I read there's a riff between Sacca and Travis about Sacca trying to buy up other investor shares behind Travis's back.


----------



## scrurbscrud

backstreets-trans said:


> Initial investors had to get a big percentage of the company. Each additional investor gets a piece of the pie. I wonder if they sold more than a 100% of the pie. I read there's a riff between Sacca and Travis about Sacca trying to buy up other investor shares behind Travis's back.


Over subscription (selling more shares than are actually available or likewise shorting same) happens all the time in the publicly traded space. Don't know why it couldn't be any different behind the scenes once the paperwork starts getting complicated and the big investment houses start banging at the doors.


----------



## JHawk

backstreets-trans said:


> Initial investors had to get a big percentage of the company. Each additional investor gets a piece of the pie. I wonder if they sold more than a 100% of the pie. I read there's a riff between Sacca and Travis about Sacca trying to buy up other investor shares behind Travis's back.


I remember reading that Uber puts super tight restrictions on their shares practically making them impossible to sell, especially at a higher valuation than purchased. Wonder if Sacca got wind of some shareholders that wanted out and tried to sweeten the pot by offering to purchase them at a price/valuation higher than what Uber was offering to buy back the shares.?


----------



## scrurbscrud

JHawk said:


> I remember reading that Uber puts super tight restrictions on their shares practically making them impossible to sell, especially at a higher valuation than purchased. Wonder if Sacca got wind of some shareholders that wanted out and tried to sweeten the pot by offering to purchase them at a price/valuation higher than what Uber was offering to buy back the shares.?


That's true, there are usually restrictions, but exchange can take place. There are many different setups for pre-IPO arrangments. Restricted stock, different kinds of stock, future rights, bonds, loans, etc etc.


----------



## backstreets-trans

http://www.businessinsider.com/inve...t-barely-speaks-to-ceo-travis-kalanick-2015-3


----------



## observer

JHawk said:


> I remember reading that Uber puts super tight restrictions on their shares practically making them impossible to sell, especially at a higher valuation than purchased. Wonder if Sacca got wind of some shareholders that wanted out and tried to sweeten the pot by offering to purchase them at a price/valuation higher than what Uber was offering to buy back the shares.?


He tried, Kalanick said, No deal.


----------



## ATX 22

http://www.businessinsider.com/inve...t-barely-speaks-to-ceo-travis-kalanick-2015-3

Sacca absolutely tried to buy up shares of other investors during the early angel investment stage. He wasn't a board member, but attended board meetings to stay up on what was going on. Apparently Travis got butt hurt.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

JHawk said:


> I remember reading that Uber puts super tight restrictions on their shares practically making them impossible to sell, especially at a higher valuation than purchased. Wonder if Sacca got wind of some shareholders that wanted out and tried to sweeten the pot by offering to purchase them at a price/valuation higher than what Uber was offering to buy back the shares.?


Not unusual at all for a privately held company. 
Kohler has done it for years. Restricted shares... 
can only be sold back to the company at the current market value.


----------



## JHawk

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not unusual at all for a privately held company.
> Kohler has done it for years. Restricted shares...
> can only be sold back to the company at the current market value.


Here it is, found the article.....

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber...luation-heres-how-thats-even-possible-2015-11

you have to scroll through a bit, but towards the bottom they talk about the Sacca involvement and buyback rules....

*Keeping a tight leash on Uber stock*
_It's important to remember that Uber is only five years old. So while you might think early-stage investors and employees would be pounding the table for a liquidity event, five years is a relatively short time to wait for a return on investment in a startup. Typically investors need to wait seven or eight years to pay back their LPs.

In Uber's case, it's not particularly easy for shareholders to get liquidity either.

Take this story, for example.

A tech executive relayed a friend's experience with Uber to Business Insider. The friend was trying to buy Uber shares from an early Uber investor and had struck a deal to purchase them. The early investor and the friend took the deal to Uber for approval, but the company shut it down.

"They brought it to Travis and he said, 'You can sell your stock, but only back to Uber at this price.'"

The price, this person claims, was heavily discounted off of Uber's valuation at the time.

Fortune's Dan Primack was told a similar story:

An early Uber employee thought that he had found a buyer for his vested stock, at $200 per share. But when his agent tried to seal the deal, Uber refused to sign off on the transfer. Instead, it offered to buy back the shares for around $135 a piece, which is within the same price range that Google Ventures and TPG Capital had paid to invest in Uber the previous July. Take it or hold it.

One reason Uber may be so protective of its stock is that other big tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google weren't, and it caused them issues later on.

In the case of Twitter, Chris Sacca, a billionaire investor, made a fortune when he somewhat sneakily bought up the majority outside stake. Before Twitter's IPO, Sacca reportedly created a few generically named investment vehicles and aggressively bought Twitter stock from early employees and investors on secondary markets.

Forbes' Alex Konrad describes the move as "accumulating the largest outside position in Twitter right under their noses."

Sacca, who invested an early $300,000 in Uber, reportedly tried the a similar approach with Travis Kalanick's company, but Kalanick found out and shut it down, according to Forbes.

However, we've heard that Uber was not upset about Sacca trying to buy shares, but trying to sell shares he'd already bought without following certain guidelines Uber had said out. Another Uber insider says the stock situation, while annoying to Kalanick, wasn't actually what drove Kalanick and Sacca apart, but declined to elaborate further.

Regardless, it's a good example of how tightly Uber controls its stock. "Travis wants to be in control, so when you do things behind his back he thinks he can't control you anymore and you're dead to him," one person familiar with the pair told Business Insider.

Uber has no problem admitting it's a control freak when it comes its stock.

"We have very strict transfer restrictions in place and pursue necessary means to ensure they are respected and to limit any fraudulent activity," an Uber spokesperson tells Business Insider. "The only way to invest in Uber is through Uber."

Sacca declined to comment for this story._


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

JHawk said:


> Here it is, found the article.....
> http://www.businessinsider.com/uber...luation-heres-how-thats-even-possible-2015-11


*Thanks for posting this*. 
(It was also posted in the NEWS section here on 12/16 by chi1cabby )

Again - before people all go getting their panties in a twist: It is common practice for privately held companies to put restrictions on their stock so they can control who owns what: the last thing a privately held company wants is to lose control of their company via proxy battles before they even go public. It's a story that's a 'non-story'.

When/if the company goes public, holders of the private shares will be able to exchange their shares for various classes of the public stock (preferred, class a , class b, etc.) and will then obtain whatever voting rights and rights of sale that come with those shares.


----------



## scrurbscrud

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-21/losing-3-commas-unicorns-heading-more-difficult-down-rounds


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

scrurbscrud said:


> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-21/losing-3-commas-unicorns-heading-more-difficult-down-rounds


nice piece - which shows that Uber shares (among many others on the list) 
are doing quite well compared to lessor, mere mortal unicorn shares.
So for Uber, the sky is not falling (yet).


----------



## scrurbscrud

Michael - Cleveland said:


> nice piece - which shows that Uber shares (among many others on the list)
> are doing quite well compared to lessor, mere mortal unicorn shares.
> So for Uber, the sky is not falling (yet).


The amazing part to me was in the attached chart showing all the startups valued over a billion after Uber. The observation the article writer put in play was "generally" that if the economy tightens up/divided by the number of companies chasing funds going forward this may put some pressure on common stockholders valuations, particularly if they go soft on performance/revenue targets-> and the all important additional funding rounds.

And yes, that could hit Uber as well, even though they are hanging in there in comparison to others. These situations are always fragile on the way to public market. Can be disasters after too.

Pretty sure the disclosures about legal actions and adverse lawsuit disclosures may be part of what could keep Uber out of the IPO space for a bit as well. Can see a lot of strategy problems for Uber in having to do that too early, til they finish a few gauntlets.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

scrurbscrud said:


> Pretty sure the disclosures about legal actions and adverse lawsuit disclosures may be part of what could keep Uber out of the IPO space for a bit as well. Can see a lot of strategy problems for Uber in having to do that too early, til they finish a few gauntlets.


TK has said publicly[1] that regardless of others talking about and pushing Uber for an IPO that he doesn't think the company is anywhere near ready or mature enough. His analogy was to say that Uber was a young company, still in Jr. High - with high-school graduation several years off.

Ah... I found the quote:
_"We're maturing as a company, but we're still like eighth graders," said Kalanick. 
"We're in junior high. And someone's telling us we need to go to the prom, 
but it's a little early. Give us a few years." _[1] Fortune Magazine 10/21/15​
Also, keep in mind that the Zerohedge article you cited is talking almost exclusively about public unicorns - companies that have gone public and now face the possibility of "shareholder infighting" (to quote the article) - and Kalanick doesn't have that problem (yet).


----------



## sellkatsell44

When u don't have ur sh together to go public what else do you say?


----------



## JHawk

If I'm reading that correctly (which is a big "if"), does that mean that there was a 136% difference in the price change metric between the "Series D" and "Series E" rounds for Uber? I know they've had several more rounds of financing since these in 2014, but seems like a big drop-off for a company that's supposed to be growing exponentially. 

On another note...anyone have any idea how the burn rates of these other "dead unicorns" compare to Uber, who seems to be burning at a pretty insane level? Considering how much financial "fuel" Uber seems to require, barring a change in the private equity landscape, a down round might be an inevitability for them. But then again, considering how "Uber-math" works, they could have a down round and probably figure out a way to spin in to make it sound like their valuation actually went up


----------



## scrurbscrud

Michael - Cleveland said:


> TK has said publicly that regardless of others talking about and pushing Uber for an IPO that he doesn't think the company is anywhere near ready or mature enough. His analogy was to say that Uber was a young company, still in Jr. High - with high-school graduation several years off.


