# Fortune the magazine states Uber is a bad business model. Your thoughts?



## pbracing33b

http://fortune.com/2015/08/11/uber-profitable-business-model/

Fortune states that uber is going too big and too fast and they are losing money. They state that Uber cannot keep doing this, because as other companies have tried to follow suit, those have failed and lost big. They believe that Uber business model is a bad business model, which could be devastating if Uber fails.

What are you thoughts? The video really clears some stuff up too and they do a really good job at explaining why this is a bad business model.


----------



## pbracing33b

Another article that explains Ubers business model in a little more detail: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aswathd...isruptive-cab-ride-to-riches-the-uber-payoff/


----------



## SECOTIME

That Travis guy looks like a scheister. It looks like he has the devil in his eyes.


----------



## elelegido

This has come up before here. Of course, any idiot can run a loss making business, offering subsidized services funded by investor's money as opposed to funded by revenue.

"How can Uber be so _cheap_?", pax ask. Answer - because your cheap ride is being partly paid for by someone else.

Investors won't keep injecting capital forever; at some point Uber will have to at least break even. If it doesn't, it will be one of the most spectacular corporate failures ever.


----------



## Turbo

Fortune the magazine as opposed to Fortune the cookie


----------



## XUberMike

elelegido said:


> This has come up before here. Of course, any idiot can run a loss.
> 
> Investors won't keep injecting capital forever; at some point Uber will have to at least break even. If it doesn't, it will be one of the most spectacular corporate failures ever.


Travis might be able to take his 5 star rating over to LYFT. When he picks me up I might even throw in a tip with the LYFt app


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> This has come up before here. Of course, any idiot can run a loss making business, offering subsidized services funded by investor's money as opposed to funded by revenue.
> 
> "How can Uber be so _cheap_?", pax ask. Answer - because your cheap ride is being partly paid for by someone else.
> 
> Investors won't keep injecting capital forever; at some point Uber will have to at least break even. If it doesn't, it will be one of the most spectacular corporate failures ever.


That's epicly ignorant. Cadabra...you know them as Amazon, took a decade. Everyone said the same thing, especially book stores.

Uber is expanding worldwide. That's expensive. Once they stop expanding , or reach the point where current area profits exceed expansion investment, they will have a wildly profitable business.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> That's epicly ignorant. Cadabra...you know them as Amazon, took a decade. Everyone said the same thing, especially book stores.
> 
> Uber is expanding worldwide. That's expensive. Once they stop expanding , or reach the point where current area profits exceed expansion investment, they will have a wildly profitable business.


Lordy, lordy, lordy, where to begin?! You give so much material to work with here; I feel spoiled!

Let's start by saying that if you're going to indulge in calling people ignorant, make sure that you don't put the word ignorant straight after a word whose spelling you manage to completely mangle. It's "epically", not "epicly". Being ignorant of how to spell, in the same phrase in which you call someone else ignorant just makes you look, well... ignorant.

I see reading comprehension may not be your strong point. There is nothing incorrect in anything I wrote in my post. Yet by attempting to draw non-existent parallels between it and predictions others made about Amazon failing, you seem to have interpreted my post as a prediction that Uber will fail. Read the post again, slowly - I said nothing of the kind.

Finally, you demonstrate mastery of none of the basic concepts of business analysis. Fortune recently reported that Uber lost $470m on $415m. This means that, for every dollar Uber received in revenue, it spent just over $2. Averaged out, this means that, for example, a ride for which Uber charges the customer a fare of $8 actually costs Uber just over $16 to provide. Uber is subsidizing its cut price rides and using investor money to pay for it.

You referenced Amazon, which finally became profitable in 2003, and has had a miniscule net profit margin ever since. Amazon is now profitable, just, but the size of profit is not what matters for survival. Breaking even is what matters. No company that does not reach breakeven point can survive indefinitely without indefinite future funding either via debt or equity. That is fact. Amazon did not fail because it did eventually surpass its breakeven point.

Maybe Uber will reach that point before its funding dries up. Maybe it won't. Note that I said in my earlier post that IF Uber does not break even it will fail. Not that it will fail, or won't fail; it is dependent on the company being able to eventually sustain and support itself, like Amazon was able to. Without the need for indefinite cash injections via debt or equity.

It's probably best not to try to be a commentator on business analytics unless you a) are able to comprehend what others have written on the subject and b) have at least some expertise in the subject; otherwise you run the risk of coming across as... ignorant.


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> Finally, you demonstrate mastery of none of the basic concepts of business analysis. Fortune recently reported that Uber lost $470m on $415m. This means that, for every dollar Uber received in revenue, it spent just over $2. Averaged out, this means that, for example, a ride for which Uber charges the customer a fare of $8 actually costs Uber just over $16 to provide. Uber is subsidizing its cut price rides and using investor money to pay for it.


Ah yes, the grammar police. Yawn...

You have built your entire nonsensical argument on a false premise.
*
Uber doesn't subsidize rides, rides are profitable. * The investment expenditures are for expansion and marketing, not operations. If Uber stopped expanding and marketing in new areas / nations, they would turn a profit day one. Their risk of going under right now, under current circumstances, is zero. If they needed a cash infusion from a source other than investment capital, they just stop major expansion and marketing for a period.

Uber is not at steady state, the point where the market share is mostly settled and they can cease spending heavily on advertising and giving free rides to acquire new customers and driver acquisition bonuses in new areas. Not even close because their goal is to grab as much market share as they can before the competition does. This is the opening market share grab and it's being done for future profits.

So, yes, I am more than able to comprehend what others have written on the subject and have more than some expertise in the subject. If you want to debate Uber's expenditures, at least know what they are being used for.

I was involved with Amazon for a couple of years and I can tell you for a fact, they are a very poorly run company. They also refuse to reach a point where they aren't dumping piles of money into new high risk endeavors. They COULD be very profitable but they are cannibalistic and hated by vendors everywhere.


----------



## Lag Monkey

I wouldn't personally invest in Uber at its current valuation, Lyft seems like a good buy considering its having nice growth and has a much lower valuation and is actually not run by a asshole that would tank the company for any number of given reasons most doing because of his personal ego and greed


----------



## RamzFanz

Lag Monkey said:


> I wouldn't personally invest in Uber at its current valuation, Lyft seems like a good buy considering its having nice growth and has a much lower valuation and is actually not run by a asshole that would tank the company for any number of given reasons most doing because of his personal ego and greed


Lyft is pretty smart. Instead of competing with international competitors, they are partnering with them. Instant penetration and market share with low relative investment compared to Uber.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> Ah yes, the grammar police. Yawn...
> 
> You have built your entire nonsensical argument on a false premise.
> *
> Uber doesn't subsidize rides, rides are profitable. * The investment expenditures are for expansion and marketing, not operations. If Uber stopped expanding and marketing in new areas / nations, they would turn a profit day one. Their risk of going under right now, under current circumstances, is zero. If they needed a cash infusion from a source other than investment capital, they just stop major expansion and marketing for a period.
> 
> Uber is not at steady state, the point where the market share is mostly settled and they can cease spending heavily on advertising and giving free rides to acquire new customers and driver acquisition bonuses in new areas. Not even close because their goal is to grab as much market share as they can before the competition does. This is the opening market share grab and it's being done for future profits.
> 
> So, yes, I am more than able to comprehend what others have written on the subject and have more than some expertise in the subject. If you want to debate Uber's expenditures, at least know what they are being used for.
> 
> I was involved with Amazon for a couple of years and I can tell you for a fact, they are a very poorly run company. They also refuse to reach a point where they aren't dumping piles of money into new high risk endeavors. They COULD be very profitable but they are cannibalistic and hated by vendors everywhere.


No. You have not understood. You are reading into my posts points which I have not made, and then trying to argue against them. 

My points are simply:

- It is easy to run a loss making business and pay for those losses with someone else's money
- No business will survive indefinitely if it only makes losses and never breaks even
- Uber will not survive indefinitely if it only makes losses and never breaks even.

That's it; that's all I have said. To you, these points are "epically ignorant". Well, what can I say. Even for those without any business training, I would have thought that understanding the above points would be intuitive and elementary, and very easy to get a handle on. But if for you they are false, so be it.

Regardless of whether you think my points are true or not, you then introduce your own point, which is that Uber's current revenue would exceed its current operating costs if it were to stop expansion today. Maybe you have access to Uber's internal financial accounts and have full knowledge of its revenue and costs in order to make this assertion. I, however, do not have access to Uber's accounts and therefore do not know if their current revenue exceeds operating costs, excluding expansion expenses. Maybe, maybe not. It is an interesting question, though. Can you share with us your evidence that Uber's profitability is as you claim?


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> No. You have not understood. You are reading into my posts points which I have not made, and then trying to argue against them.
> 
> My points are simply:
> 
> - It is easy to run a loss making business and pay for those losses with someone else's money
> - No business will survive indefinitely if it only makes losses and never breaks even
> - Uber will not survive indefinitely if it only makes losses and never breaks even.
> 
> That's it; that's all I have said. To you, these points are "epically ignorant". Well, what can I say. Even for those without any business training, I would have thought that understanding the above points would be intuitive and elementary, and very easy to get a handle on. But if for you they are false, so be it.
> 
> Regardless of whether you think my points are true or not, you then introduce your own point, which is that Uber's current revenue would exceed its current operating costs if it were to stop expansion today. Maybe you have access to Uber's internal financial accounts and have full knowledge of its revenue and costs in order to make this assertion. I, however, do not have access to Uber's accounts and therefore do not know if their current revenue exceeds operating costs, excluding expansion expenses. Maybe, maybe not. It is an interesting question, though. Can you share with us your evidence that Uber's profitability is as you claim?


I understand completely. You were wrong and your changing direction.

(I said your and not you're so you would have something to reply to.)

Uber's net profit percentage by city has been leaked at least twice. One was from an investor's package while preparing to enter the Chinese market. Do your due diligence.



elelegido said:


> Of course, any idiot can run a loss making business, offering subsidized services funded by investor's money as opposed to funded by revenue.
> 
> "How can Uber be so _cheap_?", pax ask. Answer - because your cheap ride is being partly paid for by someone else.


If all, or most, of the major established cities are profitable, then obviously they are NOT subsidising rides with investor money. Why in the world would major investors pay money to give people rides?! If I knew nothing about Uber I would know you were wrong just by WHO was investing in Uber. They aren't stupid.

What does Uber and the investment analysts' say the money is going towards? Expansion. Customer Acquisition. Driver Acquisition. Establishing market share.

While it may be expensive, it a ton cheaper than the cost of trying to take market share from a competitor later.



elelegido said:


> Finally, you demonstrate mastery of none of the basic concepts of business analysis.


I sure know enough to realise the highest valued startup in history has an army of expert eyes on it that will produce analysis I can read. Didn't you?


