# Analyst slaps $42 target on Lyft — 42% below its IPO price — says buying it is a 'leap of faith'



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/02/lyf...ays-buying-the-ipo-here-is-leap-of-faith.html


Seaport Global Securities analyst Michael Ward initiates coverage of the stock with a sell rating and a 12-month price target of $42 a share.
"In order to justify its current market valuation, investors need to take a big leap of faith that the millennials and later generations will forego ownership of a car and opt instead for reliance on a ridesharing service," he says.


----------



## jaxbeachrides (May 27, 2015)

It doesnt matter if people have cars or not. It matters how much you charge for your service and how much money you have leftover at the end of the day.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

People don't have any faith in Lyft stock because the product hasn't made a profit ever and shows no projection in their own prospectus for making a profit. Ever.


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

It keeps dipping, if it falls below 20 its a done deal but there is no road to profitability


----------



## jaxbeachrides (May 27, 2015)

This is different because you have 2 companies doing the exact same thing.

There are not 2 amazons. Theres not 2 apple incs.

The only solution these companies have had is to repeatedly cut price to gain market share, with no meaningful improvement in quality of service or proprietary intellectual property development.

This is just a race to lose money. A race to the bottom.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

jaxbeachrides said:


> This is different because you have 2 companies doing the exact same thing.
> 
> There are not 2 amazons. Theres not 2 apple incs.
> 
> ...


Way more than two companies. The rest have mostly failed (A.K.A. ran out of capital).


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

The real question investors should be asking is why can't Uber and Lyft make money when they use your labor your gas and your car and take 25% minimum of each ride, including the first $2 to $3 or each ride plus all the extra money that they over charge the customer. Basically they run and app, make you do the work and spend your money and can't make a profit. It makes no sense. Oh and the drivers are miserable.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> The real question is why can't Uber and Lyft make money when they use your labor your gas and your car and take 25% minimum of each ride, including the first $2 to $3 or each ride plus all the extra money that they over charge the customer. Basically they run and app, make you do the work and spend your money and can't make a profit. It makes no sense. Oh and the drivers are miserable.


Do your research. The answer is all over this forum. I've explained time and time again.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Do your research. The answer is all over this forum. I've explained time and time again.


I didn't axe you it was a rhetorical question.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Lee239 said:


> The real question investors should be asking is why can't Uber and Lyft make money when they use your labor your gas and your car and take 25% minimum of each ride, including the first $2 to $3 or each ride plus all the extra money that they over charge the customer. Basically they run and app, make you do the work and spend your money and can't make a profit. It makes no sense. Oh and the drivers are miserable.


^^^^^^^^ This.

All day. Everyday.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> I didn't axe you it was a rhetorical question.


Axe? GT*O :biggrin:

May have been rhetorical, but the answers are tangible.


----------



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

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Way more than two companies. The rest have mostly failed (A.K.A. ran out of capital).


They ran out of capital cause you can't operate at a loss, which is where you need to be to compete with another company operating at a loss.


----------



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

Lee239 said:


> The real question investors should be asking is why can't Uber and Lyft make money when they use your labor your gas and your car and take 25% minimum of each ride, including the first $2 to $3 or each ride plus all the extra money that they over charge the customer. Basically they run and app, make you do the work and spend your money and can't make a profit. It makes no sense. Oh and the drivers are miserable.


According to Lyft's IPO disclosures, they spend very heavily on advertising and on insurance. Have you seen how Lyft drivers drive? Employee costs (not us) are also high.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/02/lyf...ays-buying-the-ipo-here-is-leap-of-faith.html
> 
> 
> Seaport Global Securities analyst Michael Ward initiates coverage of the stock with a sell rating and a 12-month price target of $42 a share.
> "In order to justify its current market valuation, investors need to take a big leap of faith that the millennials and later generations will forego ownership of a car and opt instead for reliance on a ridesharing service," he says.


I disagree with his analysis. It's not about whether folks will forgo car ownership, it is about WHEN they do forgo car ownership, will Lyft be the platform they turn to to provide for their mobility needs. Do they turn to UBER instead? Does Google/Waymo launch a ride-share service? Do any or all of the car manufacturers create their own platform?

It's really a story about what role Lyft will play in the self-driving future and what niche they can carve out of that future.



Lee239 said:


> The real question investors should be asking is why can't Uber and Lyft make money when they use your labor your gas and your car and take 25% minimum of each ride, including the first $2 to $3 or each ride plus all the extra money that they over charge the customer. Basically they run and app, make you do the work and spend your money and can't make a profit. It makes no sense. Oh and the drivers are miserable.


What percent of companies with 25% gross margins do turn a profit?


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

ftupelo said:


> I disagree with his analysis. It's not about whether folks will forgo car ownership, it is about WHEN they do forgo car ownership, will Lyft be the platform they turn to to provide for their mobility needs. Do they turn to UBER instead? Does Google/Waymo launch a ride-share service? Do any or all of the car manufacturers create their own platform?
> 
> It's really a story about what role Lyft will play in the self-driving future and what niche they can carve out of that future.
> 
> ...


Walmart. 
*Walmart Inc Gross Profit Margin (Quarterly):*
24.41% for Jan. 31, 2019

Plus Uber and Lyft don't have expenses like other companies do they are paying you for you to use your car, labor and gas.



The Gift of Fish said:


> According to Lyft's IPO disclosures, they spend very heavily on advertising and on insurance. Have you seen how Lyft drivers drive? Employee costs (not us) are also high.


They may spend a lot of insurance in total but I doubt that even the first dollar they take from each ride goes to each ride doesn't cover insurance plus profit. If you do 30 rides that would be $30 a day to pay for insurance, insurance costs less than that and a vast majority of drivers do not use the insurance and it's flaky too.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

ftupelo said:


> I disagree with his analysis. It's not about whether folks will forgo car ownership, it is about WHEN they do forgo car ownership, will Lyft be the platform they turn to to provide for their mobility needs. Do they turn to UBER instead? Does Google/Waymo launch a ride-share service? Do any or all of the car manufacturers create their own platform?
> 
> It's really a story about what role Lyft will play in the self-driving future and what niche they can carve out of that future.
> 
> ...


Lyft loses 1.50 a ride, and part of it was 
Giving out rides for loss.... they can chop off at least 1.00 out of the 1.50 by 
Cutting down on advertising, research on autonomous vehicles and no more free rides.
Goog and gm both investors in Lyft, and Goog has Waymo, so why bother spending $$$$ on autonomous research ... I think Goog will partner with Lyft if autonomous vehicles actually make it to the roads ( I don't think it will in a mass scale), and gm also trying out AV.. Lyft brand has grown enough, they can cut down on advertising...


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/02/lyf...ays-buying-the-ipo-here-is-leap-of-faith.html
> 
> 
> Seaport Global Securities analyst Michael Ward initiates coverage of the stock with a sell rating and a 12-month price target of $42 a share.
> "In order to justify its current market valuation, investors need to take a big leap of faith that the millennials and later generations will forego ownership of a car and opt instead for reliance on a ridesharing service," he says.


A


jaxbeachrides said:


> This is different because you have 2 companies doing the exact same thing.
> 
> There are not 2 amazons. Theres not 2 apple incs.
> 
> ...


And NOW
THEY DRAG INVESTORS WITH THEM !

Sounds like a Giant Toilet Flushing . . .

All of that Money

Going AWAY . . . . .


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

@Lee239 I'm not saying it is impossible to turn an operating profit with 25% gross margins, but 25% is certainly skinny. The exact question was what percent of companies with 25% gross margins turn a profit? It's actually an interesting question that I wish I had the answer to. 25% EBITDA margins would be fine, but certainly not gross margins.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

ftupelo said:


> @Lee239 I'm not saying it is impossible to turn an operating profit with 25% gross margins, but 25% is certainly skinny. The exact question was what percent of companies with 25% gross margins turn a profit? It's actually an interesting question that I wish I had the answer to. 25% EBITDA margins would be fine, but certainly not gross margins.


Lyft does NOT have the Volume.

Perhaps Uber does ?