I wouldn't disagree, but not for the reasons publicly pimped by TK or other Uber officials. Legal disclosure requirements alone mandated in the public sector would be a disaster for Uber at this stage on many levels. Would have to tell too many things. You can bet however that those currently on the inside know and are also keeping a legal lock on their lips. I'd be dying to see the money flows between Uber and James River for example.


----------



## scrurbscrud

JHawk said:


> *a down round might be an inevitability for them.*


Indeed. These are not always bad, but if it does happen as the article stated it could be a mini train wreck for founders and common stockholders in comparison to preferred's. Payback to preferred's can be severely detrimental if the down rounds were ugly enough. A lot of common stockholder chiefs could end up bailing.

My own guess is that Uber is using low fares in the hopes of greater cash flows to fund the operations rather than seeking more rounds. If the funding was that easy they'd just do it if it wasn't detrimental. But the bigger the funding gets, the more precarious it gets as well as the investors demands and pressures to go IPO also grow exponentially, so they can all cash in.

Burn rate problem trying to be solved if I was looking/guessing from the outside.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

JHawk said:


> If I'm reading that correctly (which is a big "if"), does that mean that there was a 136% difference in the price change metric between the "Series D" and "Series E" rounds for Uber?


That would be kind of like saying there was a 'change' between the cost of eggs and caviar:
Different share series have different values and different rights.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

scrurbscrud said:


> I wouldn't disagree, but not for the reasons publicly pimped by TK or other Uber officials. Legal disclosure requirements alone mandated in the public sector would be a disaster for Uber at this stage on many levels. Would have to tell too many things. You can bet however that those currently on the inside know and are also keeping a legal lock on their lips. I'd be dying to see the money flows between Uber and James River for example.


It will be fun to see the numbers some day.
I'm not a party to the group that sees some nefarious connection between Uber and James River. 
James River Group is a highly regulated, publicly traded insurance conglomerate.


----------



## JHawk

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That would be kind of like saying there was a 'change' between the cost of eggs and caviar:
> Different share series have different values and different rights.


Gotcha....makes perfect sense....hadn't thought about it that way


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

scrurbscrud said:


> Indeed. These are not always bad, but if it does happen as the article stated.


I missed that - did that article say that Uber was heading for a down round - or just imply that other companies _may_ be heading that way?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

scrurbscrud said:


> My own guess is that Uber is using low fares in the hopes of greater cash flows to fund the operations...


I don't see it that way.
Growth and expansion are expensive -
legal, regulatory and legislative battles are expensive.
None of that is part of 'operations'.
The cost to operate, maintain, expland their computer networks?
Pfff... miniscule (relatively speaking).
The cost to operate vehicles, hire drivers, pay for fuel, recrutiment of drivers?
ha! Doesn't exist - all that is paid for by the drivers!
Insurance? Paid for by riders/drivers!

I do not believe for one second that invesment funds are used for operations. Just my $0.02
I also think THAT is the reason Uber has no difficulty in raising capital.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

JHawk said:


> Actually the board of directors typically has the authority to fire the CEO. However in the case of most startups, the Founder/CEO is often a member of the board as well, and tends to stock the board with their friends/allies for protection. One case where that dynamic is upset is when early investors demand board seats as part of their investment. If the founder/CEO takes the company in a direction the investors think puts their capital at risk, the board can then vote to remove/replace the CEO with someone more aligned with their corporate perspective.


Don't miss the point that TwoFiddyMile was making: Uner is a PRIVATELY held company. And while most start-ups have to give up lots of cpontrol to get angel and intial fuinding, Uber didn't have to do that. Kalanick/Camp are the controlling share holders (unless someone has heard otherwise). People and companies are begging them for a piece of the pie... not the other way around.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

JHawk said:


> On another note...anyone have any idea how the burn rates of these other "dead unicorns" compare to Uber, ...


People can only guess at what Uber's real cash flow is from operations.
It is very hard to imagine that a cash burn is operations related. But I'll play along:
A few years before Uber started matching drivers with riders, a Boston company, called Care[dot]com came to maket matching parents with child care providers. It went public (CRCM) in January of 2014 at an IPO price of $17... which jumped to $29, bringing the company close to the unicorn level. They had annual revenues at that time of around $80m. And they had never shown a profit. Two years later, while the revenues are now around $130m, the company continues to burn through its cash at an alarming rate, to the tune of losing something like $28mil/yr. The stock now moves between $5.50 and $6.50. - and the company's market cap with 31.5mil share outstanding has gone from something like $750mil down to $189mil. If they can stop the cash burn and continue their growth, no doubt the share price will rebound. If they can't, then they will run out of cash and do whatever cashless companies do. Is Uber in that situation? Maybe... but I don't think so.


----------



## iheartuber

howo3579 said:


> Guys Uber might be running out of money but don't bet on it. Institutions love earnings and growth. They don't really care about profit. Check out Amazon's evaluation. They were operating at a loss until recently and every now and then, they still lose money in some qtrs as they're expanding other ventures.


That's the thing, though... Growth how? The demand from pax from what I can see has flattened. The growth of new drivers seems to have flattened too


----------



## iheartuber

Fuzzy1 said:


> Drivers are what built this company to whatever it is and whatever it is worth today. Drivers control the rates and the future of this company by what they "accept" and are willing to take. Drivers have a lot more power than they think. The problem is that those that drive don't realize that.


This only works if drivers could band together and stop driving. Problem is, most drivers don't have that luxury. They have to keep working to pay the bills


----------



## iheartuber

Michael - Cleveland said:


> IMnsHO, Uber chose 'this mess' to deal with in order to grow as rapidly as they have.
> The alternative would have been the long, slow path of negotiating regulatory issues city by city, state by state, country by country - and death by a thousand pin-pricks before they even got off the ground.
> 
> As obnoxious and frightening as it has been, the path chosen and how it was executed has thus far (from an investor's perspective) been proven brilliant.
> 
> Evil, but brilliant.


So then the screwing the drivers was the best way to rapid growth?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

iheartuber said:


> That's the thing, though... Growth how? The demand from pax from what I can see has flattened. The growth of new drivers seems to have flattened too


It's a very, very big world out there and with many years of change and innovation ahead.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that anecdotes from us peons has any relation to the world that multi-national, multi-billion $ corporations are dealing with.


----------



## scrurbscrud

Wonder no longer. Yeah, they are leaking cash aka a cash flow problem. These kinds of shortfalls can technically be absorbed as long as revenue is growing, which it is, but it does perhaps explain a lot about fare cutting to increase revenues. If that backfires on them, look out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-numbers-q3-2015-vs-2014-2016-1


----------



## backstreets-trans

scrurbscrud said:


> Wonder no longer. Yeah, they are leaking cash aka a cash flow problem. These kinds of shortfalls can technically be absorbed as long as revenue is growing, which it is, but it does perhaps explain a lot about fare cutting to increase revenues. If that backfires on them, look out.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-numbers-q3-2015-vs-2014-2016-1


If you read the full article it says they lost 1.7 billion in the first 3 quarters of 2015. That's more than Amazon ever lost in a year. They'll lose way over 2 billion for 2015. Those are scary numbers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

iheartuber said:


> So then the screwing the drivers was the best way to rapid growth?


Are you assuming that Uber ever cared about drivers?
Uber cares about one thing: growth.
Growth can only come from a good 'UX' - user experience.
If that means nicer cars, they'll get nicer cars.
If that means lower fares, then they'll get lower fares.
If that means fgaster pick-ups, then that means more drivers recruited.

Uber has proven that drivers are an expendable commodity...
and plans to replace as many of them as they can with computer equipped tin cans on wheels.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

scrurbscrud said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-numbers-q3-2015-vs-2014-2016-1


The article gets it WRONG:


> *Net revenue:* In the third quarter of 2015, Uber generated $498 million. That's more than the $495.3 million it generated in all of 2014, according to The Information. Net revenue measures the amount of money the company keeps after paying drivers their cut.


 Uber doesn't pay drivers. DRIVERS PAY UBER. 
At least that's what the Uber Driver Agreement says.
Which means that *NET REVENUE measures the amount that drivers pay Uber to use their app and for the riders' insurance*.


----------



## Teksaz

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Uber make more money with higher rates? Why the continuous cutting of rates other than the hope that the lower rates will increase ridership.


----------



## backstreets-trans

Teksaz said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Uber make more money with higher rates? Why the continuous cutting of rates other than the hope that the lower rates will increase ridership.


If you read the full article it sounds like they were trying to drive lyft out of business. With lyfts additional billion in funding that might backfire. Plus GM just started their own ride share called maven and are planning to lease cars at $6 per hour.


----------



## observer

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Our sneeze was a decade ago - and you may remembr the FED poured billions into the US economy to prop it up.
> Today - the market we exist in now - China's slow down and currency corrections (sneeze) are causing US markets to have a heart attack.


Just curious, do you think China as it is today will be around in 10 years, 20 years?

I'm thinking if Chinas leaders can't keep their people happy, it may break up into many smaller countries.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

observer said:


> Just curious, do you think China as it is today will be around in 10 years, 20 years?


Of course not - - it will be around as it is _THEN,_ 10 or 20 years from now...
just as the US will be!

If I had to guess (and that's all it would be - a guess)
I'd say that India with, it's incredible wealth disparity and a centuries outdated caste system, will see greater populous turmoil than China over the next decade or two.

There are 7.3 billion people in the world and 35% of them live in China or India.
Thanks to technology, modern education will not be limited to only the wealthiest among us.
China and India already know a thing or two about building computers and networks.

What do you think?


----------



## naplestom75

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


 That's usually what happens when you spend more money than you take in.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

The Qin (Chin) dynasty is over 3000 years old.
One thing it insists on is a unified China. 
Qin is going nowhere in 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years.