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> I understand completely. You were wrong and your changing direction.
> 
> (I said your and not you're so you would have something to reply to.)
> 
> Uber's net profit percentage by city has been leaked at least twice. One was from an investor's package while preparing to enter the Chinese market. Do your due diligence.
> 
> If all, or most, of the major established cities are profitable, then obviously they are NOT subsidising rides with investor money. Why in the world would major investors pay money to give people rides?! If I knew nothing about Uber I would know you were wrong just by WHO was investing in Uber. They aren't stupid.
> 
> What does Uber and the investment analysts' say the money is going towards? Expansion. Customer Acquisition. Driver Acquisition. Establishing market share.
> 
> While it may be expensive, it a ton cheaper than the cost of trying to take market share from a competitor later.
> 
> I sure know enough to realise the highest valued startup in history has an army of expert eyes on it that will produce analysis I can read. Didn't you?


OK, ok, I was wrong - businesses _can_ last forever by making only losses. I hear Radio Shack is looking for a new CEO - you'd fit right in! 

There is no diligence due from me regarding Uber - I would never invest in it. But if you have the info, don't be coy, post a link.

So you say that if you knew nothing about Uber, you'd know it was profitable simply because of WHO was investing in it? I suppose sheep mentality _is_ an investment analysis strategy; can't say it's one I'd put any faith in though.

Uber's investors aren't stupid, you say. What about everyone who invested a total of $40m in the now defunct on-demand cleaning company Homejoy? Google invested in Homejoy as well as in Uber. So, Google invests in Uber because it is not stupid, but invested in Homejoy because it was... stupid?

What do investment analysts say Uber's money is going on? Investment in expansion? You have a leaked city-specific investors' pack - so how much was spent city by city on expansion? How much on customer acquisition? On infrastructure? On driver aquisition? And what about the revenue side? What are Uber's revenue growth predictions city by city, what is the investment payback period by city, what is the ROI by city?

You claim that Uber is profitable in some cities and is projected to be profitable in others. Let's see your numbers.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

Put simply, Uber is a transportation company run by people who don't understand the transportation industry.

Uber will not last.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

There is no such thing as "partially profitable".
Operating in the black in certain cities or regions doesn't matter.
If Uber takes in 400 million in revenue per quarter, and has 401 million in expenditures, it takes a loss.
Amazing how some people can't wrap their minds around that.


----------



## elelegido

TwoFiddyMile said:


> There is no such thing as "partially profitable".
> Operating in the black in certain cities or regions doesn't matter.
> If Uber takes in 400 million in revenue per quarter, and has 401 million in expenditures, it takes a loss.
> Amazing how some people can't wrap their minds around that.


I think he gets that - what he's saying is that if Uber does run out of money and sources of funding before it starts to generate a profit, it can simply shut down unprofitable markets and be left with ones that are profitable. So far though, there are no available figures which would confirm or deny the feasiblity of this.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

elelegido said:


> I think he gets that - what he's saying is that if Uber does run out of money and sources of funding before it starts to generate a profit, it can simply shut down unprofitable markets and be left with ones that are profitable. So far though, there are no available figures which would confirm or deny the feasiblity of this.


Disasterous idea.
The whole idea behind world domination is the app working everywhere. 
Which has already failed, by the way, in most of western Europe and part of Asia.


----------



## chi1cabby

RamzFanz said:


> Uber doesn't subsidize rides, rides are profitable.


That's not true with Uber in China, slated to the biggest Uber market any day now.

*How Uber Trounces the Competition*
*https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-uber-trounces-competition-isabelle-roughol*

_As its Socialist name suggests, People's Uber only bills customers at cost. But of course, China is as capitalist as it gets, and to attract drivers, *Uber subsidizes the rides: the company keeps its cards close to the chest, but it's estimated it loses 3 dollars for every dollar it bills on People's Uber.* (This was explained to me by an entrepreneur with deep knowledge of the market who asked to remain anonymous.)_


----------



## XUberMike

TwoFiddyMile said:


> There is no such thing as "partially profitable".
> Operating in the black in certain cities or regions doesn't matter.
> If Uber takes in 400 million in revenue per quarter, and has 401 million in expenditures, it takes a loss.
> Amazing how some people can't wrap their minds around that.


Keep in mind it's coming from folks that think they turn a RESONABLE profit at 80 cents a mile while paying a 20/25/28% commission to UBER.

Screwber turns a profit on its rides...no shit, they have virtually no expense. It's the partners that don't turn a profit but I do if I don't count fuel and depreciation expense. OK I'll fuel I just won't count repairs and maintenance.

Damn where's a Krispy Kreme donut here in SoCal when I want one?


----------



## bpagan

Uber wont fail. Sorry to kill your hopes.


----------



## elelegido

chi1cabby said:


> That's not true with Uber in China, slated to the biggest Uber market any day now.
> 
> *How Uber Trounces the Competition
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-uber-trounces-competition-isabelle-roughol*
> 
> _As its Socialist name suggests, People's Uber only bills customers at cost. But of course, China is as capitalist as it gets, and to attract drivers, *Uber subsidizes the rides: the company keeps its cards close to the chest, but it's estimated it loses 3 dollars for every dollar it bills on People's Uber.* (This was explained to me by an entrepreneur with deep knowledge of the market who asked to remain anonymous.)_


Of course. Even here, some rides are very heavily subsidized. I often get Pool rides on surge, for example. The rider tells me they're paying $10 for their ride; Uber pays me $30. Happens every day.


----------



## elelegido

bpagan said:


> Uber wont fail. Sorry to kill your hopes.


Which of us hopes Uber will fail?


----------



## chi1cabby

RamzFanz said:


> If I knew nothing about Uber I would know you were wrong just by WHO was investing in Uber. They aren't stupid.


Btw, one of the early stage Uber investors is Benchmark Capital. It's principle, Bill Gurley, is an Uber board member.
Benchmark Capital was a big investor in WebVan.
http://fortune.com/2014/06/06/these-are-the-venture-firms-celebrating-ubers-massive-17b-valuation/

With all that said, Uber is not going to go the way of WebVan. But Uber's $50 Billion valuation is getting ahead of reality.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

bpagan said:


> Uber wont fail. Sorry to kill your hopes.


Oh Guru thank you!


----------



## elelegido

chi1cabby said:


> Btw, one of the early stage Uber investors is Benchmark Capital. It's principle, Bill Gurley, is an Uber board member.
> BTW, Benchmark was a big investor in WebVan.
> http://fortune.com/2014/06/06/these-are-the-venture-firms-celebrating-ubers-massive-17b-valuation/
> 
> With all that said, Uber is not going to go the way of WebVan. But Uber's $50 Billion valuation is getting ahead of reality.


Right - they're venture capitalists; they know they're going to take a beating on some deals and hopefully hit the jackpot on others. It's calculated gambling; nothing to do with being stupid or not stupid.


----------



## bpagan

yes guru but i wont go into that. Just google uber investors list and look at the companies who are investing 100's of millions into uber. Almost all those companies are known to invest in winners. You dont know as much as you think you know because your feelings for uber get in the way.


----------



## elelegido

bpagan said:


> You dont know as much as you think you know because your feelings for uber get in the way.


You're the one making predictions that Uber will not fail. Everyone else here says they don't know. I haven't got a clue if it will or not.


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> OK, ok, I was wrong - businesses _can_ last forever by making only losses. I hear Radio Shack is looking for a new CEO - you'd fit right in!
> 
> There is no diligence due from me regarding Uber - I would never invest in it. But if you have the info, don't be coy, post a link.
> 
> So you say that if you knew nothing about Uber, you'd know it was profitable simply because of WHO was investing in it? I suppose sheep mentality _is_ an investment analysis strategy; can't say it's one I'd put any faith in though.
> 
> Uber's investors aren't stupid, you say. What about everyone who invested a total of $40m in the now defunct on-demand cleaning company Homejoy? Google invested in Homejoy as well as in Uber. So, Google invests in Uber because it is not stupid, but invested in Homejoy because it was... stupid?
> 
> What do investment analysts say Uber's money is going on? Investment in expansion? You have a leaked city-specific investors' pack - so how much was spent city by city on expansion? How much on customer acquisition? On infrastructure? On driver aquisition? And what about the revenue side? What are Uber's revenue growth predictions city by city, what is the investment payback period by city, what is the ROI by city?
> 
> You claim that Uber is profitable in some cities and is projected to be profitable in others. Let's see your numbers.


I've read the analysis and the supporting documents. It's how I formed an opinion instead of out of thin air. They are easily located online. Have at it or remain ignorant, I really don't care.

You keep trying to derail this discussion with misquotes and diversions because you realise you spouted off and lost.

The only one claiming Uber intends to go on forever spending more than it brings in is you. I never said I thought Uber was profitable because of who was investing, I said I would know you were wrong in your claim that they were subsidizing rides by who was investing. Paying to subsidize rides wouldn't be a calculated risk, it would be beyond stupid.

Investing to expand a business and grab market share knowing it was already profitable in its major markets is a calculated risk. Thus the investors packages showing this. NOW is the time to grab new customers, not after they already use another service. It's far cheaper to keep a customer loyal than to lure them away.

So, no, rides are not subsidised.

Trust me as a lifelong investor, you have mastery of none of the basic concepts of business analysis. You have already stated you have not done any due diligence but have still formed an uninformed opinion.


----------



## RamzFanz

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Put simply, Uber is a transportation company run by people who don't understand the transportation industry.
> 
> Uber will not last.


Uber is already making a profit. The money they are spending is not on operations, it's on expansion. They won't just last, they will probably dominate the market for the foreseeable future.


----------



## pbracing33b

RamzFanz said:


> I've read the analysis and the supporting documents. It's how I formed an opinion instead of out of thin air. They are easily located online. Have at it or remain ignorant, I really don't care.
> 
> You keep trying to derail this discussion with misquotes and diversions because you realise you spouted off and lost.
> 
> The only one claiming Uber intends to go on forever spending more than it brings in is you. I never said I thought Uber was profitable because of who was investing, I said I would know you were wrong in your claim that they were subsidizing rides by who was investing. Paying to subsidize rides wouldn't be a calculated risk, it would be beyond stupid.
> 
> Investing to expand a business and grab market share knowing it was already profitable in its major markets is a calculated risk. Thus the investors packages showing this. NOW is the time to grab new customers, not after they already use another service. It's far cheaper to keep a customer loyal than to lure them away.
> 
> So, no, rides are not subsidised.
> 
> Trust me as a lifelong investor, you have mastery of none of the basic concepts of business analysis. You have already stated you have not done any due diligence but have still formed an uninformed opinion.


I don't mean to rain on your parade, but anytime someone doesn't post their sources, it creates doubt. I mean if they are easily accessible then why not post them? That's all I wanna know. Just curious to as why you didn't take the time to do this instead of arguing about it, if those documents were easily accessible then why would it be so difficult to post a link or links on here, thats all I'm sayin


----------



## RamzFanz

TwoFiddyMile said:


> There is no such thing as "partially profitable".
> Operating in the black in certain cities or regions doesn't matter.
> If Uber takes in 400 million in revenue per quarter, and has 401 million in expenditures, it takes a loss.
> Amazing how some people can't wrap their minds around that.