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

ftupelo said:


> I disagree with his analysis. It's not about whether folks will forgo car ownership, it is about WHEN they do forgo car ownership, will Lyft be the platform they turn to to provide for their mobility needs. Do they turn to UBER instead? Does Google/Waymo launch a ride-share service? Do any or all of the car manufacturers create their own platform?
> 
> It's really a story about what role Lyft will play in the self-driving future and what niche they can carve out of that future.
> 
> ...


People will never give up their cars. What a stupid idea


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The worst thing Lyft could have done is to file for an IPO because now the older investors(suckers) that kept pumping money into the company thinking there is pot of gold at the rainbow in the form of SDC's that would somehow allow Lyft not to pay drivers anymore are going to be less likely to keep pumping money in now which means the house of cards might start falling.

And this doesn't even take into consideration the CA law that is set to go into effect in the near future that forces them to call drivers employees.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> Walmart.
> *Walmart Inc Gross Profit Margin (Quarterly):*
> 24.41% for Jan. 31, 2019
> 
> ...


Uber loses between 2 billion and 5 billion per 4 quarters. What's this no expenses?
You either didn't research or are not bright.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber loses between 2 billion and 5 billion per 4 quarters. What's this no expenses?
> You either didn't research or are not bright.


I have no idea what you are talking about, I just answered the person's question. Uber can't make a profit the way they run their business but my point is that other businesses do. And Uber could make a profit because they have no employees earning their profits and using their own expenses.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

heynow321 said:


> People will never give up their cars. What a stupid idea


@heynow321 I should have said that smart people will give up their cars when it makes monetary sense. Smart folks understand that spending 10's of thousands of dollars on a depreciating asset that sits idle 95% of the time is a waste of capital resources. Intelligent folks would rather direct the capital towards an appreciating asset. The cost to hire the service will become so cheap due to much higher utilization rates of the assets that the math should make sense to even the not-so-smart amongst us.

Before you inanely answer, yes I understand some folks will want to, or need to, own a car for various reasons. I am talking about the vast majority whose main utility derived through ownership is to transport them from point A to point B.

Here is a piece from Ark Invest the models out a $0.26/mile cost to consumers as the platforms proliferate. If you assume it costs the average person the $0.58 standard deduction, it would be more than half as cheap to pay for the service.

https://ark-invest.com/research/aut...0E0EA5Rr5trTreoyNGNGGgMD9uEXHE&_hsmi=71362612


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Yeah except “rideshare” prices are only going up kiddo


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> Yeah except "rideshare" prices are only going up kiddo


SDC fantasy $ still have investors chasing rainbows.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

heynow321 said:


> Yeah except "rideshare" prices are only going up kiddo


@heynow321 Where are you seeing that data?

Even assuming what you say is true in the current duopolistic environment, the piece is forward-looking and considers the costs in a market that is sure to get more highly competitive as platforms proliferate.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

goneubering said:


> SDC fantasy $ still have investors chasing rainbows.


Yeah, i can't believe how many luddites still fall for this trash.

Here's a jumping off point. You should take note how every year the tech is "4-6" years off in perpetuity...and it's been like that for the past 7 years. Also, "disengagement reports" are entirely meaningless. people are stupid and fooled by "big" numbers. See the below link why it's a fools game to compare human drivers to cars with fancy cruise control.
https://hackaday.com/2016/12/05/self-driving-cars-are-not-yet-safe/
BTW, why is a big player looking to sell themselves? don't they know the market is worth a hundred trillion million billion dollars according to 19 year old tide-pod-eating state school college children?
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/self-driving-car-startup-drive-ai-seeks-potential-buyers
https://www.axios.com/robotaxis-cos...ing-47498c81-cb94-4ca9-ba52-7b08c0cd98df.html
https://www.iotforall.com/self-driving-vehicles-dream-becomes-nightmare/
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1120826_2019-ces-quiet-year-for-green-car-and-self-driving-news
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/at-ces-new-questions-emerge-as-self-driving-ambitions-narrow
"executives from self-driving carmakers and software companies who gathered this week at CES, the giant annual electronics show in Las Vegas, appeared to agree on at least one thing: It's time to lower expectations about autonomous vehicles"
"A couple years ago, everyone was like, we'll be done [developing self-driving cars] in three, four, five years. Everyone was promising a lot," said Heiko Kraft, director of analysis and testing for Mercedes-Benz self-driving car research in Sunnyvale, Calif.
Now, however, companies are more cautious about setting timelines because, among other issues, self-driving cars have had a hard time interpreting and responding to unique scenarios, Mr. Kraft said. As an example, he pointed to a problem his company faced recently when a car it was testing was confused by a school crossing guard riding a bicycle with a stop sign poking out of a backpack.
The hurdles that still face the most ambitious players were vividly illustrated during a demonstration ride in a self-driving car from Aptiv, a provider of hardware to the industry that has been running autonomous vehicle tests in Las Vegas for more than a year. On the ride with The Information, the car's safety driver had to take control to guide the vehicle around a construction zone. The driver also has to take the wheel to pick up passengers in private hotel lots, according to a person who used the system in a live scenario.
https://www.citylab.com/transportat...-technology-consumer-electronics-show/580027/
https://outline.com/JKgg6R
"'Reality is kicking in': Ford says self-driving vehicles are further away than many expect"
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/10...try-just-acknowledged-it-has-an-image-problem

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075633551268179968(notice this Cruise car can't handle a VERY simple task of moving around a parked delivery vehicle. something a developmentally disabled 15 year old could figure out).
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/01/toyota-is-betting-fully-driverless-cars-are-still-years-away/
"None of us in the automobile or IT industries [is] close" to solving the challenge of fully autonomous vehicles, said Gill Pratt, CEO of the Toyota Research Institute, in a speech at the Consumer Electronics Show on Monday.
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/mone...e-self-driving-autonomous-vehcile/2292584002/
http://www.thedrive.com/tech/25589/the-10-worst-self-driving-stories-of-2018
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/1...actual-waymo-passenger-heres-what-he-told-us/
https://www.autonews.com/regulation-safety/key-us-senator-calls-self-driving-legislation-long-shot
https://www.thestreet.com/opinion/d...he-biggest-investment-write-off-ever-14818507
https://gizmodo.com/the-deadly-recklessness-of-the-self-driving-car-industr-1831027948
https://www.wired.com/story/tusimple-self-driving-truck-cameras-computer-vision/
The demo drive also, however, makes clear there's work to be done. After 40 minutes of, uneventful robo-driving, a computer voice interrupts our conversation: "Autonomous driving off." Without my noticing it, the safety driver has retaken control. "I've got a freeze on my visual," he tells Hou. "I shut it down for safety." A network card in that server box next to me disconnected, likely due to the truck's vibration, freezing the system's human-machine interface and blocking the bit that does the motion planning from the bit that executes its commands.
And so this flesh-and-bones human holds the wheel and works the pedals for the next 20 minutes, taking us off the highway and back to TuSimple's garage. The computer crash mars what started off as a very impressive ride, but hey, there are worse kinds of crashes.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071098533862871040"Until recently my mental model of Waymo was that their technology was basically ready to go in late 2017 and they were doing a last few months of testing out of an abundance of caution, and to give time to build out non-technical stuff like customer service and maintenance.
This week has forced me to totally re-evaluate that. It now looks to me like Waymo is nowhere close to ready for fully driverless operation in its initial <100 square mile service area, to say nothing of the rest of the Phoenix metro or other cities.
The Arizona Republic's @utilityreporter spent three days following Waymo cars around and wrote a great piece about it. One of the most striking facts: "we never observed a vehicle shuttling passengers." - https://www.azcentral.com/story/mon...w-self-driving-cars-operate-roads/2082664002/
If Waymo were confident in its technology and almost ready for a large-scale launch, you would expect them to be doing a lot of test rides with real passengers to test out the whole system-customer service, capacity management, vehicle cleaning, etc.
But clearly Waymo is far from that point. This is a company that's still trying to get its technology to work, not a company doing a dress rehearsal for an imminent large-scale launch.
And if Waymo isn't close to ready for a real commercial launch, then a lot of what they've done over the last 18 months-signing deals with Avis, hiring a bunch of customer service reps, ordering 82,000 cars, etc-seems premature.
I saw that stuff as evidence that the technology was on track, because I thought Waymo, of all companies, would avoid the trap of getting overconfident about a complex software project. I guess not.
This means I have no idea how long it will take for Waymo (or anyone else) to reach full autonomy. It could take six months or it could take six years. Maybe Waymo will be forced to throw out big chunks of what they've built so far and start over.
BTW, @Amir deserves special recognition for his thorough, independent, and skeptical reporting on Waymo over the last few months. He's been totally vindicated this week. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/waymos-big-ambitions-slowed-by-tech-trouble &#8230;"
https://www.azcentral.com/story/mon...w-self-driving-cars-operate-roads/2082664002/
https://www.axios.com/who-will-pay-for-autonomous-vehicles-11702624-0fbf-4b5f-9d3a-bf5c4cd3ed8a.html
https://www.theinformation.com/arti...lowed-by-tech-trouble?shared=4596b7125469ea51


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

goneubering said:


> SDC fantasy $ still have investors chasing rainbows.