----------



## Silverstone

Hello together.
I don't know where or what you guys doing for living. But the turnover on drivers in a trucking company here in Canada shows numbers from 800 - 1,200 a year! I drove 7 years for my last company and new drivers showed up to tell me that something was wrong with me staying that long in one company. I'm originally from Germany. If I could stay 45 years in one company I would love to do that. But the turnover numbers here in North America scared the hell out of me. I always say that companies here should take off the doors because the employee's are faster gone then they come in. UBER is only a "volunteer" company. Volunteers sign up, show or don't show up. If anyone takes UBER serious as a work place, can't be taken serious.

Open books? ALDI is the biggest discounter/supermarket chain in Europe. Privately owned since the 1950's. Never ever showed books and makes billions every year. Google ALDI. They have also stores around the world.

If UBER has money to party and pay the drivers - that's more than most companies have these days. And if not. They can still sell their APP for a couple of billion dollars and party for the rest of their life. I'm sure that some super rich people still looking for new APP to make more money.


----------



## ATX 22

Silverstone said:


> Hello together.
> I don't know where or what you guys doing for living. But the turnover on drivers in a trucking company here in Canada shows numbers from 800 - 1,200 a year! I drove 7 years for my last company and new drivers showed up to tell me that something was wrong with me staying that long in one company. I'm originally from Germany. If I could stay 45 years in one company I would love to do that. But the turnover numbers here in North America scared the hell out of me. I always say that companies here should take off the doors because the employee's are faster gone then they come in. UBER is only a "volunteer" company. Volunteers sign up, show or don't show up. If anyone takes UBER serious as a work place, can't be taken serious.
> 
> Open books? ALDI is the biggest discounter/supermarket chain in Europe. Privately owned since the 1950's. Never ever showed books and makes billions every year. Google ALDI. They have also stores around the world.
> 
> If UBER has money to party and pay the drivers - that's more than most companies have these days. And if not. They can still sell their APP for a couple of billion dollars and party for the rest of their life. I'm sure that some super rich people still looking for new APP to make more money.


They are partying on the investors money. Lost a couple of billion dollars last year alone. Rapid overgrowth kills far more companies than slow growth. They're spending a ton on lobbyists and defense lawyers, too.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

backstreets-trans said:


> They probably hit a saturation point with the people who use taxi's. Now they lower the rate to go after the bus riders. The problem here is that most city bus companies are operating at a loss. They're going after the bus clients while us drivers absorb the losses.


If you missed it in the news, Uber just out-paced the use of rental cars among business travelers. (see article in the news section here)


----------



## ROYALSAVAGE

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


read this http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/facing-a-price-war-uber-bets-on-volume


----------



## artxxtreme

SECOTIME said:


> Their commission probably barely covers overhead and that SRF is probabaly put towards lawsuits , insurance and other misc payouts.
> 
> I can't see how they are valued at 50+ billion but like mark cuban said, "they can afford to get by on scraps for now because they are working on something much bigger that will come in the future"
> 
> Ie the autonomous ploy
> 
> I think shit is catching up with them though and its going to be make or break for them soon enough...
> 
> That Cali suit will inflict so much damage if they lose.
> 
> And that's just the beggining for ol goober


They use our cars as part of their valuation, so..think of a company that owns hundreds of thousands of cars all around the world making money for them
That's how they value their company at $60 billion and more.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

artxxtreme said:


> They use our cars as part of their valuation, so..think of a company that owns hundreds of thousands of cars all around the world making money for them
> That's how they value their company at $60 billion and more.


Do much corporate financial accounting work?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

artxxtreme said:


> They use our cars as part of their valuation, so..think of a company that owns hundreds of thousands of cars all around the world making money for them
> That's how they value their company at $60 billion and more.


Um...
No.


----------



## bobby747

i hope they go out of business, as CEO of uber just has to say to public we must charge a little xtra to give you that xtra great service with x black etc. so we can keep our quality drivers earning a fair wage with commerical ins. people in phila will pay.......i took a lyft customer to airport thur at 5 am. 
i said why did you get out of a lyft. the car was full of pot smell. you pay less you get less. 
i feel i have a good right to ad input as 5000+ trips last year in phila.
also jersey drivers here do they pay city tax?? delaware also. i got pa state inspection . pa plates. most out of state drivers dont know where most things are like wells fargo center. they get xtra cash to go the wrong way. thanks uber.


----------



## billybengal

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


You seriously can't think of any other reason why they are lowering prices? Wow! Well how 'bout they're trying to kill Lyft. Believe it or not there are costs associated with running this business. Insuring every driver, layers, lawsuits, employees around the country and actually outside the country too since they are in many countries, offices, vehicle inspections, servers and IT people, nice fat checks for Kallanik and all the top level people in the company, hiring costs ( background checks, advertisments, incentives to drivers for reffering new drivers, sign up bonuses to new drivers, guaranteed hourly pay in certain markets, lobbying and the freaking list goes on and on. You think the stupid safety fee will pay for all of that? Uber is burning cash faster that you can imagine at these rates. So why are they doing it? Obviously to kill Lyft. Lyft's pocket is maybe a 10th (just a guess) of what Uber's is. At these rates both companies are burning cash, which one do you think will run out of cash first?

Yes, lowering prices does increase demand to a point but at certain point lowering prices causes you to loose revenue and profit because your margin is too small comparing to your costs.


----------



## sellkatsell44

Teksaz said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Uber make more money with higher rates? Why the continuous cutting of rates other than the hope that the lower rates will increase ridership.


You're being subjected to market testing.

If uber could charge passengers $99/mile and not only sustain at that price point but grow, they'll do it. If demand gets even greater then that, they'll raise their prices.

If they're lowering it, what does that tell you?


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

iheartuber said:


> Just a thought-- if uber had made it a priority to take care of drivers... Would they still be in this mess?


Let's say you are Travis, and you can set the fare rates. What rates would you set for UberX, UberSelect, and UberXL that you think would take good care of the drivers? Rates and fees include base, per mile, per minute, min fare, and cancel fee, how many minutes before driver can collect cancel fee. Just wanted to know what is yours or others' views on what are considered good rates for drivers. And how can you as the CEO protect current drivers from new ones pulled in by the existing drivers (brothers, sisters, parents, children, cousins, best friends) if the rates allow FT drivers to earn, say, $45K per year.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

billybengal said:


> You seriously can't think of any other reason why they are lowering prices? Wow! Well how 'bout they're trying to kill Lyft. Believe it or not there are costs associated with running this business. Insuring every driver, layers, lawsuits, employees around the country and actually outside the country too since they are in many countries, offices, vehicle inspections, servers and IT people, nice fat checks for Kallanik and all the top level people in the company, hiring costs ( background checks, advertisments, incentives to drivers for reffering new drivers, sign up bonuses to new drivers, guaranteed hourly pay in certain markets, lobbying and the freaking list goes on and on. You think the stupid safety fee will pay for all of that? Uber is burning cash faster that you can imagine at these rates. So why are they doing it? Obviously to kill Lyft. Lyft's pocket is maybe a 10th (just a guess) of what Uber's is. At these rates both companies are burning cash, which one do you think will run out of cash first?
> 
> Yes, lowering prices does increase demand to a point but at certain point lowering prices causes you to loose revenue and profit because your margin is too small comparing to your costs.


Very good analysis Billy! Both companies overall (corporate level) are burning cash. Uber figures, might as well push Lyft to the brink and I can have all the markets all to myself.

Heck, it took Amazon about ten years before they turned in any annual profit.


----------



## Uberalex23

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


They are not doing anything new. These rate cuts is in no way shape or form suggests they are running out of money. They've done cuts on the same month for as long as they have existed. They make more money by getting more riders on the platform. By driving on a new rate is way of saying im loving a new rate.


----------



## ATX 22

Uberalex23 said:


> They make more money by getting more riders on the platform


Over $2 billion in losses in 2015. In what universe are they making money? The $60 billion valuation isn't cash on hand. They've raised about $4-6 billion in investment capital.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Uber will never turn a profit. 
Uber is designed to be sold to suckers, including their investors who are clearly suckers.


----------



## phillipzx3

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber will never turn a profit.
> Uber is designed to be sold to suckers, including their investors who are clearly suckers.


Their investors have money to burn after Bush gave them TARP. Goldman, B of A....the whole lot of them are laughing all the way to the.....bank?


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber will never turn a profit.
> Uber is designed to be sold to suckers, including their investors who are clearly suckers.


But nothing is impossible.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

phillipzx3 said:


> Their investors have money to burn after Bush gave them TARP. Goldman, B of A....the whole lot of them are laughing all the way to the.....bank?


Corporate welfare.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

phillipzx3 said:


> Their investors have money to burn after Bush gave them TARP. Goldman, B of A....the whole lot of them are laughing all the way to the.....bank?


Tomorrow, Uber can sell (private placement) a fifth of its shares. Takes the cash proceeds. Walks into half of the cities' local cab companies. Makes offers that they can't refuse. End of day owns half of the cab fleets in American major cities. These are cashflow positive real businesses. Dial down on new market development (cash hogs). Boom! That will make Uber profitable, with real net income.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

phillipzx3 said:


> Their investors have money to burn after Bush gave them TARP. Goldman, B of A....the whole lot of them are laughing all the way to the.....bank?


Outside UberLand...

The poor get social welfare. The rich get corporate welfare.

Inside UberLand...

The middle class Uber on.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


I heard it on the grapevine that Uber is losing something like 60 million a year or so


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

Oscar Levant said:


> I heard it on the grapevine that Uber is losing something like 60 million a year or so


If that is so, then Uber is ONLY bleeding out far less than 1% of their market value each year?!


----------



## Wheelman

Uber provided the following projections to CNBC recently. The revenue growth rate and earnings to revenue ratios are aggressive beyond belief. If you think the pressure on drivers is going to slack off, think again. 

2015 Rev=$1.8b, Earnings= ($431mm)
2016 Rev=$4.4b, Earnings= $167mm
2017 Rev=$22.7b, Earnings= $8.2b


----------



## ATX 22

Fantasy numbers. Typical of Uber.