Amazing that a cabbie can't grasp that startups spend money on marketing to gain market share before the also rans grab it up.

One is profit, what they are earning above costs in the market, the other is investment in future profits.


----------



## RamzFanz

chi1cabby said:


> That's not true with Uber in China, slated to the biggest Uber market any day now.
> 
> *How Uber Trounces the Competition
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-uber-trounces-competition-isabelle-roughol*
> 
> _As its Socialist name suggests, People's Uber only bills customers at cost. But of course, China is as capitalist as it gets, and to attract drivers, *Uber subsidizes the rides: the company keeps its cards close to the chest, but it's estimated it loses 3 dollars for every dollar it bills on People's Uber.* (This was explained to me by an entrepreneur with deep knowledge of the market who asked to remain anonymous.)_


Yes. In new markets there is marketing like free or reduced rides to gain market share. Same as driver bonuses. These are marketing costs, not operational.


----------



## RamzFanz

XUberMike said:


> Keep in mind it's coming from folks that think they turn a RESONABLE profit at 80 cents a mile while paying a 20/25/28% commission to UBER.
> 
> Screwber turns a profit on its rides...no shit, they have virtually no expense. It's the partners that don't turn a profit but I do if I don't count fuel and depreciation expense. OK I'll fuel I just won't count repairs and maintenance.
> 
> Damn where's a Krispy Kreme donut here in SoCal when I want one?


Anyone who drives for .80 cents a mile is just not smart.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

RamzFanz said:


> Uber is already making a profit. The money they are spending is not on operations, it's on expansion. They won't just last, they will probably dominate the market for the foreseeable future.


I don't think you understand what the word "profit" means.


----------



## chi1cabby

RamzFanz said:


> Yes. In new markets there is marketing like free or reduced rides to gain market share. Same as driver bonuses. These are marketing costs, not operational.


It's debatable if price dumping in China, and associated Driver Subsidies are marketing or operational costs.


----------



## RamzFanz

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The whole idea behind world domination is the app working everywhere.


Uber may fail in some markets. There are a mass of political and cultural concerns and roadblocks. Or maybe they won't. It's too early to tell. In the US, they are profitable.


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> Of course. Even here, some rides are very heavily subsidized. I often get Pool rides on surge, for example. The rider tells me they're paying $10 for their ride; Uber pays me $30. Happens every day.


Those are marketing costs to acquire new riders, not a subsidy. Completely different animal.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> I've read the analysis and the supporting documents. It's how I formed an opinion instead of out of thin air. They are easily located online.


Yet you won't post a link to them or tell us where these mysterious documents are... Going to have to call BS I'm afraid. This is Colin Powell in 1991 all over again. There are WMD, I tell you... they're out there!



> The only one claiming Uber intends to go on forever spending more than it brings in is you.


Nope, I never said that.



> I would know you were wrong in your claim that they were subsidizing rides by who was investing.


Really?! Just by knowing who invested you'd know that rides are not subsidized? LOL, the Force is strong in this one.



> So, no, rides are not subsidised.


Single rider Uberpool; Uberpool on surge



> you have mastery of none of the basic concepts of business analysis.


Imitation is one of the greatest forms of flattery.


----------



## chi1cabby

RamzFanz it's just more conducive to have a less strident & confrontational posting style. You offer a lot in your posts here, but sometimes that gets side tracked by the posting style. 
I hope you don't mind me pointing it out.


----------



## XUberMike

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> I don't think you understand what the word "profit" means.


That's not a shock neither does Screwber. Their favorite line is earn more money not make more profit. Its like the car salesman to get you to focus on the monthly payment not how much the car purchase price is.

4 Uber it's about revenue not about profit they want their partners to think the same way


----------



## chi1cabby

Here are the leaked docs:

*Leaked Documents Show Uber Cost Structure, Best-Performing Cities*


----------



## RamzFanz

pbracing33b said:


> I don't mean to rain on your parade, but anytime someone doesn't post their sources, it creates doubt. I mean if they are easily accessible then why not post them? That's all I wanna know. Just curious to as why you didn't take the time to do this instead of arguing about it, if those documents were easily accessible then why would it be so difficult to post a link or links on here, thats all I'm sayin


Because if I educated you, I couldn't debate you. I enjoy the debate. He wants to form an opinion and spout off with no research, it's on him.

But I digress, start here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-revenue-rides-drivers-and-fares-2014-11?op=1

"Uber significantly ramped up its expansion efforts in China and India in late 2014 and 2015, with floods of bonuses and deals to entice drivers and passengers, so it's safe to assume it's hemorrhaging cash.

It still has plenty of time to change that before facing the music of the public markets."


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> Yes. In new markets there is marketing like free or reduced rides to gain market share. Same as driver bonuses. These are marketing costs, not operational.


Except that Uber's financials report cost of revenue, which does include marketing and promotions, as opposed to cost of sales, which does not. But then again, surely you'd know that, having seen Uber's financials / investor packs etc


----------



## RamzFanz

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> I don't think you understand what the word "profit" means.


I don't think you understand that marketing costs to acquire market share are considered investments into future profits.

According to what little we know, if Uber is being honest, they could stop expansion and marketing today, maybe close a few new cities that are slow adopters, and be profitable. Very profitable.

THIS is why investors are handing over cash. To EXPAND their success, not to create it.


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> Yet you won't post a link to them or tell us where these mysterious documents are... Going to have to call BS I'm afraid. This is Colin Powell in 1991 all over again. There are WMD, I tell you... they're out there!
> 
> Nope, I never said that.
> 
> Really?! Just by knowing who invested you'd know that rides are not subsidized? LOL, the Force is strong in this one.
> 
> Single rider Uberpool; Uberpool on surge
> 
> Imitation is one of the greatest forms of flattery.


There are many many links available in this forum and easily found online. Your admitting you have done no research, and don't even know what I'm referring to, doesn't help your argument.

Yes, just by knowing who and how much was being invested I would know instinctively you are wrong in your false claim that they are subsidizing rides. These companies, unlike you, do their research before they form opinions. If Uber were subsidising rides at this point, they wouldn't get $1 from anyone.

You are insincere and uninformed.


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> Except that Uber's financials report cost of revenue, which does include marketing and promotions, as opposed to cost of sales, which does not. But then again, surely you'd know that, having seen Uber's financials / investor packs etc


Marketing and promotions to sustain their profitability in mature markets is completely different than costs of expansion and acquiring market share.

But then again, since you've done no research, I understand your confusion.

Tell is again how Uber spend all it's money subsidizing rides. It was your best work!


----------



## RamzFanz

chi1cabby said:


> RamzFanz it's just more conducive to have a less strident & confrontational posting style. You offer a lot in your posts here, but sometimes that gets side tracked by the posting style.
> I hope you don't mind me pointing it out.


I agree, I need to work on that. Point taken. I just hate when disinformation is spread around as fact.

But I need to tone it down.


----------



## pbracing33b

Me thinks someone on here works for uber, js.


----------



## RamzFanz

XUberMike said:


> That's not a shock neither does Screwber. Their favorite line is earn more money not make more profit. Its like the car salesman to get you to focus on the monthly payment not how much the car purchase price is.
> 
> 4 Uber it's about revenue not about profit they want their partners to think the same way


....and you just made that up. The investment portfolios that have been leaked discuss actual profit generated, listed by the city. They show this to potential investors so they can understand why it's important to expand now, because they have proven the concept and are profitable in cities that are already opened.

But, yes, they probably don't want drivers doing the math, but of course, that's not their responsibility, it's yours.


----------



## RamzFanz

pbracing33b said:


> Me thinks someone on here works for uber, js.


The shill argument. Nice. That's always a winner. Even better than the grammar police, but not by much.

Me thinks Uber haters want people to think Uber is destined to fail because it makes them feel good. But what do I know?


----------



## RamzFanz

The entire truth is we will not know what Uber is doing specifically until they go public. And even then we will rely on them for the numbers.

To think that all these major investors are just blindly dumping billions on Uber to subsidize rides is ridiculous. Uber has a plan, the investors like the plan, the investments are not for current operations, but for future profits.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> Your admitting you have done no research, and don't even know what I'm referring to, doesn't help your argument.


Really? I don't know what you're referring to?


> Uber's net profit percentage by city has been leaked at least twice.


Hmm... I assume from the above that you were referring to... Uber's net profit percentage?


> You are insincere


I've been called worse


> and uninformed.


That's my point! Yes, I am uninformed about Uber's profitability. I have no idea if Uber could sustain itself now if it were to stop expansion now.

You say it can, but all I've seen so far, thanks to chi1cabby, is a list of a few cities' contribution margins. A profit centre's contribution margin is _not_ the same as a profit centre's net profit margin!

I feel like an instructor in a first year financial accounting class!

Nor did I see any revenue growth or cost forecasts, for any profit centres in those docs. So, for now, you have not proven your case for Uber being viable as a long term business, not by a long way.


----------



## pbracing33b

I luv how people make assumptions. Js


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> Marketing and promotions to sustain their profitability in mature markets is completely different than costs of expansion and acquiring market share.


Obviously. And a dog is not a cat. What's your point?


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> Obviously. And a dog is not a cat. What's your point?


That they are different which is why you seem to think it's all spent on operations.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> That they are different which is why you seem to think it's all spent on operations.


Please find where I allegedly said that in this thread and quote it


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> Really? I don't know what you're referring to?
> 
> Hmm... I assume from the above that you were referring to... Uber's net profit percentage?
> 
> I've been called worse
> 
> That's my point! Yes, I am uninformed about Uber's profitability. I have no idea if Uber could sustain itself now if it were to stop expansion now.
> 
> You say it can, but all I've seen so far, thanks to chi1cabby, is a list of a few cities' contribution margins. A profit centre's contribution margin is _not_ the same as a profit centre's net profit margin!
> 
> I feel like an instructor in a first year financial accounting class!
> 
> Nor did I see any revenue growth or cost forecasts, for any profit centres in those docs. So, for now, you have not proven your case for Uber being viable as a long term business, not by a long way.


You assume incorrectly, it's broken down by city. They are proof of concept numbers to lure expansion investment.

Quite frankly, I looked at the many leaks and analysis in the past. Not even sure what you are looking at.

The main point being, you are wrong. You claimed all of their cash was being used to subsidise rides, which is incorrect. Remember?

"Finally, you demonstrate mastery of none of the basic concepts of business analysis. Fortune recently reported that Uber lost $470m on $415m. This means that, for every dollar Uber received in revenue, it spent just over $2. Averaged out, this means that, for example, a ride for which Uber charges the customer a fare of $8 actually costs Uber just over $16 to provide. *Uber is subsidizing its cut price rides and using investor money to pay for it.*"

If you were an instructor in finance, you would soon be an Uber driver again hauling around your former students, who would be whispering and snickering about you offering uninformed opinions as fact.


----------



## Justin12345

How can Uber possibly be losing money?


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> Please find where I allegedly said that in this thread and quote it


"Uber is subsidizing its cut price rides and using investor money to pay for it."