@goneubering Are you claiming SDC is a fantasy?


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

ftupelo said:


> @goneubering Are you claiming SDC is a fantasy?


Right now it is a fantasy to be fully operational. If it's 99% accurate that's a failure, it has to be 99.999999 to be a reality.

And by SDC we mean no human being behind a steering wheel.

It's estimated to be a few decades away. Aspects are available such as a person sleeping behind the wheel on a straight highway, but otherwise it's still a fantasy. Plus they haven't taken into account the cost of a car, gas and maintenance. Right now they can't make money with free labor, car and gas and taking their cut and then some.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> Right now it is a fantasy to be fully operational. If it's 99% accurate that's a failure, it has to be 99.999999 to be a reality.
> 
> And by SDC we mean no human being behind a steering wheel.
> 
> It's estimated to be a few decades away. Aspects are available such as a person sleeping behind the wheel on a straight highway, but otherwise it's still a fantasy. Plus they haven't taken into account the cost of a car, gas and maintenance. Right now they can't make money with free labor, car and gas and taking their cut and then some.


Of course it is a fantasy right now, every technology is a fantasy until it is operational. That doesn't negate the fact that many millions of miles have been driven both in the real world and in simulators and the technology is nearly fully developed. I don't understand the thought that SDC need to have a perfect record - they will easily be able to achieve higher safety records than fallible humans. People come on here and act like car accidents and deaths just aren't a thing. From the CDC:


Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the U.S. More than 35,000 people died from motor vehicle crashes in 2015 alone.1


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

ftupelo said:


> Of course it is a fantasy right now, every technology is a fantasy until it is operational. That doesn't negate the fact that many millions of miles have been driven both in the real world and in simulators and the technology is nearly fully developed. I don't understand the thought that SDC need to have a perfect record - they will easily be able to achieve higher safety records than fallible humans. People come on here and act like car accidents and deaths just aren't a thing. From the CDC:
> 
> 
> Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the U.S. More than 35,000 people died from motor vehicle crashes in 2015 alone.1


Yeah I didn't think you would read. those "millions" of miles have already been negated. Hey btw, how many fatal car accidents have you been involved in? anybody else on this board? I assume none of you are typing from the great beyond and I know there's a broad age range here. Amazing how so many people can still be alive despite all the terrible murderous human drivers!

...it's almost as if the vast majority of people aren't actually bad drivers. https://hackaday.com/2016/12/05/self-driving-cars-are-not-yet-safe/


> Until there's a car with a two or three _billion_ miles on its autopilot system, there's no way to draw any meaningful statistical comparison between human drivers and autonomous mode.


Oh, and also, if you'd like to "save lives", it can be done very easily by forcing OEM's to install breathalyzers. 
https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-ca...y-driver-should-know-about-crash-deaths.html/
Some 22,015 of the crash deaths occurring in 2015 involved alcohol. Whether it was the driver or pedestrian killed had alcohol in their body at the time of death, it is clear drinking continues to play a major role in highway and street safety. Seeing these numbers, it's clear why DUI penalties are so harsh in many states. The odds are simply much higher a fatal crash will occur when someone is under the influence of alcohol or drugs.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

heynow321 said:


> Yeah I didn't think you would read. those "millions" of miles have already been negated. Hey btw, how many fatal car accidents have you been involved in? anybody else on this board? I assume none of you are typing from the great beyond and I know there's a broad age range here. Amazing how so many people can still be alive despite all the terrible murderous human drivers!
> 
> ...it's almost as if the vast majority of people aren't actually bad drivers. https://hackaday.com/2016/12/05/self-driving-cars-are-not-yet-safe/


So much wrong here, I'm not sure where to start. Why have the millions of miles been negated? The middle portion of your post makes absolutely no sense - whatever you are trying to prove does not matter because we have actual statistics on vehicle-related deaths. What is the point of linking a 28 month old article from an unknown publication when trying to understand a rapidly developing technology? Maybe SDC weren't safe in December 2016, but that tells me nothing about how safe they are in April 2019.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

get back to reading kiddo


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Lee239 said:


> Right now it is a fantasy to be fully operational. If it's 99% accurate that's a failure, it has to be 99.999999 to be a reality.
> 
> And by SDC we mean no human being behind a steering wheel.
> 
> It's estimated to be a few decades away. Aspects are available such as a person sleeping behind the wheel on a straight highway, but otherwise it's still a fantasy. Plus they haven't taken into account the cost of a car, gas and maintenance. Right now they can't make money with free labor, car and gas and taking their cut and then some.


There's a reason the Autonomous forum is essentially dead.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> People will never give up their cars.


More and more millennials are not botherin gettin driver licenses.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Lvl 5 is full autonomous driving, we are at level.1.. earliest level 5 is at least 6 years away, ... you can indirectly buy into lvl 5? Middle guys


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> People will never give up their cars. What a stupid idea


it is stupid. perhaps in a few cities that have cars but mostly people are not giving up cars. Uber will cost more than owning a car if you keep it for 10 years and buy economically minded.

If you spend $30 each way to work that's $60 a day or $300 a week or $15.600 a year. Plus if you give up your car you have to rely on Uber for all your other trips to doctor, store, etc. Federal minimum wage is $290 for 40 hours.

Plus a guy on Bloomberg made a good point. Yeah we don't use our car all the time but we don't use our house all the time or every room all the time either, and people are not moving into hotels because of that.

Also are far as ride sharing being less cars on the road, it's actually more traffic. When you go from your home to a place that's the whole trip, when you call Uber they have to drive to pick you up so that's extra traffic.

And many of those millions of miles are on the highway where you just go straight and it's easier, in the city good luck going more than a block or two without the human driver having to assist.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

njn said:


> More and more millennials are not botherin gettin driver licenses.





njn said:


> More and more millennials are not botherin gettin driver licenses.


Yeah no. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...the-truth-about-homes-cars-and-ownership.html


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about, I just answered the person's question. Uber can't make a profit the way they run their business but my point is that other businesses do. And Uber could make a profit because they have no employees earning their profits and using their own expenses.


Nope. The only reason Uber thrived is they literally spend billions in graft to bypass all existing taxi and limo laws in the western word


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Lee239 said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about, I just answered the person's question. Uber can't make a profit the way they run their business but my point is that other businesses do. And Uber could make a profit because they have no employees earning their profits and using their own expenses.


Other businesses doing what Uber does ? You mean taking a bunch of free investor money to subsidize keeping prices low while also blowing money on things that will never make money like SDC's and going into countries where they are banned and blowing money in those countries until they are forced to give up ?

Which other companies are doing that but making a profit ?



ftupelo said:


> @heynow321 I should have said that smart people will give up their cars when it makes monetary sense. Smart folks understand that spending 10's of thousands of dollars on a depreciating asset that sits idle 95% of the time is a waste of capital resources. Intelligent folks would rather direct the capital towards an appreciating asset. The cost to hire the service will become so cheap due to much higher utilization rates of the assets that the math should make sense to even the not-so-smart amongst us.
> 
> Before you inanely answer, yes I understand some folks will want to, or need to, own a car for various reasons. I am talking about the vast majority whose main utility derived through ownership is to transport them from point A to point B.
> 
> ...


How many people do you know that don't own a car ? Everyone I know owns a car. This will never change. Rideshare comes in handy when outside of your home area where you don't have your own car but nobody outside of seriously congested cities among the likes of San Francisco are giving up their cars to just use rideshare.