----------



## backstreets-trans

Wheelman said:


> Uber provided the following projections to CNBC recently. The revenue growth rate and earnings to revenue ratios are aggressive beyond belief. If you think the pressure on drivers is going to slack off, think again.
> 
> 2015 Rev=$1.8b, Earnings= ($431mm)
> 2016 Rev=$4.4b, Earnings= $167mm
> 2017 Rev=$22.7b, Earnings= $8.2b


They need to keep spinning the positive because they need to hit investors up again. Once they get all the common folks 401k investment money then they'll all cash in and let the bubble burst. I saw it with the 90s dot com bubble then the housing bubble. Now the uber bubble.


----------



## bezi_NY

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


It's because it's(Uber) investing heavily into driverless cars. Other apps are coming and Uber is almost toast! Suppose an app comes out to unite every possible service for a 10% royalty, and with that app drivers really are independent and any car service could use it as well and possibly a "ride share option" you're on your own in regards to insurance and a insured and licensed option. Possibilities are endless here. What is shocking to me is that Uber got so many Institutional investors to begin with! Well then again, the dot com bubble didn't teach the lesson well enough I guess. lol


----------



## ABC123DEF

The sooner the bubble bursts...the better for all of us. It'll make for a great American Greed story.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

Wheelman said:


> Uber provided the following projections to CNBC recently. The revenue growth rate and earnings to revenue ratios are aggressive beyond belief. If you think the pressure on drivers is going to slack off, think again.
> 
> 2015 Rev=$1.8b, Earnings= ($431mm)
> 2016 Rev=$4.4b, Earnings= $167mm
> 2017 Rev=$22.7b, Earnings= $8.2b


Actually it's quite reasonable. Their projected tremendous increases in profitability will largely come from their not needing to spend the horrendous fixed cost amount of market development, not by taking more from drivers.

It is very common for software/technology firms with a market leading position in a established product market to command 25% to 40% of profit margins. Pick a few of those companies and review their 10-K's!


----------



## Wheelman

ClevelandUberRider said:


> Actually it's quite reasonable. Their projected tremendous increases in profitability will largely come from their not needing to spend the horrendous fixed cost amount of market development, not by taking more from drivers.
> 
> It is very common for software/technology firms with a market leading position in a established product market to command 25% to 40% of profit margins. Pick a few of those companies and review their 10-K's!


Uber lost nearly $1b in 1H'15 so that projection is saying they will make $500mm in 2H'15. (We will see.) The problem isn't the profit margin as an established company, it's the 1200% growth in two years as we enter a very nasty deflation recession.


----------



## Wheelman

bezi_NY said:


> It's because it's(Uber) investing heavily into driverless cars.


Explain to me how providing ALL the transportation equipment, fuel, maintenance, insurance, etc., etc. helps Uber's bottom line.


----------



## maui

ClevelandUberRider said:


> Actually it's quite reasonable. Their projected tremendous increases in profitability will largely come from their not needing to spend the horrendous fixed cost amount of market development, not by taking more from drivers.
> 
> It is very common for software/technology firms with a market leading position in a established product market to command 25% to 40% of profit margins. Pick a few of those companies and review their 10-K's!


Wow. What ever you are smoking... Keep it up. Would have expected you would have been from Denver.... "Dude... Dude... Dude... Uber is going to make like 10 kazillion dollars because drivers will PAY THEM TO DRIVE it is SO COOOOOL!"

Growth in revenues do not add up, given the amount of rides that would have to occur. Under present metrics, even if Uber were to boost SRF more and bump to 30%, they would still be lucky to grown revenue 400% in 2 years, let alone 1200%.

Secondly - Uber is in a race to the bottom for mediocrity. They have chosen a price war with Lyft and drivers are experiencing a high amount of turnover as well as a battle rages over the low end quality. As Uber has gotten super cheap, it has been ghetto-ized, (nothing racial) but super low fares generally means more complaints / issues.

Third. Pricing themselves out. People are seeing the shift in lower and lower referrals, but that can't last. Drivers are seeing tighter margins, learning more about lack of coverage, and most longer drivers will get the wake-up call as the miles rack up on their vehicles, as well as major service.

I think the two major rate cuts over the last 14 months will have a much larger effect as well issues will arise as quality drivers leave, and inexperienced / lower drivers make up the bulk of the service


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

(Edit: This post has been deleted by poster due to the poster's observation that it has created negative reaction from at least one other poster(s). The biggest reason I am posting is to share insights and knowledge that some may not have been exposed to or thought about so that they will benefit from that sharing. Obviously if at least one poster feels a negative reaction to it, it is only wise to delete the post. When good deeds are punished or not appreciated, likely the giver will pull back their giving.)


----------



## maui

ClevelandUberRider said:


> Some people when talking about a company they only see one product. UberX is bottom fishing. That doesn't mean Uber cannot have another product or in the future that is not bottom fishing.
> 
> This inability to recognize the fact that a company can (and they often do) have several to hundreds of products catering to different markets stems from people's experience in their own situation. Most of us work a W-2 job, or run our own business employing just ourselves or no more than several employees. So, they are unable to fathom how businessmen like Rupert Murdoch and Donakd Trump can run a conglomerate made up of hundreds of companies, with heads of these business units reporting to them thru respective division heads. They are also unable to fathom a news group can own, around the world, politically diverse newspapers and TV stations. They see corporations as standing for one product only, and want to define the companies thru that lens only.


Oh please.

Example. In Boston they have not accepted new UberBlack drivers in over a year, they do not have Select, etc. Uber may look to expand into other areas like delivery and the like, but again they have been pushing ever increasing price cuts. In general, especially if you look at something like eBay which did have phenomenal growth, fees always went UP, never massive cuts.

The risk on the Uber model, especially in terms of wear and tear, insurance, etc is carried primarily by the driver. As they have expanded, more and more are learning the hard lesson. While it does appear that TNC insurance may become available though extremely limited as such, more and more their is a push for regulation (requiring certification, commercial insurance) and other measures which increasingly impose more on the driver, especially where it comes to profitability. These measures slow growth, not skyrocket it


----------



## bezi_NY

Wheelman said:


> Explain to me how providing ALL the transportation equipment, fuel, maintenance, insurance, etc., etc. helps Uber's bottom line.


That's why I was rolling my eyes. lol because no one can explain it. The etc, etc, are endless! And at the moment they are all free to Uber. I have stated in previous posts dating back over a year that Ubers model is broken. Uber owns nothing more than an app and it will disappear with lightening speed! Imagine if they owned every vehicle they have on the road today? Their Valuation, would it more or less than it is today? Why is it that Santander is no longer doing deals with Uber? it's definitely not because Santander feels uber is a trustworthy partner.

Uber is a massive pump and dump to me and I've been saying it for over a year.


----------



## UberXTampa

bezi_NY said:


> Uber owns nothing more than an app and it will disappear with lightening speed!


Priceline owns nothing other than software assets. 
Uber is the same model. 
Willing drivers list their services through a middleman called Uber that tries to be "the market" for all transport needs. 
Uber must have a successful competition to keep it in check. 
Right now Uber is unchecked and their only focus is to break the prices of teh products they act as the middle man for in order to crush the competition and make it impossible to start a new one.


----------



## bezi_NY

Ok sounds great! Is Priceline trying to recruit pilots to buy their own planes and fly for pricline!with no insurance and no pilots license? Don't worry the GPS will do everything!


----------



## maui

UberXTampa said:


> Priceline owns nothing other than software assets.
> Uber is the same model.
> Willing drivers list their services through a middleman called Uber that tries to be "the market" for all transport needs.
> Uber must have a successful competition to keep it in check.
> Right now Uber is unchecked and their only focus is to break the prices of the products they act as the middle man for in order to crush the competition and make it impossible to start a new one.


Yeah. Priceline. Not so much.

Priceline brokers services that are normally available through a retail channel at a discount.

Now SOME Uber drivers are this, where they normally offer a car for hire service and will drive or accept Uber fares for utilization.

Priceline vendors also have the right insurance, licensing, etc for their business, where Uber generally sits in the gray area as referenced by drivers getting ticketed for doing Uber, or people losing their insurance coverage when found they drive.

Jane UberX driver is not normally in the business of car for hire
Jane UberX driver does not have the normal commercial insurance.

Priceline also allows for a NEGOTIATION. Uber TELLS YOU what you get paid.

Now if Priceline said.... Hey Ritz Carlton, you will offer a Queen Suite in NYC for $250 a night and if you don't accept enough lodgers we will drop you from our service.


----------



## bezi_NY

http://www.businessinsider.com/east-hampton-montauk-uber-drivers-could-face-jail-time-2015-6

Couldn't find a Priceline hotel worker arrested for doing Priceline or for selling something on ebay


----------



## William1964

I guess they're still losing money. But they got a referral program works for them 2400 bucks each from what I've been reading.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/tax-breaks-employers-hire-felons-14421.html


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

William1964 said:


> I guess they're still losing money. But they got a referral program works for them 2400 bucks each from what I've been reading.
> 
> http://smallbusiness.chron.com/tax-breaks-employers-hire-felons-14421.html


With UberX rates where they are at, it is very difficult not to lose money.


----------



## Reddy

uberparadise said:


> Hookers and drugs cost a lot. Uber is partying like an out of control Frat House. Why would Travis spend time in Thailand? These guys are out of control. Strippers, drug parties, lavish lifestyles, it's in their culture.


Hahahahaha

Travis went on a sex vacation to Thailand! What else.....please do tell. hahahaha

Uber On!


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

Reddy said:


> Hahahahaha
> 
> Travis went on a sex vacation to Thailand! What else.....please do tell. hahahaha
> 
> Uber On!