----------



## pbracing33b

Justin12345 said:


> How can Uber possibly be losing money?


Just like any other big corp does they spend money they dont have or they try to drive the prices so low that it eats into thier profits and could in some markets be taking a loss, but they see it as an investment so therefore they will keep trying to make it successful at any cost. Its not the first time any big corp has done these strategies most strategies have been done b4 over and over and again. Uber is taking very big risks and most corp are conservative with their money or they only set aside x amount of dollars for risky investments, however uber seems to be putting all their eggs into the risky side of business issues. Its like betting in roulette and putting everything on black and hoping it hits so u can bank it big, but if u miiss u miss big nd could lose everything, thats how uber is operating and it is very volitile overall.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

Justin12345 said:


> How can Uber possibly be losing money?


Because it's being run by idiots.


----------



## XUberMike

RamzFanz said:


> I agree, I need to work on that. Point taken. I just hate when disinformation is spread around as fact.
> 
> But I need to tone it down.


You're passionate and you want to be helpful but if you don't improve the delivery it just rubs people the wrong way.

Only Donald Trump can pull that off


----------



## bpagan

Sounds like you all have made up your minds. We will just have to wait and see. The ban lift in broward florida is a major win for the legality of ridesharing and uber , and if the us legal system is good at anything its following precedance.
So many of you sound so unhappy, you should move on.


----------



## RamzFanz

pbracing33b said:


> Just like any other big corp does they spend money they dont have or they try to drive the prices so low that it eats into thier profits and could in some markets be taking a loss, but they see it as an investment so therefore they will keep trying to make it successful at any cost. Its not the first time any big corp has done these strategies most strategies have been done b4 over and over and again. Uber is taking very big risks and most corp are conservative with their money or they only set aside x amount of dollars for risky investments, however uber seems to be putting all their eggs into the risky side of business issues. Its like betting in roulette and putting everything on black and hoping it hits so u can bank it big, but if u miiss u miss big nd could lose everything, thats how uber is operating and it is very volitile overall.


Nonsense. Uber is expanding. They are not randomly gambling, they are grabbing market share in a profitable sector.


----------



## RamzFanz

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Because it's being run by idiots.


Those idiots have the highest valued startup ever.


----------



## XUberMike

RamzFanz said:


> "Uber is subsidizing its cut price rides and using investor money to pay for it."


Ahh the drivers (non secured "partner"investors) are doing the subsidizing


----------



## Edddelos

bpagan said:


> Uber wont fail. Sorry to kill your hopes.





elelegido said:


> Which of us hopes Uber will fail?


 Yes, Yes and the titanic is unsinkable we get the picture.


----------



## RamzFanz

XUberMike said:


> Ahh the drivers (non secured "partner"investors) are doing the subsidizing


You aren't an investor or a partner, you're an independent business owner. Don't make bad decisions or it's your fault.


----------



## RamzFanz

Edddelos said:


> Yes, Yes and the titanic is unsinkable we get the picture.


Why would you think the titanic was unsinkable?


----------



## Edddelos

RamzFanz said:


> Why would you think the titanic was unsinkable?





bpagan said:


> Uber wont fail. Sorry to kill your hopes.


Large companies and big ideas don't ever fail ever and stay around forever, here are some examples:

Blockbuster video
Eastern airlines
Saturn (auto-corp)
Kodak
This is just a handful of big companies that never....oh wait.

Sooner or later the balloon bursts.


----------



## XUberMike

RamzFanz said:


> You aren't an investor or a partner, you're an independent business owner. Don't make bad decisions or it's your fault.


Uber considers me a partner, in fact the website is dedicated to it's Uber partners.

Oh and I don't make bad decisions.


----------



## Edddelos

XUberMike said:


> Uber considers me a partner, in fact the website is dedicated to it's Uber partners.
> 
> Oh and I don't make bad decisions.


Congratulations on making partner.
Uber considers me expendable.


----------



## RamzFanz

Edddelos said:


> Large companies and big ideas don't ever fail ever and stay around forever, here are some examples:
> 
> Blockbuster video
> Eastern airlines
> Saturn (auto-corp)
> Kodak
> This is just a handful of big companies that never....oh wait.
> 
> Sooner or later the balloon bursts.


Well, not exactly. Saturn won the hearts and minds of the public but produced a bad product. I don't know anything about Eastern Airlines.

Some business have lifecycles that end when the technology changes and they fail to adapt, like Kodak and Blockbuster. By the way, those companies made a lot of money for a lot of investors for a long time and employed hundreds of thousands of people for decades. Also, Kodak was foolish to not see the digital age coming and get ahead of the curve but they have adapted to other markets and they exist today, so not a really a good example.

I used to tell people Kodak and Blockbuster would fail when they still had the majority of the market share and a mountain of cash. People scoffed.

Other companies adapt. Apple failed to do what Uber is doing and get market share fast and it hurt them for a long long time. Like Uber today, being first doesn't mean a thing if you don't go big. Apple was, at one time, the most popular home computer. At one time I owned an Apple IIC. Then they got hosed for 3 decades. Now they have adapted and are a great company.

Predicting Uber's downfall at this point is silly. They aren't even fully open.


----------



## RamzFanz

XUberMike said:


> Uber considers me a partner, in fact the website is dedicated to it's Uber partners.
> 
> Oh and I don't make bad decisions.


Really? You're a partner? Share the earnings reports with us!

I think they mean more like pardner.


----------



## stuber

RamzFanz said:


> Ah yes, the grammar police. Yawn...
> 
> You have built your entire nonsensical argument on a false premise.
> *
> Uber doesn't subsidize rides, rides are profitable. * The investment expenditures are for expansion and marketing, not operations. If Uber stopped expanding and marketing in new areas / nations, they would turn a profit day one. Their risk of going under right now, under current circumstances, is zero. If they needed a cash infusion from a source other than investment capital, they just stop major expansion and marketing for a period.
> 
> Uber is not at steady state, the point where the market share is mostly settled and they can cease spending heavily on advertising and giving free rides to acquire new customers and driver acquisition bonuses in new areas. Not even close because their goal is to grab as much market share as they can before the competition does. This is the opening market share grab and it's being done for future profits.
> 
> So, yes, I am more than able to comprehend what others have written on the subject and have more than some expertise in the subject. If you want to debate Uber's expenditures, at least know what they are being used for.
> 
> I was involved with Amazon for a couple of years and I can tell you for a fact, they are a very poorly run company. They also refuse to reach a point where they aren't dumping piles of money into new high risk endeavors. They COULD be very profitable but they are cannibalistic and hated by vendors everywhere.


Hey eleligido and RamzFanz, nice! Can we just agree? It's a very shitty company. It may or may not fail, but UBER certainly DESERVES to fail.


----------



## RamzFanz

stuber said:


> Hey eleligido and RamzFanz, nice! Can we just agree? It's a very shitty company. It may or may not fail, but UBER certainly DESERVES to fail.


Depends on your point of view. I can see why some drivers think that, but they shouldn't be driving for those rates. THEY are the ones enabling Uber.

The passengers don't think they're shitty and I suspect investors won't either.

I wouldn't call them shitty at all myself. Ingenious is what I'd call them. And heartless. Ingenious and heartless. ALL brain and NO heart.


----------



## stuber

Turbo said:


> Fortune the magazine as opposed to Fortune the cookie


Not to be confused with Soldier of Fortune. The magazine. Not the cookie. And not some crap movie that might possibly exist (that, thankfully, I'm not aware of.)


----------



## Edddelos

RamzFanz said:


> Well, not exactly. Saturn won the hearts and minds of the public but produced a bad product. I don't know anything about Eastern Airlines.
> 
> Some business have lifecycles that end when the technology changes and they fail to adapt, like Kodak and Blockbuster. By the way, those companies made a lot of money for a lot of investors for a long time and employed hundreds of thousands of people for decades. Also, Kodak was foolish to not see the digital age coming and get ahead of the curve but they have adapted to other markets and they exist today, so not a really a good example.
> 
> I used to tell people Kodak and Blockbuster would fail when they still had the majority of the market share and a mountain of cash. People scoffed.
> 
> Other companies adapt. Apple failed to do what Uber is doing and get market share fast and it hurt them for a long long time. Now they have adapted and are a great company.
> 
> Predicting Uber's downfall at this point is silly. They aren't even fully open.


Yes but those companies offered a physical product included with service. Uber drivers is the Uber product. Uber can lowball its drivers only for so long until something gives, they will go as low as they can until they start noticing cracks.


----------



## stuber

elelegido said:


> I think he gets that - what he's saying is that if Uber does run out of money and sources of funding before it starts to generate a profit, it can simply shut down unprofitable markets and be left with ones that are profitable. So far though, there are no available figures which would confirm or deny the feasiblity of this.


Except that UBER's popularity is largely based (aside from ridiculously cheap prices) on it ubiquitous presence. The effing thing is almost literally everywhere. If they start paring back the unprofitable cities, then their overall appeal is greatly diminished. The instant gratification society doesn't want to sort out where they are operating. They want it now and everywhere.


----------



## Old Rocker

elelegido said:


> Lordy, lordy, lordy, where to begin?! You give so much material to work with here; I feel spoiled!
> 
> Let's start by saying that if you're going to indulge in calling people ignorant, make sure that you don't put the word ignorant straight after a word whose spelling you manage to completely mangle. It's "epically", not "epicly". Being ignorant of how to spell, in the same phrase in which you call someone else ignorant just makes you look, well... ignorant.
> 
> I see reading comprehension may not be your strong point. There is nothing incorrect in anything I wrote in my post. Yet by attempting to draw non-existent parallels between it and predictions others made about Amazon failing, you seem to have interpreted my post as a prediction that Uber will fail. Read the post again, slowly - I said nothing of the kind.
> 
> Finally, you demonstrate mastery of none of the basic concepts of business analysis. Fortune recently reported that Uber lost $470m on $415m. This means that, for every dollar Uber received in revenue, it spent just over $2. Averaged out, this means that, for example, a ride for which Uber charges the customer a fare of $8 actually costs Uber just over $16 to provide. Uber is subsidizing its cut price rides and using investor money to pay for it.
> 
> You referenced Amazon, which finally became profitable in 2003, and has had a miniscule net profit margin ever since. Amazon is now profitable, just, but the size of profit is not what matters for survival. Breaking even is what matters. No company that does not reach breakeven point can survive indefinitely without indefinite future funding either via debt or equity. That is fact. Amazon did not fail because it did eventually surpass its breakeven point.
> 
> Maybe Uber will reach that point before its funding dries up. Maybe it won't. Note that I said in my earlier post that IF Uber does not break even it will fail. Not that it will fail, or won't fail; it is dependent on the company being able to eventually sustain and support itself, like Amazon was able to. Without the need for indefinite cash injections via debt or equity.
> 
> It's probably best not to try to be a commentator on business analytics unless you a) are able to comprehend what others have written on the subject and b) have at least some expertise in the subject; otherwise you run the risk of coming across as... ignorant.