Sounds like another tomato account on the prowl.



heynow321 said:


> Yeah, i can't believe how many luddites still fall for this trash.
> 
> Here's a jumping off point. You should take note how every year the tech is "4-6" years off in perpetuity...and it's been like that for the past 7 years. Also, "disengagement reports" are entirely meaningless. people are stupid and fooled by "big" numbers. See the below link why it's a fools game to compare human drivers to cars with fancy cruise control.
> https://hackaday.com/2016/12/05/self-driving-cars-are-not-yet-safe/
> ...


The person in that video did everything in their power not to show the human driver in the drivers seat.

There is only one company that is even allowed to have a fully driverless vehicle on the road in California and that's Waymo.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auto

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/driverlesstestingpermits

All that guy had to do was to walk slightly forward and he could easily allow video to show the human driver in the driver seat but he sat at that exact spot so you would think there is no human driver.



ftupelo said:


> @goneubering Are you claiming SDC is a fantasy?


When you got video showing SDC's driving on public roads without a human driver being the one to actually drive the vehicle then it's no longer fantasy.



ftupelo said:


> Of course it is a fantasy right now, every technology is a fantasy until it is operational. That doesn't negate the fact that many millions of miles have been driven both in the real world and in simulators and the technology is nearly fully developed.


So you ask him if SDC's are fantasy but then admit they are in your next post ?

There have been many millions of miles of SDC's being driven by the human. That's what you really mean. There is no video whatsoever showing SDC's driving themselves for even 10+ miles straight, let alone "many millions of miles".

The human driver is ALWAYS driving the SDC. That has never changed and still won't. The best they can do is to put together an edited and cropped promotional video showing the SDC driving for about 10 seconds where it didn't crash or malfunction. The rest is the human driving and parking the car.



heynow321 said:


> Yeah I didn't think you would read. those "millions" of miles have already been negated. Hey btw, how many fatal car accidents have you been involved in? anybody else on this board? I assume none of you are typing from the great beyond and I know there's a broad age range here. Amazing how so many people can still be alive despite all the terrible murderous human drivers!
> 
> ...it's almost as if the vast majority of people aren't actually bad drivers. https://hackaday.com/2016/12/05/self-driving-cars-are-not-yet-safe/
> 
> ...


If you mandate all cars have to have a breathalyzer in the car all DUI's go away in those cars that have them.

But that would clearly be too easy and they wouldn't be able to prop up SDC's in that regard anymore.



njn said:


> More and more millennials are not botherin gettin driver licenses.


Based on what exactly ? Everybody has a license. In fact, not having a license makes you look bad.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

ftupelo said:


> I disagree with his analysis. It's not about whether folks will forgo car ownership, it is about WHEN they do forgo car ownership, will Lyft be the platform they turn to to provide for their mobility needs. Do they turn to UBER instead? Does Google/Waymo launch a ride-share service? Do any or all of the car manufacturers create their own platform?
> 
> It's really a story about what role Lyft will play in the self-driving future and what niche they can carve out of that future.
> 
> ...


Before this they said millennials don't believe in home ownership too. I really think people should stop basing future spending habits off of broke teens and early twenty year olds. Is ramien noodles and hotdogs going to replace steak and potatoes too???



ftupelo said:


> Of course it is a fantasy right now, every technology is a fantasy until it is operational. That doesn't negate the fact that many millions of miles have been driven both in the real world and in simulators and the technology is nearly fully developed. I don't understand the thought that SDC need to have a perfect record - they will easily be able to achieve higher safety records than fallible humans. People come on here and act like car accidents and deaths just aren't a thing. From the CDC:
> 
> 
> Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the U.S. More than 35,000 people died from motor vehicle crashes in 2015 alone.1


Put that into a ratio of all motorists.

The average person is due a car crash about every 18 years. That's right let that sink in deep and marinate. That's what SDCs are attempting to improve upon. Right now only the very best SDC can go a few minutes without human intervention(waymo).


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Lee239 said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/02/lyf...ays-buying-the-ipo-here-is-leap-of-faith.html
> 
> 
> Seaport Global Securities analyst Michael Ward initiates coverage of the stock with a sell rating and a 12-month price target of $42 a share.
> "In order to justify its current market valuation, investors need to take a big leap of faith that the millennials and later generations will forego ownership of a car and opt instead for reliance on a ridesharing service," he says.


Price was $72.10 when I checked this morning. WAY too high.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

I hope no retirement plans invest in this shite.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

@uberdriverfornow What does car ownership levels currently have to do with car ownership levels in the future? Your thought process is stuck in the past and present. You aren't considering the future. Why would most folks own a car in the future when you can summon an SDC within minutes that doesn't have an annoying driver talking your ear off and can deliver you to your destination for $0.26/mile. Why would most folks choose to own a vehicle that costs them $0.58/mile plus the time and effort to have it serviced? Again, the folks that can understand diverting their capital away from depreciating assets towards appreciating assets will certainly do so in the future - this isn't hard, just different than what you are used to in the current paradigm.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Lol wow


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

ftupelo said:


> @uberdriverfornow What does car ownership levels currently have to do with car ownership levels in the future? Your thought process is stuck in the past and present. You aren't considering the future. Why would most folks own a car in the future when you can summon an SDC within minutes that doesn't have an annoying driver talking your ear off and can deliver you to your destination for $0.26/mile. Why would most folks choose to own a vehicle that costs them $0.58/mile plus the time and effort to have it serviced? Again, the folks that can understand diverting their capital away from depreciating assets towards appreciating assets will certainly do so in the future - this isn't hard, just different than what you are used to in the current paradigm.


Well that's a while from now and if it\s some kind of car share where you join others in a pool in your neighborhood and the car comes and takes you where you need to go I don't see the profit for a company like Uber or Lyft in that equation.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> Well that's a while from now and if it\s some kind of car share where you join others in a pool in your neighborhood and the car comes and takes you where you need to go I don't see the profit for a company like Uber or Lyft in that equation.


It becomes profitable because they will eliminate 70% of their current expense, the Ant, and will take advantage of economies of scale. Most folks are paying for an asset that is used 5% of the time. The platforms should be able to get asset utilization near 100%. They will be able to purchase the vehicles in bulk and/or partner with a car manufacturer. They will be able to maintain a fleet much more cheaply than you or I can maintain a vehicle. Think about how Southwest rings efficiencies out of their business by flying a single plane model (saves on repairs, parts, etc.). They can purchase electricity and or petrol in bulk. SDC's will rarely, if ever, get in accidents, so insurance will be dirt cheap.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

ftupelo said:


> It becomes profitable because they will eliminate 70% of their current expense, the Ant, and will take advantage of economies of scale. Most folks are paying for an asset that is used 5% of the time. The platforms should be able to get asset utilization near 100%. They will be able to purchase the vehicles in bulk and/or partner with a car manufacturer. They will be able to maintain a fleet much more cheaply than you or I can maintain a vehicle. Think about how Southwest rings efficiencies out of their business by flying a single plane model (saves on repairs, parts, etc.). They can purchase electricity and or petrol in bulk.


But Ford of any other automaker can run it, or people with self driving cars can set up timeshare cars where they all pay a weekly fee or per use, like renting a car from a person but driverless. In the future Lyft and Uber will be like Bell Telephone, a useless relic.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> But Ford of any other automaker can run it, or people with self driving cars can set up timeshare cars where they all pay a weekly fee or per use, like renting a car from a person but driverless. In the future Lyft and Uber will be like Bell Telephone, a useless relic.


It will certainly be interesting to see how the industry shakes out. Some car manufacturers may choose to try and build their own platforms while others choose to partner with an UBER or Lyft. Other tech companies like Google/Waymo may also build out a platform. The car manufacturer needs to weigh the costs of building out a platform vs. partnering and the potential opportunity cost of failure. GM may decide to go it alone and build their own platform while Ford chooses to partner with Lyft and their 18.6mm active users right off the bat. GM could waste billions building out a platform that never gains traction and they look up 5 years into the future and realize they made the wrong choice by not partnering and now Ford is lighyears ahead because they chose to partner with a platform with a built in network/user base.