I have been to Thailand. Anyone who is standing on a street in Bangkok will immediately think to him/herself: We need Uber/Lyft here more than anywhere else. It is one of the most, if not the most, congested cities in the world.

I check Uber fare rates in Bangkok a moment ago and used mental calculations and bestimated these: (they have two options only) UberX at about 20 cents per mile, and UberBlack at about 60 cents a mile.

I hope Travis doesn't get any wrong ideas.


----------



## Jim K

Kalee said:


> I have worked for companies that I have not cared for - but I have _never _wished for their non-existence as I do with Uber.


There is a big reason why Uber will succeed -- passengers lover the service - who wouln't when the rides are better than a taxi, the drivers usually speak English and it costs about 50% of a taxi ride.


----------



## Kalee

Jim K said:


> There is a big reason why Uber will succeed -- passengers lover the service - who wouln't when the rides are better than a taxi, the drivers usually speak English and it costs about 50% of a taxi ride.


The rides are getting worse than taxis. The citizens that own the cars (uber doesn't) are no longer earning enough to maintain their cars. Customers don't realize they're riding on bald tires, failing brakes and vehicles that are not properly insured. Drivers are driving 16 hours a day. Uber has turned this thing into a potential death ride for customers.
50% less than a taxi? Get off the shrooms, my friend. The per mile cost of a taxi is $3 -$3.25 per mile. The average per mile cost of uber is 80¢. Uber drivers are making far less than minimum wage. I bet you tip your waiter/waitress and bar tender every time. But you've probably never tipped an UBER driver a dime. 
You sound like someone that has a lot to lose when Uber fails.


----------



## ATX 22

Jim K said:


> There is a big reason why Uber will succeed -- passengers lover the service - who wouln't when the rides are better than a taxi, the drivers usually speak English and it costs about 50% of a taxi ride.


Surge
Depressed fares
China
India
Lawsuits
Regulation

Travis is so short sighted in his quest to eliminate the driver, he has alienated the very people who made it popular. Keep riding UberX, but understand that you won't see the same cars you did even just a year ago. Some markets allow 15 year old cars, and plenty of them are junkers with smelly drivers, which is what you were trying to avoid by taking Uber. 
Regular clients who take trips that are $5-10 really hate paying $50-100 for the same ride, and even though the system warns them, they will look for other alternatives after being burned.
Lawyers, lobbyists and politicians cost a lot to try to maintain zero regulation. 
Regulation is coming, and when it does, Uber will lose thousands upon thousands of drivers who cannot afford to meet state mandated insurance requirements. 
Uber has poured billions of dollars into China and India and have barely gotten a toehold of market share. They also have gigantic problems in Europe now, too, having been kicked out of several countries and their French operations manager and another high ranking official face prison time for ...wait for it... refusing to operate within local law.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

ClevelandUberRider said:


> I have been to Thailand. Anyone who is standing on a street in Bangkok will immediately think to him/herself: We need Uber/Lyft here more than anywhere else. It is one of the most, if not the most, congested cities in the world.
> 
> I check Uber fare rates in Bangkok a moment ago and used mental calculations and bestimated these: (they have two options only) UberX at about 20 cents per mile, and UberBlack at about 60 cents a mile.
> 
> I hope Travis doesn't get any wrong ideas.


Explain how Uber would help congestion. I happen to think it increases it.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

One Uber car typically does 5-10 trips per day, if not more. An average car in the world does less than that per day. End of response to this topic.

Unrelated to this post or your post, I am just mentioning it here so that those interested may look it up--An interesting article (only about a thousand to a thousand and a half words, semi-long form article) in the WSJ within the last two weeks (I read the hard copy so I don't know the link to provide here) solely about their survey(s)' results about the millennials' attitude towards car ownership and driving (maybe someone trained in starting a thread should start one, as this explains several trends in the TNC industry--a large percentage of TNC riders being millennials, increasing numbers are millennials, why some of them are less respectful of people who actually own and drive cars than older passengers, why they slam doors etc.). Quite interesting to me are the findings that A, the millennials don't enjoy owning or driving cars the way previous generations did at their age or now, B, arising from A, they actually don't do those two things as much as previous generations anymore.


----------



## uberparadise

Reddy said:


> Hahahahaha
> 
> Travis went on a sex vacation to Thailand! What else.....please do tell. hahahaha
> 
> Uber On!


Wonder if he tips?


----------



## uberparadise

Reddy said:


> Hahahahaha
> 
> Travis went on a sex vacation to Thailand! What else.....please do tell. hahahaha
> 
> Uber On!


. The Ladies of the night say "that guy from UBER never tips any of us no matter how good we treat him" not even a stinking dollar. What a cheap jerk!


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

All complaints and time and gigabytes wasted on talking about tips can be avoided if all services come with a mandatory 20% tips automatically charged on the bill.


----------



## Wheelman

ClevelandUberRider said:


> All complaints and time and gigabytes wasted on talking about tips can be avoided if all services come with a mandatory 20% tips automatically charged on the bill.


That sure would eliminate complaints but then it's not a gratuity. What they need to do is put a screen in the rider app that allows the rider an opportunity to place an optional tip on their credit card as part of the close out process.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

A lot of patrons of businesses actually do what I do. We still tip normally when service is bad, but we make very sure we are never served by the same person again. That works out well for both parties for the most part because no one feels too angry about anything and no one will have to deal with someone they don't want to deal with anymore. And, another nice thing is, no debate on this is further warranted. 

And yes, even with a 20% tip built into the bill, I would surmise about 25%-50% of customers will still tip on top of that, due either to personal habit or appreciation for the service workers' good work.


----------



## maui

ClevelandUberRider said:


> One Uber car typically does 5-10 trips per day, if not more. An average car in the world does less than that per day. End of response to this topic.
> 
> Unrelated to this post or your post, I am just mentioning it here so that those interested may look it up--An interesting article (only about a thousand to a thousand words, semi-long form article) in the WSJ within the last two weeks (I read the hard copy so I don't know the link to provide here) solely about their survey(s) results about attitude towards car ownership and driving (maybe someone trained in starting a thread should start one, as this explains several trends in the TNC industry--a large percentage of TNC riders being millennials, increasing numbers are millennials, why some of them are less respectful of people who actually own and drive cars than older passengers, why they slam doors etc.). Quite interesting to me are the findings that A, they don't enjoy owning or driving cars the way previous generations did at their age or now, B, arising from A, they actually don't do those two things as much as previous generations anymore.


I had seen that as well as that effects more industries as a whole - Millenials will spend $800 on a night out, but not on better clothes. The fashion industry is another being hit hard. The incredibly high end does well, but the middle of the road is getting crushed.


----------



## Greguzzi

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Cramer is a joke in the investment community.
> Lemmings follow Cramer's picks...
> http://consumerist.com/2008/12/23/*jim-cramers-advice-slightly-worse-than-a-coin-toss*/
> http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/09/29/*jim-cramer-gives-worst-investing-advice-ever*/
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/*a-statistical-look-at-jim-cramers-skill-level*/
> http://caps.fool.com/player/*trackjimcramer.aspx*
> ... I'm bored - you can find the scores of other reports via google.


This. He and CNBC are bad jokes.


----------



## Greguzzi

JHawk said:


> This was one of the more subtle themes in the "Social Network" movie which apparently has been a bit of a rallying cry for the current generation of founder/CEO startups. Sean Parker was ousted from Plaxo after starting the company because the VC 's wanted a more seasoned, experienced, business based CEO running the operation built on the back of Parker's ideas. Several other stories from that same time period in the early 2000's where the VC's pushed around the startup creators in favor of more "established" management, and the scene with Parker/Zukerberg in the night club is "line in the sand" moment that the current group of "brogrammers" idolizes. They're not going to be pushed around and set themselves up in ways to protect their management interests, regardless of whether they are suitably equipped to actually manage and grow the results of their initial ideas.
> 
> Actually the board of directors typically has the authority to fire the CEO. However in the case of most startups, the Founder/CEO is often a member of the board as well, and tends to stock the board with their friends/allies for protection. One case where that dynamic is upset is when early investors demand board seats as part of their investment. If the founder/CEO takes the company in a direction the investors think puts their capital at risk, the board can then vote to remove/replace the CEO with someone more aligned with their corporate perspective.


Yep. When I hear that Jeff Bezos and others like him are bailing out, then I'll believe there is a problem. Until then, LOL.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

maui said:


> I had seen that as well as that effects more industries as a whole - Millenials will spend $800 on a night out, but not on better clothes. The fashion industry is another being hit hard. The incredibly high end does well, but the middle of the road is getting crushed.


You are right. The middle-class supposedly hip brands that target teen-to-millennials have been having a hard time in the last several years, being unable to enjoy the kind of strong "hold" on their target customers like they used to just ten years ago. Personally though I prefer the millennials (or any other age groups) to spread their money in the local service industry, benefiting the underpaid but hardworking local service industry workers, for example restaurant and bar workers (especially those in the kitchen). At least half of spending at comedy clubs and movie and stage theaters stay local. Whereas at the mall, a large percentage of the merchandise spending actually leaves town.


----------



## sellkatsell44

maui said:


> I had seen that as well as that effects more industries as a whole - Millenials will spend $800 on a night out, but not on better clothes. The fashion industry is another being hit hard. The incredibly high end does well, but the middle of the road is getting crushed.


Actually millennial will spend $800 (or more) on clothes and fashion. Not your typical one, but there are those who follow fashion; and is hardcore. And if they're Asian, usually can spend.

Fashion took a hit like everyone else once the market tanked but afterwards there was nothing exciting enough to rejuvenate it back. I mean, Rick Owen still made the same damn wedges in different variations afterwards, along with his signature leather jacket. Nothing so new, new. Ann Demeulemeester same. Dries van noten, while not recycling, wasn't exciting. MMM--same tabi shoes, brand kind of diluted and everyone knew by then the faceless designer hasn't been in realm for a few seasons. Alexander McQueen died.