As a general comment...

Amazon can operate on a low profit margin because of a high cash turnover rate. Basically, the same $1 investment in inventory is sold over and over again at such a high velocity that even a 1% margin yields Huge Ca$h flow and earnings.

Uber has no investment in inventory.

I wonder where they are sinking their money? Executive salaries? Silicone Valley employee culture perks? Dividends to their private shareholders? Driverless cars?


----------



## stuber

pbracing33b said:


> I don't mean to rain on your parade, but anytime someone doesn't post their sources, it creates doubt. I mean if they are easily accessible then why not post them? That's all I wanna know. Just curious to as why you didn't take the time to do this instead of arguing about it, if those documents were easily accessible then why would it be so difficult to post a link or links on here, thats all I'm sayin


In all fairness, it's pretty tough to post any reliable sources regarding UBER. Everything they say is PR BS, and 99% of everything else written about UBER is coming from people with an obvious agenda. UBER is a very slippery topic.

Today I got a news feed story about a new banking product aimed at UBER drivers and other sharing economy participants. In this PR piece was the statement that there are now over one million UBER drivers. I haven't the slightest idea if that is a actual number, or just more BS. And really, I doubt that anyone could provide evidence of it's veracity-including UBER.

The entire UBER phenomenon is basically unverifiable.


----------



## stuber

Old Rocker said:


> As a general comment...
> 
> Amazon can operate on a low profit margin because of a high cash turnover rate. Basically, the same $1 investment in inventory is sold over and over again at such a high velocity that even a 1% margin yields Huge Ca$h flow and earnings.
> 
> Uber has no investment in inventory.
> 
> I wonder where they are sinking their money? Executive salaries? Silicone Valley employee culture perks? Dividends to their private shareholders? Driverless cars?


Sounds interesting, but I don't understand the financial terms you're referencing. I missed class that day.


----------



## RamzFanz

Edddelos said:


> Yes but those companies offered a physical product included with service. Uber drivers is the Uber product. Uber can lowball its drivers only for so long until something gives, they will go as low as they can until they start noticing cracks.


"Taxis" don't offer a physical product. They have been around for thousands of years.

Yes, they will lowball. They are beholden to the investors and eventually the stockholders. They WILL drive down costs. They will also only pay what the acceptable or prefered driver will demand. If you accept lowball, you agreed to lowball. Don't accept lowball, go get what you are worth in an open market. It's a very low skill job. Your choices are add skills or do something else. If the recent immigrant is better than you and will work for less, you're screwed. Offer someone a skillset worth more money.

You do realise a 15 year old, or 12 year old in a rural area, can drive a moving vehicle?


----------



## bpagan

Edddelos said:


> Large companies and big ideas don't ever fail ever and stay around forever, here are some examples:
> 
> Blockbuster video
> Eastern airlines
> Saturn (auto-corp)
> Kodak
> This is just a handful of big companies that never....oh wait.
> 
> Sooner or later the balloon bursts.


all of those companies had a clear competitor and those companies, like an airline and car manufacturer have high turnover and fail rates because of a congested market. You just thought of whatever company came to your head and listed them.
Uber just flattened one competitor recently. Uber is in competition with a "disliked by the public" taxi service. Use your head and logic... Competition is low, the market is fresh and untapped, overhead is low,and uber has massive resource of drivers. Uber isnt buying rocket fuel or producing parts to make cars here...


----------



## RamzFanz

Old Rocker said:


> I wonder where they are sinking their money? Executive salaries? Silicone Valley employee culture perks? Dividends to their private shareholders? Driverless cars?


Are you not reading this thread? They are expanding. At a massive rate. Last I heard it was doubling every 6 months. It costs money. Some of the greatest minds in investment are on board. They don't pay for executive salaries or cultural perks or subsidised rides.


----------



## Old Rocker

stuber said:


> Sounds interesting, but I don't understand the financial terms you're referencing. I missed class that day.


I'm frankly surprised I remember it.


----------



## pbracing33b

bpagan said:


> Sounds like you all have made up your minds. We will just have to wait and see. The ban lift in broward florida is a major win for the legality of ridesharing and uber , and if the us legal system is good at anything its following precedance.
> So many of you sound so unhappy, you should move on.


No we just want fare wages, a reduction of drivers, and just to make a decent wage, if I had my way I would do this all the time, but when ur only getting half the fares you were used to getting then u have to do something to recoupe their wages. Uber has nothing to lose and every5hjng to gain by flooding a market. Uber doesn't care about its drivers, uber only cares about the bottom line, and until they make a conscious decision about it, we will continue to struggle to get fares.


----------



## pbracing33b

RamzFanz said:


> Nonsense. Uber is expanding. They are not randomly gambling, they are grabbing market share in a profitable sector.


Ur avatar suits u very well. Lol


----------



## Edddelos

bpagan said:


> all of those companies had a clear competitor and those companies, like an airline and car manufacturer have high turnover and fail rates because of a congested market. You just thought of whatever company came to your head and listed them. Uber just flattened one competitor recently. Uber is in competition with a "disliked by the public" taxi service. Use your head and logic... Competition is low, the market is fresh and untapped, overhead is low,and uber has massive resource of drivers. Uber isnt buying rocket fuel or producing parts to make cars here...



Competition is not low. Taxis, limousines, and shuttle vans will not go extinct. Taxis are regulated by the county in which they reside, so they can't lower prices. 
Overhead is not low, uber just raises its take (percentage) when their running costs get high.
Uber doesn't have to buy rocket fuel. Uber makes 100% profit while the driver is expected to eat all costs.
Uber is only surviving because people are desperate for an income. They continue to run because they are unregulated in a regulated market.


----------



## Edddelos

In the beginning Uber may have drawn customers with quality service. But now they are only focused on quanity, they are globally marketed.


----------



## RamzFanz

pbracing33b said:


> Ur avatar suits u very well. Lol


That isn't even original in THIS thread.


----------



## RamzFanz

pbracing33b said:


> No we just want fare wages, a reduction of drivers, and just to make a decent wage, if I had my way I would do this all the time, but when ur only getting half the fares you were used to getting then u have to do something to recoupe their wages. Uber has nothing to lose and every5hjng to gain by flooding a market. Uber doesn't care about its drivers, uber only cares about the bottom line, and until they make a conscious decision about it, we will continue to struggle to get fares.


Ohhh, there's your mistake. You aren't an employee so you don't earn wages. You are self employed. It's called piece pay.

What you do to increase piece pay is renegotiate or go to another contract with a better paying company. Accepting a bad payment schedule hurts not just you, but everyone.


----------



## RamzFanz

Edddelos said:


> Competition is not low. Taxis, limousines, and shuttle vans will not go extinct. Taxis are regulated by the county in which they reside, so they can't lower prices.
> Overhead is not low, uber just raises its take (percentage) when their running costs get high.
> Uber doesn't have to buy rocket fuel. Uber makes 100% profit while the driver is expected to eat all costs.
> Uber is only surviving because people are desperate for an income. They continue to run because they are unregulated in a regulated market.


I read an article that said taxi drivers make about 15%-20% of their total billing. That's what regulations do for the worker.

How exactly do Uber's running costs get high if they make 100% profit while the driver is expected to eat all costs?


----------



## Edddelos

RamzFanz said:


> I read an article that said taxi drivers make about 15%-20% of their total billing. That's what regulations do for the worker.
> 
> How exactly do Uber's running costs get high if they make 100% profit while the driver is expected to eat all costs?


Don't know what article that was, or what market it was referring to. I was a taxi driver at one time, and my take home was at least 60% of the billing. Regulations are not always burdensome.


----------



## RamzFanz

Edddelos said:


> Don't know what article that was, or what market it was referring to. I was a taxi driver at one time, and my take home was at least 60% of the billing. Regulations are not always burdensome.


How exactly do Uber's running costs get high if they make 100% profit while the driver is expected to eat all costs?

Regulations, by their very nature, are a burden.


----------



## Neil Yaremchuk

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Put simply, Uber is a transportation company run by people who don't understand the transportation industry.
> 
> Uber will not last.


And rightfully so. They aren't looking to maintain this long term as a business model. They're selling this to investors as the "grand slam" at IPO time. Somebody or some group would have to buy this and make changes across the board but no one wants to do it during the pre-IPO valuation stage. They'll wait for Travis & Co. to dump their stocks and buy them for nickels on the dollar in the open market. Honestly, I actually feel bad for Uber f/t employees who are on a roller coaster ride.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

RamzFanz said:


> How exactly do Uber's running costs get high if they make 100% profit while the driver is expected to eat all costs?
> 
> Regulations, by their very nature, are a burden.


Regulations keep you safe at night.
With pure anarchy, if i have enough guns my rule is king and you are toast.
Free market that.


----------



## Old Rocker

RamzFanz said:


> Are you not reading this thread? They are expanding. At a massive rate. Last I heard it was doubling every 6 months. It costs money. Some of the greatest minds in investment are on board. They don't pay for executive salaries or cultural perks or subsidised rides.





Neil Yaremchuk said:


> And rightfully so. They aren't looking to maintain this long term as a business model. They're selling this to investors as the "grand slam" at IPO time. Somebody or some group would have to buy this and make changes across the board but no one wants to do it during the pre-IPO valuation stage. They'll wait for Travis & Co. to dump their stocks and buy them for nickels on the dollar in the open market. Honestly, I actually feel bad for Uber f/t employees who are on a roller coaster ride.


What's the first thing that happens when new management takes over a company? They lay off workers to improve the bottom line. This results in an instant increase in stock price. Been in that situation personally, twice, and being highly paid and over fifty years old puts a big target on one's HR file.


----------



## Major League

Uber's assets are its drivers and their vehicles. Whether they own these assets or not doesn't take away from the fact that they are being depreciated at a high rate and these assets are not being protected. What ramzfanz isn't considering is that just because the driver is hard up for cash, the depreciation doesn't care. A car will die just as fast, whether hardup or not.

Whatever Uber's intention are.... whether they are nefarious or naive, the depreciation is not being accounted. Now, Uber doesn't have the 10s of thousands of vehicles on their asset sheet but that doesn't mean the lack of protection will not come back and bite them in the rear.

They are simply pushing this depreciation out into the future without prediction. This explains why they push their drivers into buying new cars. They now get to push this depreciation even further out into the future. 

What eventually happens is enough cars get ruined and enough drivers see the loss that Uber gets a bad rep among drivers who were once naive. 

If Uber gets the rep of stay the hell away, they are doomed and it's already starting.


----------



## RamzFanz

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Regulations keep you safe at night.
> With pure anarchy, if i have enough guns my rule is king and you are toast.
> Free market that.


And still they are a burden by nature.

There are regulations that state I can't have sticks in my yard. That's a burden. I have to pick up the sticks, even if I don't want to.

I find it odd that you never seem to be able to stay on point in your replies. I don't believe in a pure free market and never said I did.

When you pass a state law that only pertains to a single city, it's not to protect the citizens. If it were, it would be state wide.