I don't see the logic in this car-share/timeshare idea. Why got that route instead of just using a platform?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

ftupelo said:


> @uberdriverfornow What does car ownership levels currently have to do with car ownership levels in the future? Your thought process is stuck in the past and present. You aren't considering the future. Why would most folks own a car in the future when you can summon an SDC within minutes that doesn't have an annoying driver talking your ear off and can deliver you to your destination for $0.26/mile. Why would most folks choose to own a vehicle that costs them $0.58/mile plus the time and effort to have it serviced? Again, the folks that can understand diverting their capital away from depreciating assets towards appreciating assets will certainly do so in the future - this isn't hard, just different than what you are used to in the current paradigm.


uber has been around since 2011ish, 8 years later nothing has changed about car ownership and nothing will


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

njn said:


> More and more millennials are not botherin gettin driver licenses.


I don't see this "millenial" stereotype.

Millenials have been putting off getting licenses at 15 years, six months and a day like we did, but they are eventually getting drivers licenses.

In my own family my two boys waited until they were in their early twenties to get licenses. My daughter on the other hand got her learners permit at 16 and actually started driving at 14 (unofficially and NOT on american roads ?).


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> It will certainly be interesting to see how the industry shakes out. Some car manufacturers may choose to try and build their own platforms while others choose to partner with an UBER or Lyft. Other tech companies like Google/Waymo may also build out a platform. The car manufacturer needs to weigh the costs of building out a platform vs. partnering and the potential opportunity cost of failure. GM may decide to go it alone and build their own platform while Ford chooses to partner with Lyft and their 18.6mm active users right off the bat. GM could waste billions building out a platform that never gains traction and they look up 5 years into the future and realize they made the wrong choice by not partnering and now Ford is lighyears ahead because they chose to partner with a platform with a built in network/user base.
> 
> I don't see the logic in this car-share/timeshare idea. Why got that route instead of just using a platform?


I don't see people giving up ownership in mass if they have to pay a premium to take the service during rush hour and risk getting into a car that smells worse than a taxi on Sunday morning.

If and I think this is a big if, self driving does ever work, like I said, HUGE if imho,

Most Americans won't stop using their own cars, they will just own their own self driving car


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I don't see people giving up ownership in mass if they have to pay a premium to take the service during rush hour and risk getting into a car that smells worse than a taxi on Sunday morning.
> 
> If and I think this is a big if, self driving does ever work, like I said, HUGE if imho,
> 
> Most Americans won't stop using their own cars, they will just own their own self driving car


The cleanliness issue is an important one that I have thought about deeply. I am a man of taste and derring-do, so it is difficult for me to imagine how filthy others can be. I think the way to solve it is through fines connected to the riders credit card/bitcoin account and plenty of cameras and sensors to detect bodily fluids. Of course, the fleet manager would thoroughly clean each vehicle daily.

Certain folks will want to own their car for varying reasons. However, it still does not make sense to own a depreciating asset that sits idle 95% of the time. It would be helpful to understand your reasoning here. Besides the folks that need a truck for utility reasons or an SUV to lug around the kids and their sports equipment - for the average joe who uses his car primarily to get to the office and back and rides solo most of the time, why does he need to own a car that is orders of magnitude more expensive? I'm not interested in specific examples of why a person would want to own - I want to know the mass-market reason.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

ftupelo said:


> It becomes profitable because they will eliminate 70% of their current expense, the Ant, and will take advantage of economies of scale. Most folks are paying for an asset that is used 5% of the time. The platforms should be able to get asset utilization near 100%. They will be able to purchase the vehicles in bulk and/or partner with a car manufacturer. They will be able to maintain a fleet much more cheaply than you or I can maintain a vehicle. Think about how Southwest rings efficiencies out of their business by flying a single plane model (saves on repairs, parts, etc.). They can purchase electricity and or petrol in bulk. SDC's will rarely, if ever, get in accidents, so insurance will be dirt cheap.


That's a lot of hypothetical and what if. Once SDCs become a real thing, it's still to be determined if it actually will be cheaper. Also someone looking for the most bang for their buck keep cars until the wheels fall off.

Economic scales or not SDCs will not have lower cost than cars kept greater than 10 years. I still got my 1999 Explorer, take a second to do 16 years of no car note price comparison with your SDCs numbers.

Btw I will keep my new car I have now at least 15 years and let my son have it for his first car.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Here's another point of view. Not one I agree with though.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ipo-failure-has-been-greatly-exaggerated.aspx
*Lyft's IPO Failure Has Been Greatly Exaggerated*
*Give the ridesharing company a chance before you call the newly public stock a bust.*


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

ftupelo said:


> @heynow321 I should have said that smart people will give up their cars when it makes monetary sense. Smart folks understand that spending 10's of thousands of dollars on a depreciating asset that sits idle 95% of the time is a waste of capital resources. Intelligent folks would rather direct the capital towards an appreciating asset. The cost to hire the service will become so cheap due to much higher utilization rates of the assets that the math should make sense to even the not-so-smart amongst us.
> 
> Before you inanely answer, yes I understand some folks will want to, or need to, own a car for various reasons. I am talking about the vast majority whose main utility derived through ownership is to transport them from point A to point B.
> 
> ...


There are a whole lotta assumptions in that model. I don't believe it for a second.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

I don't want to move the discussion further from the topic, but...... cough, cough

https://www.citylab.com/transportat...nership-driving-behavior-vehicle-data/585667/
*A LOT*


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Sounds like another tomato account on the prowl.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was my thought as well.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Here's another point of view. Not one I agree with though.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ipo-failure-has-been-greatly-exaggerated.aspx
> *Lyft's IPO Failure Has Been Greatly Exaggerated*
> *Give the ridesharing company a chance before you call the newly public stock a bust.*


If you don't agree with it then why post the article link ?

This is a company that has never turned a profit, admitted in filed documents that it doesn't know if it can ever turn a profit and loses more money each year than the last year.



jocker12 said:


> I don't want to move the discussion further from the topic, but...... cough, cough
> 
> https://www.citylab.com/transportat...nership-driving-behavior-vehicle-data/585667/
> *A LOT*


Everyone has a car. The only people pushing the everyone is giving up their car narrative is those in the SDC business.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> If you don't agree with it then why post the article link ?
> 
> This is a company that has never turned a profit, admitted in filed documents that it doesn't know if it can ever turn a profit and loses more money each year than the last year.
> 
> ...


Everyone has a horse. The only people pushing the everyone is giving up their horse narrative is those in the car business.



ftupelo said:


> Everyone has a horse. The only people pushing the everyone is giving up their horse narrative is those in the car business.


Everyone owns a (insert piece of hardware-car, DVD player, MP3 player). The only people pushing the everyone is giving up their hardware narrative is those in the (insert services-Uber, Netflix, Spotify) business.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

ftupelo said:


> Everyone has a horse. The only people pushing the everyone is giving up their horse narrative is those in the car business.
> 
> 
> Everyone owns a (insert piece of hardware-car, DVD player, MP3 player). The only people pushing the everyone is giving up their hardware narrative is those in the (insert services-Uber, Netflix, Spotify) business.


Go home. You're drunk.


----------



## getawaycar (Jul 10, 2017)

An average commute to or from your job in Los Angeles is about 20 miles a day. A 20 mile Uber trip in rush hour traffic will cost you at least $50 one way and $100 round trip. That is approx. $2,500 you are spending on rideshare every month just to get to work and back.

The SDC proponents have to be smoking crack if they think rideshare would be cheaper than owning a car.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

getawaycar said:


> An average commute to or from your job in Los Angeles is about 20 miles a day. A 20 mile Uber trip in rush hour traffic will cost you at least $50 one way and $100 round trip. That is approx. $2,500 you are spending on rideshare every month just to get to work and back.
> 
> The SDC proponents have to be smoking crack if they think rideshare would be cheaper than owning a car.


Exactly, not using the car 22 hours a day is cheaper than using rideshare. You can buy a decent used car for $10K it can last you 10 years and it's cheaper than using rideshare.

and if cars go away the government better work on getting public transport going because most people don't have $500 for an emergency and are living paycheck to paycheck.

I'll get a bike before using Uber or Lyft exclusively, plus you can get those gasoline motors on it so you don't have to pedal.

Plus if you have pets what do you do to get them somewhere if you don't have your own car?