But also, folks weren't spending as much for the pieces that weren't classic. It's natural, human nature. When recession hits, you either want to save your pennies one of two ways (because you need to material goods for one reason or another eventually): 1) Rock bottom sales or 2) buying something expensive BUT will last so long that the wear and cost of it is cheaper in the long run then #1.

So, naturally brands like Hermes still saw profit and LV (which never goes on 'sale', assuring folks they're not going to be spending more then needed because nothing sucks more then buying something and seeing it on sale later) as well.

Fashion brands had to struggle to decide whether to up their prices or sacrifice the quality as the $ of doing business went up (as usual), but the demand obviously isn't meeting the inflation.

Since then, fashion has been operating at a steady beat but nothing so far to jumpstart and create a frenzy. Fashion is suppose to be exciting; an emotional state.

That and the rise of Instagram bloggers.


----------



## sellkatsell44

I say this as a shopaholic, and I want to buy buy buy but not much makes my heart stutter and my hand itch.

Although there are some Japanese brands/collab like soloist but some things are hard to get your hands on and I don't have the connections  and patience to hunt and wait like others 

But anyone remember how seven jeans were "it" and then a zillion other brands followed once seven became a bit outplayed (with everyone's mom). Then you had the next level, the couple hundred, dry denim...


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

Greguzzi said:


> This. He and CNBC are bad jokes.


I don't watch Kramer much. Maybe twice in two years, tops. His is not my taste. I wouldn't want to be in the same room with him even for one minute. BUT, facts are facts:

Kramer has the mass market appeal. To appeal to the largest possible mass market, any company, individual, good or service have to find the most basic common denominator. Sex. Violence. Canned jokes. Instant gratification. Superficial. Simplistic. And don't forget this very important combo--ignorance and stupidity.

The higher up the intelligence food chain you go in your product offering, the less audience you will get, and the more stupid people you will offend along the way.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

sellkatsell44 said:


> I say this as a shopaholic, and I want to buy buy buy but not much makes my heart stutter and my hand itch.
> 
> Although there are some Japanese brands/collab like soloist but some things are hard to get your hands on and I don't have the connections  and patience to hunt and wait like others
> 
> But anyone remember how seven jeans were "it" and then a zillion other brands followed once seven became a bit outplayed (with everyone's mom). Then you had the next level, the couple hundred, dry denim...


The sad thing about our borrow-and-spend economy (individuals do it, governments do it, everybody is doing it, so it is okay!) is....

Consumers go buy buy buy (hapless drivers take loan and get a brand new UberSUV), pretty soon it's bye bye! (SUV repo'ed).


----------



## Greguzzi

scrurbscrud said:


> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-21/losing-3-commas-unicorns-heading-more-difficult-down-rounds


Never make the mistake of listening to "Tyler Durden" or zerohedge about anything.


----------



## sellkatsell44

ClevelandUberRider said:


> The sad thing about our borrow-and-spend economy (individuals do it, governments do it, everybody is doing it, so it is okay!) is....
> 
> Consumers go buy buy buy (hapless drivers take loan and get a brand new UberSUV), pretty soon it's bye bye! (SUV repo'ed).


That's actually the problem I have with the economy melt down of 08. It's obviously super complicated but it boils down to:

greedy investment bankers that game the system through loopholes

AND

Individuals who took on more then they can chew and spent more then they make because no one taught them that 1) nothing is truly free and 2) if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is and if they were taught that, then they choose to ignore it anyways and get in bed with the investment bankers

If you weren't the former, or latter; then you're the one that ultimately got screwed by the two.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

sellkatsell44 said:


> That's actually the problem I have with the economy melt down of 08. It's obviously super complicated but it boils down to:
> 
> greedy investment bankers that game the system through loopholes
> 
> AND
> 
> Individuals who took on more then they can chew and spent more then they make because no one taught them that 1) nothing is truly free and 2) if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is and if they were taught that, then they choose to ignore it anyways and get in bed with the investment bankers
> 
> If you weren't the former, or latter; then you're the one that ultimately got screwed by the two.


I can see savers getting screwed by the first group. But how are savers screwed by the latter group (the buy buy buy and then bye bye, spendthrift crowd)? Through higher taxes to fund their bankruptcy and debts?


----------



## Greguzzi

ClevelandUberRider said:


> Let's say you are Travis, and you can set the fare rates. What rates would you set for UberX, UberSelect, and UberXL that you think would take good care of the drivers? Rates and fees include base, per mile, per minute, min fare, and cancel fee, how many minutes before driver can collect cancel fee. Just wanted to know what is yours or others' views on what are considered good rates for drivers. And how can you as the CEO protect current drivers from new ones pulled in by the existing drivers (brothers, sisters, parents, children, cousins, best friends) if the rates allow FT drivers to earn, say, $45K per year.


Pardon me, really, because I like you, but you are ascribing your vision of reason to what Uber is doing. But Uber will not follow anyone's idea of rationality or rules or fair play.

See, Uber considers its riders a liability, and at the same time a pool of fools to be taken advantage of to win the company market hegemony, not an asset. Just let that sink in. Because it is the truth and the key to understanding what the company is up to.

Uber wants to kill off-in order of importance-1) the cab industry, 2) Lyft, and 3) any other potential competitors who might spring up.

To do that, Uber needs only enough capital to crush those competitors while absorbing what losses it can't avoid, because the company's business model is built around shifting onto the shoulders of its drivers the true costs of crushing off the competition. Uber has probably explained just that to its financiers, and these financiers see the evil genius in the plan and have rewarded Travis and Co. with a credit card for $60 billion.

That's why they are cutting the rates everywhere they can get away with cutting the rates, and raising the SRF everywhere they can get away with it. It's all about wrecking the competition and putting them out of business, at minimal cost to the company. We as drivers are all complicit in this plan, as are the passengers. It's going to upend hundreds of thousands of lives, in the taxi, auto, and many other industries.

And once they have used all of us and our cars (without really paying for either of those things) to obtain this hegemony, Uber intends to replace all of us with autonomous cars and fire our asses.

That is what is going on, here.


----------



## sellkatsell44

ClevelandUberRider said:


> I can see savers getting screwed by the first group. But how are savers screwed by the latter group (the buy buy buy and then bye bye, spendthrift crowd)? Through higher taxes to fund their bankruptcy and debts?


Takes two to tangle.

If the investment bankers didn't have someone lined up to do those mortgages; and take out the money to buy additional properties; or take out the money to spend, or even just taking on more then what they can pay--

That's my take on it.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

Greguzzi said:


> Pardon me, really, because I like you, but you are ascribing your vision of reason to what Uber is doing. But Uber will not follow anyone's idea of rationality or rules or fair play.
> 
> See, Uber considers its riders a liability, and at the same time a pool of fools to be taken advantage of to win the company market hegemony, not an asset. Just let that sink in. Because it is the truth and the key to understanding what the company is up to.
> 
> Uber wants to kill off-in order of importance-1) the cab industry, 2) Lyft, and 3) any other potential competitors who might spring up.
> 
> To do that, Uber needs only enough capital to crush those competitors while absorbing what losses it can't avoid, because the company's business model is built around shifting onto the shoulders of its drivers the true costs of crushing off the competition. Uber has probably explained just that to its financiers, and these financiers see the evil genius in the plan and have rewarded Travis and Co. with a credit card for $60 billion.
> 
> That's why they are cutting the rates everywhere they can get away with cutting the rates, and raising the SRF everywhere they can get away with it. It's all about wrecking the competition and putting them out of business, at minimal cost to the company. We as drivers are all complicit in this plan, as are the passengers. It's going to upend hundreds of thousands of lives, in the taxi, auto, and many other industries.
> 
> And once they have used all of us and our cars (without really paying for either of those things) to obtain this hegemony, Uber intends to replace all of us with autonomous cars and fire our asses.
> 
> That is what is going on, here.


I like you too Greg, and enjoy exchanging posts with you. I agree with roughly 50%-70% of what your posts say, and not with the other 30%-50%. And that is fine, as we are able to agree to disagree. None of us have ever told the other one to might as well go begging at a city intersection with a homemade cardboard or say things like this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, the last phrase of which BTW I have rarely heard a millennial or Gen X say. I like your writing style too. You don't seem to be intimidated, threatened, or feel condescended to by my posts. Like the majority of people who have self confidence, you probably read my posts and say to yourself, man, what a nerd! He/she can't survive one day in high school with bullies and mean girls! Correct? (Which is the opposite of feeling threatened or condescended to) But that is not what a small minority of baby boomers feel. My guess is you are Gen X. (Disclaimer to certain people who are NOT supposed to waste their time reading my posts: Before you go, "Hey you are pigeonholing Mr. Greg here! Stop it!" I need to emphasize that this is purely an out of the blue fun guess only.)


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

sellkatsell44 said:


> Takes two to tangle.
> 
> If the investment bankers didn't have someone lined up to do those mortgages; and take out the money to buy additional properties; or take out the money to spend, or even just taking on more then what they can pay--
> 
> That's my take on it.


If there are less spendthrift types who borrow and spend, there will be less profits for the investment bankers who reprocess and repackage the financial sausages many times, each time taking a certain percentage cut.

How is that going to harm the savers who are not either of these two groups?


----------



## Greguzzi

ClevelandUberRider said:


> I like you too Greg, and enjoy exchanging posts with you. I agree with roughly 50%-70% of what your posts say, and not with the other 30%-50%. And that is fine, as we are able to agree to disagree. None of us have ever told the other one to might as well go begging at a city intersection with a homemade cardboard or say things like this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, the last phrase of which BTW I have rarely heard a millennial or Gen X say. I like your writing style too. You don't seem to be intimidated, threatened, or feel condescended to by my posts. Like the majority of people who have self confidence, you probably read my posts and say to yourself, man, what a nerd! He/she can't survive one day in high school with bullies and mean girls! Correct? (Which is the opposite of feeling threatened or condescended to) But that is not what a small minority of baby boomers feel. My guess is your are Gen X. (Disclaimer to certain people who are NOT supposed to waste their time reading my posts: Before you go, "Hey you are pigeonholing Mr. Greg here! Stop it!" I need to emphasize that this is purely an out of the blue fun guess only.)