How exactly do Uber's running costs get high if they make 100% profit while the driver is expected to eat all costs?


----------



## RamzFanz

Neil Yaremchuk said:


> And rightfully so. They aren't looking to maintain this long term as a business model. They're selling this to investors as the "grand slam" at IPO time. Somebody or some group would have to buy this and make changes across the board but no one wants to do it during the pre-IPO valuation stage. They'll wait for Travis & Co. to dump their stocks and buy them for nickels on the dollar in the open market. Honestly, I actually feel bad for Uber f/t employees who are on a roller coaster ride.


Complete fabrication conjured out of thin air.


----------



## RamzFanz

Major League said:


> Uber's assets are its drivers and their vehicles. Whether they own these assets or not doesn't take away from the fact that they are being depreciated at a high rate and these assets are not being protected. What ramzfanz isn't considering is that just because the driver is hard up for cash, the depreciation doesn't care. A car will die just as fast, whether hardup or not.
> 
> Whatever Uber's intention are.... whether they are nefarious or naive, the depreciation is not being accounted. Now, Uber doesn't have the 10s of thousands of vehicles on their asset sheet but that doesn't mean the lack of protection will not come back and bite them in the rear.
> 
> They are simply pushing this depreciation out into the future without prediction. This explains why they push their drivers into buying new cars. They now get to push this depreciation even further out into the future.
> 
> What eventually happens is enough cars get ruined and enough drivers see the loss that Uber gets a bad rep among drivers who were once naive.
> 
> If Uber gets the rep of stay the hell away, they are doomed and it's already starting.


The depreciation argument is WAAAAAAAAAY overblown and oversold using false numbers. I know my numbers and they are a tiny portion of the profits I can generate in the lifespan of my vehicle.


----------



## GooberX

RamzFanz said:


> Well, not exactly. Saturn won the hearts and minds of the public but produced a bad product. I don't know anything about Eastern Airlines.
> 
> Some business have lifecycles that end when the technology changes and they fail to adapt, like Kodak and Blockbuster. By the way, those companies made a lot of money for a lot of investors for a long time and employed hundreds of thousands of people for decades. Also, Kodak was foolish to not see the digital age coming and get ahead of the curve but they have adapted to other markets and they exist today, so not a really a good example.
> 
> I used to tell people Kodak and Blockbuster would fail when they still had the majority of the market share and a mountain of cash. People scoffed.
> 
> Other companies adapt. Apple failed to do what Uber is doing and get market share fast and it hurt them for a long long time. Like Uber today, being first doesn't mean a thing if you don't go big. Apple was, at one time, the most popular home computer. At one time I owned an Apple IIC. Then they got hosed for 3 decades. Now they have adapted and are a great company.
> 
> Predicting Uber's downfall at this point is silly. They aren't even fully open.


You are so delirious, it's laughable.

With all that foresight, pray do tell why you're not a billionaire.

Uber's business model WILL fail.

Uber MAY choose to clean up its act and survive, but I assure you, the rate by which it is accumulating enemies does not bode well.

You keep thinking as you want, but long term, this models will not survive.

I got $1,000 that says Uber's model will be gone or completely different within 3 years.


----------



## GooberX

RamzFanz said:


> The depreciation argument is WAAAAAAAAAY overblown and oversold using false numbers. I know my numbers and they are a tiny portion of the profits I can generate in the lifespan of my vehicle.


You are from Saint Louis, but I think you must be from Kansas.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

RamzFanz said:


> And still they are a burden by nature.
> 
> There are regulations that state I can't have sticks in my yard. That's a burden. I have to pick up the sticks, even if I don't want to.
> 
> I find it odd that you never seem to be able to stay on point in your replies. I don't believe in a pure free market and never said I did.
> 
> When you pass a state law that only pertains to a single city, it's not to protect the citizens. If it were, it would be state wide.
> 
> How exactly do Uber's running costs get high if they make 100% profit while the driver is expected to eat all costs?


Lawyers lawyers lawyers.
When you are the world's biggest scofflaw, you are bound to rack up massive legal expenses.


----------



## Old Rocker

GooberX said:


> You are from Saint Louis, but I think you must be from Kansas.


He's absolutely correct about the concept of depreciation being overblown here. Your true, actual, incremental depreciation as far as future trade in value for your vehicle is about 2 cents per mile on a vehicle you trade in at eight years old.


----------



## run26912

RamzFanz said:


> Lyft is pretty smart. Instead of competing with international competitors, they are partnering with them. Instant penetration and market share with low relative investment compared to Uber.


Spot on. Lyft is actually pressing the pricing wars against Uber. To your point about the marketing costs with Uber, you are right, Uber could show profits from cutting down marketing efforts, but that would then give Lyft the edge to continue its penetration into Uber territories, and Uber's growth story would lose its luster and that's the metric Wallstreet cares about the most (ie: NFLX rate hike = growth declines in U.S. = -10% stock price drop).

There is one factor that investors are not realizing here. The surge pricing does more HARM in the long run for passenger retention. Passengers absolutely DESPISE SURGE pricing and have mentioned it to me NUMEROUS times. The unpredictable nature of stable pricing with Uber's surge is actually driving passengers back to Taxis especially when surges are too high. As Uber continues to drop the pay rates to drivers, they inadvertantly force drivers to wait for surge pricing to make up for the losses (often in vain). Surge becomes more important for drivers and it aggravates passengers. The solution would be raising the rates back UP to an equilibrium level that would appease both the driver and passenger... the problem is Uber is in a race with Lyft to the bottom with fares and this will have dangerous lasting effects for both drivers and passengers. More so with Uber, rather than Lyft.

Personally, I see Uber IPO similar to a GPRO, TWTR, GRPN, YELP and you know how those ended up... spike and dump.. all one shot wonders..


----------



## Old Rocker

run26912 said:


> Spot on. Lyft is actually pressing the pricing wars against Uber. To your point about the marketing costs with Uber, you are right, Uber could show profits from cutting down marketing efforts, but that would then give Lyft the edge to continue its penetration into Uber territories, and Uber's growth story would lose its luster and that's the metric Wallstreet cares about the most (ie: NFLX rate hike = growth declines in U.S. = -10% stock price drop).
> 
> There is one factor that investors are not realizing here. The surge pricing does more HARM in the long run for passenger retention. Passengers absolutely DESPISE SURGE pricing and have mentioned it to me NUMEROUS times. The unpredictable nature of stable pricing with Uber's surge is actually driving passengers back to Taxis especially when surges are too high. As Uber continues to drop the pay rates to drivers, they inadvertantly force drivers to wait for surge pricing to make up for the losses (often in vain). Surge becomes more important for drivers and it aggravates passengers. The solution would be raising the rates back UP to an equilibrium level that would appease both the driver and passenger... the problem is Uber is in a race with Lyft to the bottom with fares and this will have dangerous lasting effects for both drivers and passengers. More so with Uber, rather than Lyft.
> 
> Personally, I see Uber IPO similar to a GPRO, TWTR, GRPN, YELP and you know how those ended up... spike and dump.. all one shot wonders..


I bought $10,000 of Twitter IPO stock in the morning and sold it for $10,001.10 in the afternoon just before it cratered. I wouldn't touch Uber stock at the IPO. Not anything to do with the character of the company, simply that it will be overhyped like you are saying. There's better IPOs coming up like Ferrari.


----------



## run26912

Old Rocker said:


> I bought $10,000 of Twitter IPO stock in the morning and sold it for $10,001.10 in the afternoon just before it cratered. I wouldn't touch Uber stock at the IPO. Not anything to do with the character of the company, simply that it will be overhyped like you are saying. There's better IPOs coming up like Ferrari.


I'll be SHORTING UBER a few weeks before the first LOCK UP period with Long Puts or actual stock.. that's how I'll make up for the rate cuts 

BONG!


----------



## run26912

Major League said:


> Uber's assets are its drivers and their vehicles. Whether they own these assets or not doesn't take away from the fact that they are being depreciated at a high rate and these assets are not being protected. What ramzfanz isn't considering is that just because the driver is hard up for cash, the depreciation doesn't care. A car will die just as fast, whether hardup or not.
> 
> Whatever Uber's intention are.... whether they are nefarious or naive, the depreciation is not being accounted. Now, Uber doesn't have the 10s of thousands of vehicles on their asset sheet but that doesn't mean the lack of protection will not come back and bite them in the rear.
> 
> They are simply pushing this depreciation out into the future without prediction. This explains why they push their drivers into buying new cars. They now get to push this depreciation even further out into the future.
> 
> What eventually happens is enough cars get ruined and enough drivers see the loss that Uber gets a bad rep among drivers who were once naive.
> 
> If Uber gets the rep of stay the hell away, they are doomed and it's already starting.


Technically, Uber's only real asset is it's crappy APP... intellectual properties (which is still patent pending while everyone else duplicates the app lol), their stupid logo/trademark, travis' haircut and office fixtures...

When you define an ASSET, it is a tangible that bondholders can seize if Company reneges on said terms. Bondholders can't seize DRIVERS or their CARS.

BONG!


----------



## RamzFanz

run26912 said:


> Spot on. Lyft is actually pressing the pricing wars against Uber. To your point about the marketing costs with Uber, you are right, Uber could show profits from cutting down marketing efforts, but that would then give Lyft the edge to continue its penetration into Uber territories, and Uber's growth story would lose its luster and that's the metric Wallstreet cares about the most (ie: NFLX rate hike = growth declines in U.S. = -10% stock price drop).
> 
> There is one factor that investors are not realizing here. The surge pricing does more HARM in the long run for passenger retention. Passengers absolutely DESPISE SURGE pricing and have mentioned it to me NUMEROUS times. The unpredictable nature of stable pricing with Uber's surge is actually driving passengers back to Taxis especially when surges are too high. As Uber continues to drop the pay rates to drivers, they inadvertantly force drivers to wait for surge pricing to make up for the losses (often in vain). Surge becomes more important for drivers and it aggravates passengers. The solution would be raising the rates back UP to an equilibrium level that would appease both the driver and passenger... the problem is Uber is in a race with Lyft to the bottom with fares and this will have dangerous lasting effects for both drivers and passengers. More so with Uber, rather than Lyft.
> 
> Personally, I see Uber IPO similar to a GPRO, TWTR, GRPN, YELP and you know how those ended up... spike and dump.. all one shot wonders..


Yep, lots of hype and dump IPOs. We'll see. It will come down to Uber's financials before the IPO.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

TwoFiddyMile said:


> There is no such thing as "partially profitable".
> Operating in the black in certain cities or regions doesn't matter.
> If Uber takes in 400 million in revenue per quarter, and has 401 million in expenditures, it takes a loss.
> Amazing how some people can't wrap their minds around that.