I'm taking a trip soon and will be driving 1300 miles each way, if I didn't have a car there would be no way I could do this because Uber would not do it and it would be outrageously expensive.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Go home. You're drunk.


Ahhhh, ye olde ad hominem when you can't argue the topic.



Lee239 said:


> Exactly, not using the car 22 hours a day is cheaper than using rideshare. You can buy a decent used car for $10K it can last you 10 years and it's cheaper than using rideshare.


Again, you two are stuck in the present. The cost to the consumer will be reduced dramatically. The most thoughtful work I have seen done on the topic projects a cost to the consumer of $0.26/mile. Not only will the vehicle be utilized 100% of the time, but each vehicle could be a single very small pod or a larger vehicle with a few individual pods that deliver people similar to UBER pool. This will free up a lot of space on the freeway and eliminate traffic. You can much more efficiently create a carpool type situation and take 1/4 of vehicles off the freeway.

https://ark-invest.com/research/aut...0E0EA5Rr5trTreoyNGNGGgMD9uEXHE&_hsmi=71362612


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

ftupelo said:


> Ahhhh, ye olde ad hominem when you can't argue the topic.
> 
> 
> Again, you two are stuck in the present. The cost to the consumer will be reduced dramatically. The most thoughtful work I have seen done on the topic projects a cost to the consumer of $0.26/mile. Not only will the vehicle be utilized 100% of the time, but each vehicle could be a single very small pod or a larger vehicle with a few individual pods that deliver people similar to UBER pool. This will free up a lot of space on the freeway and eliminate traffic. You can much more efficiently create a carpool type situation and take 1/4 of vehicles off the freeway.
> ...


and you are stuck in your future fantasy. People are not going to give up their freedom to drive where and when they want.

So this 26 cents a mile is a joke, first of all this is so in the future that 26 cents will be worth $1 then plus these will have to be charity because there is not profit margin in 26 cents when the deduction is 55 cents a mile.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> and you are stuck in your future fantasy. People are not going to give up their freedom to drive where and when they want.


You aren't understanding the nuances of the argument. I've admitted that some folks will not give it up for various reasons. However, once the system reaches scale, it will be cost prohibitive for most folks to continue to own. Most folks living in urban areas need not a car for more than transporting them from point a to point b within their metro area - it will be much more efficient to rent that service in the future than to own a two ton hunk of metal that sits idle 95% of the time and is a pain in the ass to service and takes up 700 sq. ft. of your home for a garage, etc.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

ftupelo said:


> You aren't understanding the nuances of the argument. I've admitted that some folks will not give it up for various reasons. However, once the system reaches scale, it will be cost prohibitive for most folks to continue to own. Most folks living in urban areas need not a car for more than transporting them from point a to point b within their metro area - it will be much more efficient to rent that service in the future than to own a two ton hunk of metal that sits idle 95% of the time and is a pain in the ass to service and takes up 700 sq. ft. of your home for a garage, etc.


America is vast and needs cars. The only city where you don't need a car is Manhattan where you have a great public transport system and that is also where Uber is doing well. they have sat idle 95% of the time and people still use them and always will.

Don't also forget that Uber promised us flying cars next year.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> If you don't agree with it then why post the article link ?
> 
> This is a company that has never turned a profit, admitted in filed documents that it doesn't know if it can ever turn a profit and loses more money each year than the last year.
> 
> ...


Who else would post it? Most of the posters here think Uber and Lyft are going to die. It's always good to look at both sides.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> and you are stuck in your future fantasy. People are not going to give up their freedom to drive where and when they want.
> 
> So this 26 cents a mile is a joke, first of all this is so in the future that 26 cents will be worth $1 then plus these will have to be charity because there is not profit margin in 26 cents when the deduction is 55 cents a mile.


Did you look at their assumptions? You are essentially proving my point. It currently costs ~$0.55/mile to operate a vehicle and will someday cost about half of that. Therefore folks will move to the much less expensive option. The $0.55 moves to $0.26 for all the reasons previously discussed that come with economies of scale. Certain folks will pay a premium to own a car and still have that freedom- many folks will choose the cheaper option and utilize their capital elsewhere.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

ftupelo said:


> Did you look at their assumptions? You are essentially proving my point. It currently costs ~$0.55/mile to operate a vehicle and will someday cost about half of that. Therefore folks will move to the much less expensive option. The $0.55 moves to $0.26 for all the reasons previously discussed that come with economies of scale. Certain folks will pay a premium to own a car and still have that freedom- many folks will choose the cheaper option and utilize their capital elsewhere.


More fantasy. Not surprising at all from you though. Keep on trolling.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

ftupelo said:


> Did you look at their assumptions? You are essentially proving my point. It currently costs ~$0.55/mile to operate a vehicle and will someday cost about half of that. Therefore folks will move to the much less expensive option. The $0.55 moves to $0.26 for all the reasons previously discussed that come with economies of scale. Certain folks will pay a premium to own a car and still have that freedom- many folks will choose the cheaper option and utilize their capital elsewhere.


26 cents a mile is a fantasy as much as giving up cars, some people even actually like to drive.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Everyone has a car. The only people pushing the everyone is giving up their car narrative is those in the SDC business.


Even children have a car in their minds....


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

goneubering said:


> More fantasy. Not surprising at all from you though. Keep on trolling.


I'm one of the only folks here that provides actual data from Lyft's S-1 and actual thoughtful pieces about the industry. Not only does that piece provide commentary, it also links to a financial model that one can download and alter the assumptions. Most folks come on here and spew unsubstantiated opinions, yet I am the troll?



Lee239 said:


> 26 cents a mile is a fantasy as much as giving up cars, some people even actually like to drive.


Which of their assumptions do you disagree with most and why? What number are you getting in the models you are running?



ftupelo said:


> The cleanliness issue is an important one that I have thought about deeply. I am a man of taste and derring-do, so it is difficult for me to imagine how filthy others can be. I think the way to solve it is through fines connected to the riders credit card/bitcoin account and plenty of cameras and sensors to detect bodily fluids. Of course, the fleet manager would thoroughly clean each vehicle daily.
> 
> Certain folks will want to own their car for varying reasons. However, it still does not make sense to own a depreciating asset that sits idle 95% of the time. It would be helpful to understand your reasoning here. Besides the folks that need a truck for utility reasons or an SUV to lug around the kids and their sports equipment - for the average joe who uses his car primarily to get to the office and back and rides solo most of the time, why does he need to own a car that is orders of magnitude more expensive? I'm not interested in specific examples of why a person would want to own - I want to know the mass-market reason.


Apparently great visionary minds think alike!

https://www.businessinsider.com/elo...-to-help-it-compete-with-uber-and-lyft-2019-4


----------



## kbrown (Dec 3, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> A
> And NOW
> THEY DRAG INVESTORS WITH THEM !
> 
> ...


Lyft and Uber won't profit over the long run if screenshot three proves to be their model. They can only take so much from drivers before it becomes unsustainable to drive for them. We are almost at that point. Then what? Self-driving cars? That won't happen- they're not going to buy cars and have to waste their profit on the stuff drivers pay for to keep their cars up and running.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Just put this child on ignore. His “thoughts” are even worse than ramzfanz.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

By the time people give up their cars, if they do, Uber and Lyft will be out of business.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> Just put this child on ignore. His "thoughts" are even worse than ramzfanz.


it could be ramz


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> Yeah, i can't believe how many luddites still fall for this trash.
> 
> Here's a jumping off point. You should take note how every year the tech is "4-6" years off in perpetuity...and it's been like that for the past 7 years. Also, "disengagement reports" are entirely meaningless. people are stupid and fooled by "big" numbers. See the below link why it's a fools game to compare human drivers to cars with fancy cruise control.
> https://hackaday.com/2016/12/05/self-driving-cars-are-not-yet-safe/
> ...


Driverless cars are a huge joke and a complete waste of time and resources. Companies who work on them should be fined for the mere fact of how dumb they are for even trying.


----------



## Alantc (Jun 15, 2018)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Do your research. The answer is all over this forum. I've explained
> 
> 
> TwoFiddyMile said:
> ...


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> it could be ramz


I very much doubt it. Ramz was classy compared to this guy.



heynow321 said:


> Just put this child on ignore. His "thoughts" are even worse than ramzfanz.