I am of what great band The Replacements called the "Bastards of Young" generation-neither baby-boomer nor Gen X. I wouldn't consider you a nerd. You seem to have a good sense of things.


----------



## AintWorthIt

Greguzzi said:


> Never make the mistake of listening to "Tyler Durden" or zerohedge about anything.


Why's that? Zerohedge is the most honest financial site on the web.


----------



## scrurbscrud

Greguzzi said:


> Never make the mistake of listening to "Tyler Durden" or zerohedge about anything.


I've read the site for several years and have zero issues with their content. It's usually a conglomerate of various people in the financial industry. I respect the opinions and facts found there.


----------



## Greguzzi

AintWorthIt said:


> Why's that? Zerohedge is the most honest financial site on the web.


No, it is not. It's one of many National Enquirer-esque tabloid-style blogs feigning insider knowledge that it does not have. But YMMV.


----------



## scrurbscrud

Greguzzi said:


> No, it is not. It's one of many National Enquirer-esque tabloid-style blogs feigning insider knowledge that it does not have. But YMMV.


Maybe you lost some money believing the precious metals pimping sections?


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

Greguzzi said:


> No, it is not. It's one of many National Enquirer-esque tabloid-style blogs feigning insider knowledge that it does not have. But YMMV.


The more different they are, the more they are the same...
It has always been....
Buy! Buy! Buy! 
Then....
Bye bye!


----------



## rld0220

No I didn't read any of the replies..

Long story short.. they are preparing for an IPO deal.

The company will go public later this year.. owners will cash out right before congress is about to step in and regulate rates.

I'm sure these guys had an exit strategy the moment they figured out this was going to be a way for them to make billions.. lowering rates the way they have is part of that strategy. Best bet is to keep your driver account in good standing and wait for the company to go public.. the rates will get raised to a livable wage and you will be grandfathered in and not have to jump through hoops that new drivers will have to once the deal in complete.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider

rld0220 said:


> No I didn't read any of the replies..
> 
> Long story short.. they are preparing for an IPO deal.
> 
> The company will go public later this year.. owners will cash out right before congress is about to step in and regulate rates.
> 
> I'm sure these guys had an exit strategy the moment they figured out this was going to be a way for them to make billions.. lowering rates the way they have is part of that strategy. Best bet is to keep your driver account in good standing and wait for the company to go public.. the rates will get raised to a livable wage and you will be grandfathered in and not have to jump through hoops that new drivers will have to once the deal in complete.


Well said.


----------



## itsablackmarket

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


Obviously. Who even questions that this is what's happening?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

rld0220 said:


> No I didn't read any of the replies..
> 
> Long story short.. they are preparing for an IPO deal.
> 
> The company will go public later this year.. owners will cash out right before congress is about to step in and regulate rates.
> 
> I'm sure these guys had an exit strategy the moment they figured out this was going to be a way for them to make billions.. lowering rates the way they have is part of that strategy. Best bet is to keep your driver account in good standing and wait for the company to go public.. the rates will get raised to a livable wage and you will be grandfathered in and not have to jump through hoops that new drivers will have to once the deal in complete.


Fantasy.


----------



## rld0220

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Fantasy.


Quite possible.. but I am sure they are thinking exit strategy by now.. I can't think of any other reason to keep lowering the rates.

They want to pummel Lyft into submission before going public.. that is the only thing that would explain the moves they have made.


----------



## everythingsuber

rld0220 said:


> Quite possible.. but I am sure they are thinking exit strategy by now.. I can't think of any other reason to keep lowering the rates.
> 
> They want to pummel Lyft into submission before going public.. that is the only thing that would explain the moves they have made.


No they need to be showing a profit before going public. Could be they know they can't make a profit while Lyft lives but they simply don't have the resources to kill Lyft off. What they will do at best is wipe out equity that uber may have at present.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

rld0220 said:


> Quite possible.. but I am sure they are thinking exit strategy by now.. I can't think of any other reason to keep lowering the rates.
> 
> They want to pummel Lyft into submission before going public.. that is the only thing that would explain the moves they have made.


My exit strategy would be selling.
IPO is going to expose them as the frauds they are.


----------



## KevinH

If Uber had $4.1B in cash last summer and raised $2.1B in the latest round announced in December, then they had $6.2 to spend since summer. They are on track to lose somewhere between $2.5-3.3B in 2015.
Perhaps Uber' growth rate peaked in the 3rd quarter:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uber.com


----------



## Red955i

Travis says Uber is NOT a car service they are a technology company (app) and therefore they don't have to play by taxis rules. Travis then says when driverless cars become available he will buy 500,000 of them. That would make him (for sure) a taxis company. Its a huge game. Driver's feel powerless against them and while they picket, its merely a small itch to Uber. The only way drivers can regain their power, as Uber is worthless without drivers, is for drivers to plan coordinated "black outs". Not everyone will picket, not everyone can afford to give up a day's pay as small as the pay may be. But, get NYC drivers to turn off app on a specific day from (you pick the hours..for example) 8am till 10am and Uber will take notice. Get the to spread across the USA and world and investors will get the message. Everyone can give up 2 hours a week and Uber can't do anything as they say you can drive when you want.


----------



## KevinH

Uber has not released 2015 Q3 gross revenue figures but has released their net figure. One anonymous source said the Q3 ride count was up 40% over Q2. But perhaps the rate cuts have cut their income growth.

2015 Net Income
Q1 287.3m
Q2 375.8m 30% increase over Q1
Q3 498m 33% increase over Q2

2015 Gross Income
Q1 1.499m
Q2 2.131m 42% increase over Q1
Q3 (extrapolated) 2.726m 28% increase over Q2

The Q3 gross was calculated using the 18% net income from gross ratio from Q2. If that increased to 20% because of higher driver commissions and SRFs then that gross figure drops to 2.490m and a Q2-Q3 increase of only 17%. Going from 42% increase to 17% increase is significant.

Also given that Uber had $4.1b on hand at the end of June and lost $697m in Q3 and maybe $800m in Q4 and also contributed $500m of its own money into the China funding round last fall, then maybe the $4.1 was diminished by $2,7m, leaving only $1.4m in the kitty at the end of the year.
Another thing, Uber' net income increased 33% Q2-Q3 but their net loss only increased 17%. Perhaps their net is getting closer to covering their back office expenses. But they have a lot of add expense in autonomous vehicle research and rolling out all the food and package delivery services, so it will be interesting to see what Q4 holds.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

If they were running out of money they would raise the rates. It's that simple. Right now the goal is to put the taxi cabs out of business. Then they can raise the rates. 

I have a 10-1 ratio of trips per hour of Uber to Lyft. They could raise the rates and still get more trips vs Lyft but they don't want to.


----------



## howo3579

everythingsuber said:


> No they need to be showing a profit before going public. Could be they know they can't make a profit while Lyft lives but they simply don't have the resources to kill Lyft off. What they will do at best is wipe out equity that uber may have at present.


no they don't. They just need to show their earning increases q to q.


----------



## john djjjoe

Bob Reynolds said:


> Is it possible that Uber is running out of money? I know valuation figures of 60 billion have been thrown around and that sounds like they are really rolling in the dough.
> 
> Because Uber is a private company, no one has access to their actual accounting figures, financial statements and bank account balances.
> 
> It is possible that the reason Uber dropped the rates is because they need to generate a lot of cash quickly?
> 
> Remember the more rides that Uber gets--the more money that Uber makes. They make the SRF on every fare no matter how little the fare is.
> 
> I can't think of another reason Uber would make such a bone headed move and drop fares below the cost to provide the service.
> 
> Do you think Uber is low on money?
> 
> Uber raised investment money in August 2015 and again in October 2o15. The last investment money came from Microsoft.
> 
> Uber seems to be running out of institutional investors. Now Uber is targeting high net worth individuals though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch at $250,000 minimum investment per person. However they aren't releasing any financial statements. It's just a bunch of fluff.
> 
> Why would they go to individuals at $250,000 each when they have been getting a billion dollars from institutional investors in the past?
> 
> The only answer could be that the institutional investors have wised up to what is really going on here.
> 
> This could also explain the increase in the safe rider fee and the increase in commission take from the drivers.


They have plenty of liquidity. Their financial statements are widely held across investors and bank groups and portions have been leaked at points.


----------



## Bob Reynolds

uberdriverfornow said:


> If they were running out of money they would raise the rates. It's that simple. Right now the goal is to put the taxi cabs out of business. Then they can raise the rates.
> 
> I have a 10-1 ratio of trips per hour of Uber to Lyft. They could raise the rates and still get more trips vs Lyft but they don't want to.


Uber did raise their rates two ways.

The SRF went up in every market. It was a $1 in every market. It is now at least 70% more in every market. That number went directly to Uber while bypassing the drivers.

Uber raised their commission on X to 25% from 20%.

The bottom line is Uber is now taking up to 49% of the rider fares. That is a raise in rates for Uber.


----------



## Bob Reynolds

john djjjoe said:


> They have plenty of liquidity. Their financial statements are widely held across investors and bank groups and portions have been leaked at points.


If that were true, they would not have to keep raising money and giving away equity. This company has raised over 6 billion dollars over the past 13 months. The most recent being in January 2016 where they raised another 2 billion. Most of this money has been from the Chinese. Uber is not working in China. They are getting killed by the competition (Didi Kuaidi) there.