Investor money keeps pouring into Uber because of both its profit and its potential. When you purchase equity, you are purchasing a share of the future value of a company, not its current earnings/losses. Investors money is being used to expand globally and build out systems, products and infrastructure for future growth. Investors love that. You can't read Uber's current operating losses as a single line and just assume they are losing money providing rideshare services... you have to take into account the investment they are making in the growth of the company - and that, I believe, is all that RamzFanz is saying... rather abrasively.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> http://fortune.com/2015/08/11/uber-profitable-business-model/
> 
> Fortune states that uber is going too big and too fast and they are losing money. They state that Uber cannot keep doing this, because as other companies have tried to follow suit, those have failed and lost big. They believe that Uber business model is a bad business model, which could be devastating if Uber fails.
> 
> What are you thoughts? The video really clears some stuff up too and they do a really good job at explaining why this is a bad business model.


Thanks for posting these - they are great 
(and important for anyone interested in the 'business' side of Uber).


----------



## MrBear

Travis is the single problem, get rid of him and Uber will be a winner. For some reason, Travis is missing something in his brain and no common sense.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

MrBear said:


> Travis is the single problem, get rid of him and Uber will be a winner. For some reason, Travis is missing something in his brain and no common sense.


It's not just Travis... genX money people are completely convinced that data metrics are the only thing that matter. They are focused on the USER EXPERIENCE and somehow fail to understand that their USERS are also their workers. Bezos at Amazon is no different than TK.


----------



## stuber

Edddelos said:


> In the beginning Uber may have drawn customers with quality service. But now they are only focused on quanity, they are globally marketed.


Let's say that a city, any city, can be be perfectly well served by a certain number of FOR HIRE cars. Say it's a medium sized city and 5000 drivers/cars. The city has created regulations and there are 5000 permitted, fully credentialed and insured for hire cars of all types. These cars have reasonable rates set by regulations, and the drivers are busy and making decent money. They're not getting rich, but it's reasonable income. The public is being well served. Everyone is happy with the system.

This is a hypothetical example remember.

UBER comes to town.

UBER offers all these existing commercial vehicles access to their app. The drivers like this. Now it's easier and more efficient to connect with customers. It's a great innovation.

Customers like the new app too. Now their whole experience getting a car has become faster and simplified. Now the local transportation service is more attractive. More people start using the local for hire cars.

The city regulations have capped the drivers at 5000, but there's now more demand, so the city transportation regulators increase the cap. Going forward, the cap on for hire drivers and vehicles will now be 6000. If demand keeps increasing, then city can adjust again.

It's all working pretty well. Drivers, customers, and the city are all perfectly happy. UBER is happy too. Drivers and customers like the product and everyone is fine with paying UBER a commission. After all, they're providing a useful improvement over the previous way.
Terrific.

This is what cities and UBER could be.

But we all know it's quite a bit different.

City transportation regulations have been corrupted by special interests. Cities cannot control the cap numbers through enforcement, so there's already too many illegal operators.

And if course, UBER doesn't work like that either. They're not exactly looking to be part of the solution. In fact, they're looking to disrupt the existing system, and replace it with their own.

Now remember, UBER actually started out with this other, better model. They only added value to the existing transportation systems. They improved it. It was a great idea. Maybe UBER stole the idea, but it was a good one.

They COULD have stuck to their original business model. Provide services that help drivers and customers, and had a very lucrative multi million dollar or even multi billion dollar company.

No litigation. No backlash. A very nice business. UBER may not have been able to patent the idea, but they certainly could have dominated the market.

But no. UBER chose to do something else. 
And the results: Complete Shit Show.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

stuber said:


> Let's say that a city, any city, can be be perfectly well served by a certain number of FOR HIRE cars. Say it's a medium sized city and 5000 drivers/cars. The city has created regulations and there are 5000 permitted, fully credentialed and insured for hire cars of all types. These cars have reasonable rates set by regulations, and the drivers are busy and making decent money. They're not getting rich, but it's reasonable income. The public is being well served. Everyone is happy with the system.
> 
> This is a hypothetical example remember.
> 
> UBER comes to town.
> 
> UBER offers all these existing commercial vehicles access to their app. The drivers like this. Now it's easier and more efficient to connect with customers. It's a great innovation.
> 
> Customers like the new app too. Now their whole experience getting a car has become faster and simplified. Now the local transportation service is more attractive. More people start using the local for hire cars.
> 
> The city regulations have capped the drivers at 5000, but there's now more demand, so the city transportation regulators increase the cap. Going forward, the cap on for hire drivers and vehicles will now be 6000. If demand keeps increasing, then city can adjust again.
> 
> It's all working pretty well. Drivers, customers, and the city are all perfectly happy. UBER is happy too. Drivers and customers like the product and everyone is fine with paying UBER a commission. After all, they're providing a useful improvement over the previous way.
> Terrific.
> 
> This is what cities and UBER could be.
> 
> But we all know it's quite a bit different.
> 
> City transportation regulations have been corrupted by special interests. Cities cannot control the cap numbers through enforcement, so there's already too many illegal operators.
> 
> And if course, UBER doesn't work like that either. They're not exactly looking to be part of the solution. In fact, they're looking to disrupt the existing system, and replace it with their own.
> 
> Now remember, UBER actually started out with this other, better model. They only added value to the existing transportation systems. They improved it. It was a great idea. Maybe UBER stole the idea, but it was a good one.
> 
> They COULD have stuck to their original business model. Provide services that help drivers and customers, and had a very lucrative multi million dollar or even multi billion dollar company.
> 
> No litigation. No backlash. A very nice business. UBER may not have been able to patent the idea, but they certainly could have dominated the market.
> 
> But no. UBER chose to do something else.
> And the results: Complete Shit Show.


Great post. The only thing I'd add at this point is that if Uber had rested on its laurels and stayed within the existing framework of regulations, as you suggest, another company would have come in as the '_disrupter_'. It is (in my opinion only) far too easy for us to say what Uber *should* have done.


----------



## stuber

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Great post. The only thing I'd add at this point is that if Uber had rested on its laurels and stayed within the existing framework of regulations, as you suggest, another company would have come in as the '_disrupter_'. It is (in my opinion only) far too easy for us to say what Uber *should* have done.


Just armchair quarterback observations


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

RamzFanz said:


> And still they are a burden by nature.
> 
> There are regulations that state I can't have sticks in my yard. That's a burden. I have to pick up the sticks, even if I don't want to.
> 
> I find it odd that you never seem to be able to stay on point in your replies. I don't believe in a pure free market and never said I did.
> 
> When you pass a state law that only pertains to a single city, it's not to protect the citizens. If it were, it would be state wide.
> 
> How exactly do Uber's running costs get high if they make 100% profit while the driver is expected to eat all costs?


Sticks in your yard???


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Sticks in your yard???


Yup.
We all throw sticks in his yard after reading his endless counterpoint.

He wakes in the morning and has to pick them up.

Regulations.


----------



## jrboy

i think that the strike has brought revelation to the deception. uber's bad business model will probably continue ...


----------



## pbracing33b

I honestly can't wait til they go public then they will have to show their balance sheets and that is the ONLY way to know for certain what their profitability is.


----------



## pbracing33b

RamzFanz said:


> "Taxis" don't offer a physical product. They have been around for thousands of years.
> 
> Yes, they will lowball. They are beholden to the investors and eventually the stockholders. They WILL drive down costs. They will also only pay what the acceptable or prefered driver will demand. If you accept lowball, you agreed to lowball. Don't accept lowball, go get what you are worth in an open market. It's a very low skill job. Your choices are add skills or do something else. If the recent immigrant is better than you and will work for less, you're screwed. Offer someone a skillset worth more money.
> 
> You do realise a 15 year old, or 12 year old in a rural area, can drive a moving vehicle?


Since I have a little bit of time to respond to all of your posts, here are the reasons why I don't like your arguments:

1. You make WAAAAAY to many assumptions and assumptions aren't facts. People like facts, they don't like it when people make assumptions.
2. You think since uber is expanding into alot of markets is a good thing. Wrong in fact basics of a financial class would tell you this is the wrong mentality to have. They state that you should be conservative when expanding. Too many companies have expanded exponentially then all of sudden they go out of business. 
3. You give Uber way too much credit, there are many fallibles to their business models, and if you put your head in the sand then you will never see the truth of what is really going on.

I think if Uber goes public they will open themselves up to ALOT of scrutiny and when they do they may be forced to make alot of changes. But if UBER remains private, then we will always have what we have now and not much will change.


----------



## pbracing33b

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Thanks for posting these - they are great
> (and important for anyone interested in the 'business' side of Uber).


Your welcome, I thought that I would try to enlighten myself about uber and try to understand what they are trying to do a little better, and I thought that I would find it interesting to see what others would think?


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

run26912 said:


> Spot on. Lyft is actually pressing the pricing wars against Uber. To your point about the marketing costs with Uber, you are right, Uber could show profits from cutting down marketing efforts, but that would then give Lyft the edge to continue its penetration into Uber territories, and Uber's growth story would lose its luster and that's the metric Wallstreet cares about the most (ie: NFLX rate hike = growth declines in U.S. = -10% stock price drop).
> 
> There is one factor that investors are not realizing here. The surge pricing does more HARM in the long run for passenger retention. Passengers absolutely DESPISE SURGE pricing and have mentioned it to me NUMEROUS times. The unpredictable nature of stable pricing with Uber's surge is actually driving passengers back to Taxis especially when surges are too high. As Uber continues to drop the pay rates to drivers, they inadvertantly force drivers to wait for surge pricing to make up for the losses (often in vain). Surge becomes more important for drivers and it aggravates passengers. The solution would be raising the rates back UP to an equilibrium level that would appease both the driver and passenger... the problem is Uber is in a race with Lyft to the bottom with fares and this will have dangerous lasting effects for both drivers and passengers. More so with Uber, rather than Lyft.
> 
> Personally, I see Uber IPO similar to a GPRO, TWTR, GRPN, YELP and you know how those ended up... spike and dump.. all one shot wonders..


I got a good airport ride this week and the pax told me he deleted the Uber app from his phone because of surge pricing. Customers hate surge pricing and it's one of the things that will lead to Uber's downfall.


----------



## ubershiza

Uber is profitable as can be seen by the decrease in taxi cash boxes revenue. The decrease has leveled off and they will never dominant the market. The over saturation of drivers is leeding to decrease in driver wages. In time a decline in sales and drivers is inevitable.