Done.



Lee239 said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/02/lyf...ays-buying-the-ipo-here-is-leap-of-faith.html
> 
> 
> Seaport Global Securities analyst Michael Ward initiates coverage of the stock with a sell rating and a 12-month price target of $42 a share.
> "In order to justify its current market valuation, investors need to take a big leap of faith that the millennials and later generations will forego ownership of a car and opt instead for reliance on a ridesharing service," he says.


$74.45 today. I'm shocked.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> $74.45 today. I'm shocked.


Just wait for the first quarter and the second quarter reports....


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Over 40% of the stock shorted... one of the highest short% in the Daq...Hard to borrow

Annual hard to borrow rate at ridiculous 50%,,How are you going to make money, if stock does not go down much, in a short amount of time

If they get squeezed, it can blow past 100 due to thin float.. ?
I don't mind paying 5-10% if I am going to make 60% profit ( you also pay cap gains , short term), but longer you go shorting, and stock does not collapse, you will lose $$$ due to interest fees alone( pro rated)

You also need overall market, especially Nasdaq to go down hard in the near future... market takes all bad stocks higher, if overall market is up... 
TSLA was like this, they had thinner float, but not 50% cost


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Just wait for the first quarter and the second quarter reports....


It's going to be so fun watching the market finally scrutinize these dumpster fires


----------



## Single Malt (Nov 11, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The worst thing Lyft could have done is to file for an IPO because now the older investors(suckers) that kept pumping money into the company thinking there is pot of gold at the rainbow in the form of SDC's that would somehow allow Lyft not to pay drivers anymore are going to be less likely to keep pumping money in now which means the house of cards might start falling.
> 
> And this doesn't even take into consideration the CA law that is set to go into effect in the near future that forces them to call drivers employees.


This initial investors are the ones that forced the IPO so they could cash out and leave idiot retail investors holding the bag.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> It's going to be so fun watching the market finally scrutinize these dumpster fires


IMO what is keeping both rideshare companies from doing the rights thing which is increase the rates and go profitable, is the self driving car delusion they religiously feed the public with, but they also religiously fail to achieve.

The moment they will abandon smoke and mirrors unrealistic development , they'll be forced to do the right thing and ask the riders to pay realistic rates. The initial promise when cheap rideshare was meant to replace car ownership is false. The cheap rideshare effect only moved people out of public transit (buses, light rails and subways) and put them in rideshare cars for almost the same cheap price. Considering a car is much more comfortable than a bus or a subway train, that was an easy rider choice. But more people out of public transit automatically *put more rideshare cars on the roads creating awful congestion* very difficult to deal with at the city level. There is no immediate solution to this problem, as long as the existing infrastructure is not elastic to adjust it the way you want it when you need it.

And all this only because both rideshare companies fought for a small market share, willing to present their model as fundamental to transportation future. What nobody tells these clueless investors is that *both riders and drivers alike have no brand loyalty*, willing to jump from one platform to another based on simple circumstances, like ride estimate value, car distance from pick up point, first request first served, etc. When you put it this way, you see there is no magic formula to achieve sustainable growth. other than - with the real risk of getting the cheap riders back on buses and subway trains - increase the rates to match transportation realities.

Also, attracting cheap riders was not a good idea to start with, because the cheaper the rider is, the less value they see in the vehicle they use for their transportation. Of course there are few exceptions, but as a whole, "cheapos" don't create sustainability. They accelerate product fatigue and degradation to a point where manufacturers or/and service providers need to sacrifice quality and comfort over basic functionality. We see that in every single bus,train and plane around the country - the less money you are willing to pay for the ticket, the less comfort and additional courtesy services you get in return.

On top of all these, by abandoning the self driving car charade, both rideshare companies will cut their constant research and development losses they subsidize with investors money, and also they'll send a strong signal to all SDC developers about their useless dreams and mind blowing expenses.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> IMO what is keeping both rideshare companies from doing the rights thing which is increase the rates and go profitable, is the self driving car delusion they religiously feed the public with, but they also religiously fail to achieve.
> 
> The moment they will abandon smoke and mirrors unrealistic development , they'll be forced to do the right thing and ask the riders to pay realistic rates. The initial promise when cheap rideshare was meant to replace car ownership is false. The cheap rideshare effect only moved people out of public transit (buses, light rails and subways) and put them in rideshare cars for almost the same cheap price. Considering a car is much more comfortable than a bus or a subway train, that was an easy rider choice. But more people out of public transit automatically *put more rideshare cars on the roads creating awful congestion* very difficult to deal with at the city level. There is no immediate solution to this problem, as long as the existing infrastructure is not elastic to adjust it the way you want it when you need it.
> 
> ...


This is a very good summary. I think more and more people are waking up to reality but the SDC hype is still going strong.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> SDC hype is still going strong


According to the SDC zealots - yes.

According to the American public (the only metric that matters) - AAA reports that 71 percent of drivers in the U.S. refuse to ride inside of a fully autonomous car - This represents a 2 percent increase upon last year's figures in the now annual survey from AAA

Regarding Lyft and Uber - from now on is not about burning money for nothing anymore. Every single investor will ask for profits. That is the only way the stock could go up, but SDC development constantly loses fortunes, enabling few engineers with no method and no answers to their dilemma to keep alive the oxymoron.

Once Lyft and uber will accept the failure and shut it down, they will be able to clearly see the path to profitability without any distractions. IMO, trying to build 100% reliable SDCs is like trying to demonstrate you can always run the red lights 100% safe and get away with it. Yes, you can run the red lights once or twice, but sooner than later you'll be either stopped by the cops or trigger a tragedy. If you hear someone saying they can run the red lights, you know they're not supposed to be doing what they happily and naively say they are trying to do.


----------



## jonhjax (Jun 24, 2016)

Lee239 said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/02/lyf...ays-buying-the-ipo-here-is-leap-of-faith.html
> 
> 
> Seaport Global Securities analyst Michael Ward initiates coverage of the stock with a sell rating and a 12-month price target of $42 a share.
> ...





jaxbeachrides said:


> This is different because you have 2 companies doing the exact same thing.
> 
> There are not 2 amazons. Theres not 2 apple incs.
> 
> ...


I think some of the hope (false hope, most likely) that some investors have is that Uber and Lyft will eventually be able to raise prices and become profitable in the future and still retain a fair amount of brand loyalty vs. taxis and mass transit. That's about the only hope I would have if I were an investor. I wouldn't have invested in either company unless I was an initial investor but that's way beyond my financial means, for sure.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Short it one day prior to earnings, this way you are not paying interest ... if it leaps,cover for the loss
Then wait three months , then again short more, 1 day prior to the earnings day, if it pops, cover for the loss and short again in 3 months, 1 day prior

You should be able to come out ahead?No reason to have ownership for 3 months and pay additional $$$


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Puts are the way to go or bear call spreads


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Total market cap for cannabis stocks is between 50to60 billion$$... how much profit do they make ? They don't.. it is all paper moneys...not 1 company makes 1c profit. Eventually 90% will perish, eventually ... eventually uber ( future)and lyft stock will go down, but it will take time. Soros and VC's not mindless.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Lyft crashed 5.67% today.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

$67-ish a few minutes ago...


----------



## Declineathon (Feb 12, 2019)

jaxbeachrides said:


> This is different because you have 2 companies doing the exact same thing.
> 
> There are not 2 amazons. Theres not 2 apple incs.
> 
> ...


I rescinded an Order to buy on day 1 at 80.
Im loving watching this company who has exploited me fail.
Im back looking at it at Sept, to see what happens when the vested are free to sell, at a loss, so they wont. 
If it came out at 15 to 19, it would have soared.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Lyft crashed 5.67% today.


They got greedy and started too high in my opinion. Would have looked better to start at $55 or $60 which might have avoided the negative press they're getting. Now they're under the spotlight.


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

goneubering said:


> They got greedy and started too high in my opinion. Would have looked better to start at $55 or $60 which might have avoided the negative press they're getting. Now they're under the spotlight.


Always under the spotlight. Will still have gone south starting at 55.00 for the same reasons it's going south now. 
Lyft maybe has cost Uber a few billion but they haven't done themselves any harm other than having some angry investors who at going to be shocked to find out the company they've brought into that doesn't make money actually doesn't make money.