The domestic money raised consisted of 1.6 billion in convertible DEBT financing in January 2015 from Goldman Sachs and 1 billion from Microsoft in July 2015. The rest was foreign money. Uber is having an almost impossible time raising domestic US money now. The US guys with the money have wised up and see this thing for what it really is.

It's so bad that Uber is now trying to get retail high net worth individuals to invest money in Uber though Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch.

Uber has enough critical mass to stand on its own with proper management. But it appears there isn't anyone at the helm actually interested in running a transportation company. Instead they have this insatiable appetite to raise more and more money instead of focusing on making a profit.


----------



## Terry Malloy

I really doubt Uber is running out of $$. There have been rumblings of a 3rd player from China opening up a ride share company in America and Uber might be making them rethink chances of profitability. ( face it - the public will pick the cheapest ride 9 out of 10 times ). Uber might also be firing a volley at traditional cab companies looking to finish them off for good. Uber hasn't earned 60 Billion, that is money invested by the Trumps of the world because they want to be owners of what could be a world monopoly. And we are carrying the ball for them. If you can afford it cut your hours by 20% and don't take any POOL passengers. It's hard to beat the man. But try.


----------



## everythingsuber

Terry Malloy said:


> I really doubt Uber is running out of $$. There have been rumblings of a 3rd player from China opening up a ride share company in America and Uber might be making them rethink chances of profitability. ( face it - the public will pick the cheapest ride 9 out of 10 times ). Uber might also be firing a volley at traditional cab companies looking to finish them off for good. Uber hasn't earned 60 Billion, that is money invested by the Trumps of the world because they want to be owners of what could be a world monopoly. And we are carrying the ball for them. If you can afford it cut your hours by 20% and don't take any POOL passengers. It's hard to beat the man. But try.


The possibility of a third player is unlikely. For no reason other than they need drivers. Cabs aren't going anywhere there will always be the same number of medallions Über only pick up non cash bookings off the app. What the medallions are worth who knows but the cabs will always earn more than über as far as turnover goes the outgoings will decrease for drivers as the value of medallions fall as the cost of driving for über will increase with regulation. There's an app called Karhoo that starts rolling out in the next week or so starting in Singapore where it's just been given the green light then New York and London and onwards from there. Karhoo looks promising it combines the cabs and limos allows for comparisons allows for promotions That along with regulation is what über is racing.


----------



## Abraxas79

observer said:


> If Uber loses at the Supreme Court level, it would be a nationwide ruling.
> 
> Every day that Uber fights this case is adding thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars to the pay out.
> 
> That should really give FUTURE investors pause, since current investors will have already cashed out.


I assume you mean the California Supreme Court. They are not obligated to hear the case if the appellant court affirms the decision. I have looked at the filings, UBER is dead in the water on this one. You cannot claim that someone is an "Independent contractor" and then micromanage every aspect of their job and terminate people on ratings and variety of other reasons.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Abraxas79 said:


> I assume you mean the California Supreme Court. They are not obligated to hear the case if the appellant court affirms the decision. I have looked at the filings, UBER is dead in the water on this one. You cannot claim that someone is an "Independent contractor" and then micromanage every aspect of their job and terminate people on ratings and variety of other reasons.


Uber seems to think that because we set our own hours via simply logging on that we are independent contractors. This couldn't be any further from the truth. Everything about our job is dictated by Uber. It's not even close. We bear all the burden and they set all the parameters, rules, and contract terms.

It's been precedent that it's best for a company to error on the side of caution and consider them employees or be in for a rude awakening later. That rude awakening is coming soon when the lawsuit hits them where the sun don't shine and they are force not only to pay back but also pay penalties for back pay.


----------



## observer

Abraxas79 said:


> I assume you mean the California Supreme Court. They are not obligated to hear the case if the appellant court affirms the decision. I have looked at the filings, UBER is dead in the water on this one. You cannot claim that someone is an "Independent contractor" and then micromanage every aspect of their job and terminate people on ratings and variety of other reasons.


No, I actually meant the Supreme Court of the United States. Uber would not stop at the California Supreme Court level.

Even though SCOTUS is not obligated to look at this case, it almost definitely would because it involves a big business, arbitration, class action lawsuits and the definition of employees.

SCOTUS has been squarely on the side of big business and class action lawsuits. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts is actually the one who started the no class action/arbitration clauses in contract movement before he became a SCJ.

With Scalias death yesterday a new justice may shift the court in a different direction, which definitely hurts Ubers chances of winning an appeal.


----------



## observer

Here is a quite lengthy but interesting story on Roberts, class actions and arbitration.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/12/455749456/have-we-lost-a-constitutional-right-in-the-fine-print


----------



## Greguzzi

NPR = LOL.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

uberdriverfornow said:


> Uber seems to think that because we set our own hours via simply logging on that we are independent contractors.


Since they started giving "time outs" that's not even true anymore.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Since they started giving "time outs" that's not even true anymore.


Yeah, this case is a slam dunk. No way in hell we could possibly lose unless the lawyers are on the take, and that's a big possibility considering how they caved on the Lyft lawsuit.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

observer said:


> No, I actually meant the Supreme Court of the United States. Uber would not stop at the California Supreme Court level.
> 
> Even though SCOTUS is not obligated to look at this case, it almost definitely would because it involves a big business, arbitration, class action lawsuits and the definition of employees.
> 
> SCOTUS has been squarely on the side of big business and class action lawsuits. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts is actually the one who started the no class action/arbitration clauses in contract movement before he became a SCJ.
> 
> With Scalias death yesterday a new justice may shift the court in a different direction, which definitely hurts Ubers chances of winning an appeal.


This lawsuit directly involves employment. This is totally different than a typical contract dispute. This entire lawuit is centered on whether we are employees. I can't seriously see the Supreme Court overruling our future win.


----------



## tohunt4me

ABC123DEF said:


> What would be hilarious is if the whole rate-lowering thing backfired and Big Fuber ran themselves out of business.


G. M. has invested in Lyft and bought Sidecar.
All of the price wars have been for nothing now.
Didn't see that one coming.
Uber has managed to severely piss off the drivers though.
Drivers who will fervently work for Lyft.
Experienced drivers.
G.M. will not be sidelined by Defense contractor Google/D.A.R.P.A.'s automated cars.
This has turned into a battle of two of the largest corporations of the world.
Something Travis had never envisioned.
The quest for the driverless slave car has become his undoing.
If he had kept to human drivers, this may not have come about.
The corporate dragons are out now.
The fight is to the death.
Travis only hope is to polarize.
Take Uber to regions of the globalized corporate world that despise G. M.
survival lays there.
Uber has become a pawn in its own game.


----------



## tohunt4me

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Correct, it's a war. And using the same metaphor, Uber are sending drivers up hamburger hill every single day on a suicide mission.


You are correct. It is war.
But uber vs. Lift is only a battlefield.
Think.
Why have GOOGLE/D.A.R.P.A. invested in Uber?
Why has G.M. become a player?
International shipping will be conducted with crewless ships. . .
Uber is just a tool in the proving ground.
We are just pixels on the screen. 
An entire line of us can go out yet still not affect the big picture.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

tohunt4me said:


> You are correct. It is war.
> But uber vs. Lift is only a battlefield.
> Think.
> Why have GOOGLE/D.A.R.P.A. invested in Uber?
> Why has G.M. become a player?
> International shipping will be conducted with crewless ships. . .
> Uber is just a tool in the proving ground.
> We are just pixels on the screen.
> An entire line of us can go out yet still not affect the big picture.


Care to expound on this line of thought?
Intriguing yet vague.


----------



## tohunt4me

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Care to expound on this line of thought?
> Intriguing yet vague.


The future is LABORLESS transportation. 
In the air. 
At sea. 
On land. 
Ships that burn L.N.G. and have no crews. 
Trains that burn L. . N. G. and have no crews.
Planes with no crews.


----------



## tohunt4me

Evolution is replaced by TRANSHUMANISM.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

tohunt4me said:


> The future is LABORLESS transportation.
> In the air.
> At sea.
> On land.
> Ships that burn L.N.G. and have no crews.
> Trains that burn L. . N. G. and have no crews.
> Planes with no crews.


Oh sure by 2076.
Im a few months from 50 with high cholesterol and other issues.

The TransHuman world will need to happen without me


----------



## backstreets-trans

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Oh sure by 2076.
> Im a few months from 50 with high cholesterol and other issues.
> 
> The TransHuman world will need to happen without me


Wasn't there just a head on train wreck in Germany last week. You can't have driverless trains but some how driverless cars are right around the corner. Come on man. Not in my life time either.


----------



## observer

backstreets-trans said:


> Wasn't there just a head on train wreck in Germany last week. You can't have driverless trains but some how driverless cars are right around the corner. Come on man. Not in my life time either.


Both trains had a driver and a driver instructor.

There could still me a mechanical cause for the accident but none of the four humans prevented it either.


----------



## backstreets-trans

observer said:


> Both trains had a driver and a driver instructor.
> 
> There could still me a mechanical cause for the accident but none of the four humans prevented it either.


That's my point. All the built in saftey measures didn't work. Driverless cars are a thousand times more complex than trains.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Just wait til driverless cars bolox up midtown Manhattan or the 405 freeway at rush hour.
Unfixable.


----------



## tohunt4me

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Oh sure by 2076.
> Im a few months from 50 with high cholesterol and other issues.
> 
> The TransHuman world will need to happen without me


They want 90% of us "gone"by then.


----------



## tohunt4me

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Just wait til driverless cars bolox up midtown Manhattan or the 405 freeway at rush hour.
> Unfixable.


You are young. 
Keep your cholestorol down.


----------



## DaveCraige

Does anybody have any information on uber's runway. Aka the amount of time they have left before running out of money and having to raise more. 3 years perhaps?


----------