Ubers S-1 is a couple of days away Lyfts IPO will be forgotten.


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

This trash is going to keep falling. Might find some support around $10 for a while, then proceed to bankruptcy.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

everythingsuber said:


> Always under the spotlight. Will still have gone south starting at 55.00 for the same reasons it's going south now.
> Lyft maybe has cost Uber a few billion but they haven't done themselves any harm other than having some angry investors who at going to be shocked to find out the company they've brought into that doesn't make money actually doesn't make money.
> 
> Ubers S-1 is a couple of days away Lyfts IPO will be forgotten.


We'll never know for sure but this guru says $59 per share.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...-59-nyu-stern-professor-aswath-damodaran.html
*Lyft shares should only be worth $59 according to valuation guru*


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

$63.05 a minute ago.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Lyft is dropping as we speak....


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Lyft is dropping as we speak....
> 
> View attachment 310813


How low do you think it will go?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

goneubering said:


> How low do you think it will go?


It's dropping so fast I wouldn't be surprised to see it dip below 60 today.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

$61.61. wow.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

itsablackmarket said:


> This trash is going to keep falling. Might find some support around $10 for a while, then proceed to bankruptcy.


 We will see a short squeeze at some point and possibly some manipulation from the underwriting syndicate, but you are correct in the long term. Shit will eventually go to single digits


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Closing bell $60.12. down 10.85% in one day!


----------



## Tbc007 (Aug 10, 2017)




----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

I wish I held my PUT option for longer. Was worried about manipulation.


----------



## 1.5xorbust (Nov 22, 2017)

This isn’t going to be a ride straight down to the basement. Probably have an uptick tomorrow before resuming the slide. More than halfway to 42 from the top.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> It's dropping so fast I wouldn't be surprised to see it dip below 60 today.


Very close!! Give us your prediction for tomorrow.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Closing bell $60.12. down 10.85% in one day


Look at these Fox Business and Business Insider articles from March 29th showing how much fake information (and NOT real information), comes from the business clowns
Lyft IPO: GM, Carl Icahn and others set to win big
and
Here's who's getting rich from Lyft's enormous IPO

Remember how the early investors cannot sale their shares for at least 180 days, and they are literally watching the stock value evaporating. Hahahaha....



goneubering said:


> How low do you think it will go?


I am ready to wait until the value drops between $3 ans $5. I'm not in a hurry. After it'll hit that bottom, will bounce to $10 to $15 range and fluctuate only if they shut down the self driving unit and start doing the right thing by increasing the per mile and per minute rates, If they don't do that, after the stock will drop back to $3 to $5 range, maybe Amazon or the "geniuses" from GM will buy it for pennies.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

God isn’t it wonderful when the tide goes out and the emperor has no clothes on? I can’t believe how many ducking morons thought these companies were good ideas


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> God isn't it wonderful when the tide goes out and the emperor has no clothes on? I can't believe how many ducking morons thought these companies were good ideas


Well, very many people decided to drive for the platforms or use them as riders, considering the easy smartphone app use, and the quality of the service (how fast the cars showed up and vehicle cleanliness) compared to the traditional cab model. The platforms created a very easy to use electronic environment, where drivers and riders communicate very conveniently and get to the destination in the most effective way.

However, app developers are not business people, and their attempt to manipulate drivers and riders alike is the wrong model that makes the business very problematic.

You cannot cut rates only because you want to attract more riders in order to lie possible investors about your constantly increasing market share pace because alienating the drivers will hurt you in the long term.

You cannot show riders estimates calculated based on longer rides and hope drivers won't notice, take the fastest route (given by their navigation apps you automatically programmed to start without giving the driver the chance to take a look at) and pocket the differences, because you continue to lose money and don't want to make harsh business decisions to fix your problem.

You cannot continue to lie about unproven and dangerous autonomous systems (they are not even well-defined stand-alone technologies), presenting your fantasies as transportation revolutions ready to be deployed and capable to change the world in the next 3 minutes.

You cannot add more junk (as electric scooters and dockless bicycles) to cities streets and encourage people to disconnect from their responsibilities (personal and general safety) because some new ideas seem to be fun and more convenient than walking.

IMO, their failure comes not from the idea of ridesharing, but from the unnatural model they are stubborn to enforce. The realities show a clear path to follow, but they choose to push to change human behavior, thinking like code writers and ignoring business realities and people sensibilities.

Take a look at these CNBC morons when told how the only thing Lyft proved so far, is that they only know how NOT to make money from rideshare. Can you hear the crickets for a few seconds there - the 3rd and 4th minutes of the video - https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/04/...o-the-dean-of-valuation-aswath-damodaran.html

This is exactly how they'll stay silent when told the truth about the "revolution" of the beloved self-driving cars. They'll be shocked by their own naivety.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> God isn't it wonderful when the tide goes out and the emperor has no clothes on? I can't believe how many ducking morons thought these companies were good ideas


Rideshare is a great idea. It's the poor implementation by Uber and Lyft which causes problems.



jocker12 said:


> Well, very many people decided to drive for the platforms or use them as riders, considering the easy smartphone app use, and the quality of the service (how fast the cars showed up and vehicle cleanliness) compared to the traditional cab model. The platforms created a very easy to use electronic environment, where drivers and riders communicate very conveniently and get to the destination in the most effective way.
> 
> However, app developers are not business people, and their attempt to manipulate drivers and riders alike is the wrong model that makes the business very problematic.
> 
> ...


Lyft and Uber are their own worst enemies.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Wow someone intelligent on CNBC, that was refreshing. I’m still not accepting that “rideshare” is anything other than gypsy cabs on a large scale.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> Wow someone intelligent on CNBC, that was refreshing. I'm still not accepting that "rideshare" is anything other than gypsy cabs on a large scale.


Do you come from a cab background?


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Nope, not at all


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

$58.34!!!??

BELOW $58.


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

$57.98


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

I don't see this going below $55 today.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> $58.34!!!??
> 
> BELOW $58.





VanGuy said:


> $57.98


In less than 2 weeks....


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

$59.90 close. Will go much lower.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

it'll be $40 by the day of the next earnings report


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> it'll be $40 by the day of the next earnings report


It will definitely settle between $35 and $45 before the end of the year.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

mbd said:


> Lyft loses 1.50 a ride, and part of it was
> Giving out rides for loss.... they can chop off at least 1.00 out of the 1.50 by
> Cutting down on advertising, research on autonomous vehicles and no more free rides.
> Goog and gm both investors in Lyft, and Goog has Waymo, so why bother spending $$$$ on autonomous research ... I think Goog will partner with Lyft if autonomous vehicles actually make it to the roads ( I don't think it will in a mass scale), and gm also trying out AV.. Lyft brand has grown enough, they can cut down on advertising...


If that was true things like this would happen


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> It will definitely settle between $35 and $45 before the end of the year.


What if Uber's shares tank big time?
What then will be the value of its "poor relation's" shares?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

LYFT down another 4.40 percent today.
I'm sorry you're welcome.


----------



## Taksomotor (Mar 19, 2019)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> People don't have any faith in Lyft stock because the product hasn't made a profit ever and shows no projection in their own prospectus for making a profit. Ever.


No profit, yet drivers get less than min wage. Where do that spend all the money!?


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lyft-pulls-electric-bikes-three-013330025.html


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

LYFT $56.11 at closing bell. Sinking like the Titanic.



Taksomotor said:


> No profit, yet drivers get less than min wage. Where do that spend all the money!?


Where have you been? Rideshare revenue is so low it doesn't cover expenses.
I've told you guys for Almost half a decade that the price is too low for anyone to make a profit.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> LYFT $56.11 at closing bell. Sinking like the Titanic.
> 
> 
> Where have you been? Rideshare revenue is so low it doesn't cover expenses.
> I've told you guys for Almost half a decade that the price is too low for anyone to make a profit.


Still floating. Up 14 cents today!!


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Closed at $59.51 today. Up $3.26 for anyone who’s keeping score.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

goneubering said:


> Closed at $59.51 today. Up $3.26 for anyone who's keeping score.


When the hold period is up for stock option sales it will crash bigly.


----------