----------



## Edddelos

stuber said:


> Let's say that a city, any city, can be be perfectly well served by a certain number of FOR HIRE cars. Say it's a medium sized city and 5000 drivers/cars. The city has created regulations and there are 5000 permitted, fully credentialed and insured for hire cars of all types. These cars have reasonable rates set by regulations, and the drivers are busy and making decent money. They're not getting rich, but it's reasonable income. The public is being well served. Everyone is happy with the system.
> 
> This is a hypothetical example remember.
> 
> UBER comes to town.
> 
> UBER offers all these existing commercial vehicles access to their app. The drivers like this. Now it's easier and more efficient to connect with customers. It's a great innovation.
> 
> Customers like the new app too. Now their whole experience getting a car has become faster and simplified. Now the local transportation service is more attractive. More people start using the local for hire cars.
> 
> The city regulations have capped the drivers at 5000, but there's now more demand, so the city transportation regulators increase the cap. Going forward, the cap on for hire drivers and vehicles will now be 6000. If demand keeps increasing, then city can adjust again.
> 
> It's all working pretty well. Drivers, customers, and the city are all perfectly happy. UBER is happy too. Drivers and customers like the product and everyone is fine with paying UBER a commission. After all, they're providing a useful improvement over the previous way.
> Terrific.
> 
> This is what cities and UBER could be.
> 
> But we all know it's quite a bit different.
> 
> City transportation regulations have been corrupted by special interests. Cities cannot control the cap numbers through enforcement, so there's already too many illegal operators.
> 
> And if course, UBER doesn't work like that either. They're not exactly looking to be part of the solution. In fact, they're looking to disrupt the existing system, and replace it with their own.
> 
> Now remember, UBER actually started out with this other, better model. They only added value to the existing transportation systems. They improved it. It was a great idea. Maybe UBER stole the idea, but it was a good one.
> 
> They COULD have stuck to their original business model. Provide services that help drivers and customers, and had a very lucrative multi million dollar or even multi billion dollar company.
> 
> No litigation. No backlash. A very nice business. UBER may not have been able to patent the idea, but they certainly could have dominated the market.
> 
> But no. UBER chose to do something else.
> And the results: Complete Shit Show.


Long story short....they got greedy.


----------



## pbracing33b

Edddelos said:


> Long story short....they got greedy.


Yeah especially when uber doesn't think that we can't do math, I love how they make us think that we are getting 80% of the fare when in all reality it is ONLY 70% of the fare and uber gets 30% (calculated the fare plus safe rider fee).


----------



## loki

RamzFanz said:


> That's epicly ignorant. Cadabra...you know them as Amazon, took a decade. Everyone said the same thing, especially book stores.
> 
> Uber is expanding worldwide. That's expensive. Once they stop expanding , or reach the point where current area profits exceed expansion investment, they will have a wildly profitable business.


Amazon's profit comes from the services division that rents infrastructure. They still lose money in retail sales, even books. There is someone subsidizing the Uber rides though. The owners of the cars used subsidize the rides. Uber's business model is closer to multi level marketing. While Uber may be able to sustain a profit eventually at current rates many drivers won't do so well.


----------



## Lack9133

It's a good business model based on the current environment but as we all know, things change and I don't think Uber is positioned for evolving regulatory, political and legal that they will face at some point in time. 

There is so much pressure on fingerprint background checks across the country on Uber drivers that once one city passes laws regarding this, all cities will follow suit which could tremendously hamper their driver recruiting efforts leading to higher wait times/costs for drivers and passengers. Insurance requirements will change over time which will raise the cost on drivers and passengers. Taxi regulation will change over time which could put Uber at a disadvantage especially if drivers are allowed to charge lower rates to compete with ride-shares or cities get rid of the cap on vehicles allowing taxi's to flood the market in addition to the Uber over-saturation.

These are just a few examples that I can see as possibilities that could create issues for Uber in the future as the realities change. One small government regulation, one legal case or a policy decision from a third party could derail them easily.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lack9133 said:


> It's a good business model based on the current environment but as we all know, things change and I don't think Uber is positioned for evolving regulatory, political and legal that they will face at some point in time.
> 
> There is so much pressure on fingerprint background checks across the country on Uber drivers that once one city passes laws regarding this, all cities will follow suit which could tremendously hamper their driver recruiting efforts leading to higher wait times/costs for drivers and passengers. Insurance requirements will change over time which will raise the cost on drivers and passengers. Taxi regulation will change over time which could put Uber at a disadvantage especially if drivers are allowed to charge lower rates to compete with ride-shares or cities get rid of the cap on vehicles allowing taxi's to flood the market in addition to the Uber over-saturation.
> 
> These are just a few examples that I can see as possibilities that could create issues for Uber in the future as the realities change. One small government regulation, one legal case or a policy decision from a third party could derail them easily.


I don't disagree or discount any of the challenges you cite... 
but I also think it may be naive to think that Uber Technologies is blind to the challenges and doesn't have strategies to battle the challenges and contingencies in place to deal with any of the things you mentioned... 
and many more than we can't foresee.


----------



## Lack9133

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't disagree or discount any of the challenges you cite...
> but I also think it may be naive to think that Uber Technologies is blind to the challenges and doesn't have strategies to battle the challenges and contingencies in place to deal with any of the things you mentioned...
> and many more than we can't foresee.


I'm not saying they are not prepared for those challenges but the challenges that I mentioned are outside Uber's scope of control. While they may have contingency plans, those possible challenges will not stop the damage from being done by something as simple as cities requiring fingerprint background checks which would limit their driver pool or insurance companies creating new ride-sharing requirements that raise the costs on their drivers. Both of which could cause passenger resentment with longer wait times and higher costs. Coastal cities have contingency plans for when a hurricane is about to hit, and while the city might survive, that doesn't stop the hurricane from doing long term damage.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lack9133 said:


> I'm not saying they are not prepared for those challenges but the challenges that I mentioned are outside Uber's scope of control.


I think that's has yet to be seen. In some cases, Uber is complying with city regs (Houston), in others (Broward Cty) it is standing it's ground. Uber has won more battles than they have lost so far, at least in the US.

What you predict _will_ happen is only speculation. That doesn't mean it won't, but there's a lot you're assuming there. 
We do not know that a fingerprint requirement, for example, will put off enough drivers to make any difference in wait time - or that consumers would not hail such a practice as a benefit, making them feel more comfortable about using Uber.


----------



## Lack9133

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I think that's has yet to be seen. In some cases, Uber is complying with city regs (Houston), in others (Broward Cty) it is standing it's ground. Uber has won more battles than they have lost so far, at least in the US.
> 
> What you predict _will_ happen is only speculation. That doesn't mean it won't, but there's a lot you're assuming there.
> We do not know that a fingerprint requirement, for example, will put off enough drivers to make any difference in wait time - or that consumers would not hail such a practice as a benefit, making them feel more comfortable about using Uber.


Yes, two years ago, Uber was winning every battle but as I mentioned, as times changed and government agencies got more involved, political climates changed, the needs/wants of third party companies such as the insurance world began changing their policies, things became more difficult for Uber. More regulations were wanted/enacted, insurance companies became more vocal and more politicians started weighing in on the matter all of which made life more difficult for Uber. While Uber is still winning court cases and regulatory battles, they are not winning them as frequently as they were in the past which is why they are having issues in Broward County and complying with some cities such as Houston.

While you are correct, we don't know how many individuals a fingerprint background check will push away from the system, we do know that Uber is correct in the fact that a fingerprint check will in fact create burdens in the driver hiring process that will turn some individuals off from applying or will prevent some individuals from driving all together which in turn will lower supply and raise wait times/costs for passengers. We also do know that consumers do not currently hail such requirements as a benefit considering many individuals use Uber who does not require fingerprint checks over taxi's who are required by law to do fingerprint checks. If the consumers hailed such a practice as a benefit, why are they currently not taking advantage of services who offer such benefit?

You're right, it's all speculation but speculation is based on trends and if you look at the trends, Uber is no where near calm water just yet.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lack9133 said:


> ...we do know that Uber is correct in the fact that a fingerprint check will in fact create burdens in the driver hiring process that will turn some individuals off from applying or will prevent some individuals from driving all together


hehe... first, we don't know that - we only know that's what Uber is arguing... and second, you say that as if it would be a bad thing!


> ...which in turn will lower supply and raise wait times/costs for passengers.


Uber would like us all to believe that, but the reality is that Uber has demonstrated their ability to recruit and onboard as many drivers as they need to bring a market to what it deems is an acceptable level of drivers to achieve what it deems is acceptable levels of service to riders. THAT is Uber's bread & butter.


----------



## Lack9133

Michael - Cleveland said:


> hehe... first, we don't know that - we only know that's what Uber is arguing... and second, you say that as if it would be a bad thing!
> 
> Uber would like us all to believe that, but the reality is that Uber has demonstrated their ability to recruit and onboard as many drivers as they need to bring a market to what it deems is an acceptable level of drivers to achieve what it deems is acceptable levels of service to riders. THAT is Uber's bread & butter.


But we do know that fingerprints would create a burden on drivers. Right now getting a driver to sign up from the comfort of their couch is pretty easy but if you have to ask one to go downtown, pay a fee and provide those checks, it does in fact create a burden on individuals. Not sure how you can argue that someone having to go to a federal agency to provide fingerprints is not a burden. If their argument was false, it would have been disproven by now and fingerprints would be mandatory.

Secondly, yes, Uber has the ability to recruit but when you put additional burdens on individuals, it narrows the available pool of possible drivers which is as you mentioned, their bread and butter. With driver recruiting being limited, supply is reduced and wait time/costs go up.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lack9133 said:


> But we do know that fingerprints would create a burden on drivers.


I don't think we do know that. What we do know is that fingerprinting and background checking drivers would be a burden for people who should not be driving... and THAT would be a good thing for the industry.



> Not sure how you can argue that someone having to go to a federal agency to provide fingerprints is not a burden.


Maybe that's part of the why you see is as overly burdensome - that you think you have to go to a federal agency? In my company we have to do background checks on all of the employees and contractors... and we do fingerprinting for certain positions/jobs. It's not a big deal. We could do it in-house if we wanted to - but instead (because of our low volume) we have the candidate go to the local police station or sheriff's office. It's about $35 to have an a candidate fingerprinted.


> With driver recruiting being limited, supply is reduced and wait time/costs go up.


I wish I could give you a search term to locate another thread here where some of us have been discussing whether driver recruiting is finite or infinite, but I can't think of one. Some folks there (most?!) agree with you - that the supply of drivers is limited. I don't.

Great convo - thanks.


----------



## Lack9133

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't think we do know that. What we do know is that fingerprinting and background checking drivers would be a burden for people who should not be driving... and THAT would be a good thing for the industry.
> 
> Maybe that's part of the why you see is as overly burdensome - that you think you have to go to a federal agency? In my company we have to do background checks on all of the employees and contractors... and we do fingerprinting for certain positions/jobs. It's not a big deal. We could do it in-house if we wanted to - but instead (because of our low volume) we have the candidate go to the local police station or sheriff's office. It's about $35 to have an a candidate fingerprinted.
> 
> I wish I could give you a search term to locate another thread here where some of us have been discussing whether driver recruiting is finite or infinite, but I can't think of one. Some folks there (most?!) agree with you - that the supply of drivers is limited. I don't.
> 
> Great convo - thanks.


So we finally agree that it would be a burden that would hinder Uber's available driver pool and recruiting efforts. While this is a good thing for those who shouldn't be driving, it is still a burden for those with a clean background who only want to make a few trips a week.

You're now starting to see the point I am trying to make. In your company you do fingerprint background checks either through your office or local police station which requires an individual to leave the comfort of their own home and go through a process of employment. Right now, Uber's process of employment, or contracting in this case, can be done almost as easily as signing up for this forum. People are not going to go jump through too many barriers or pay too many fees in order to make a couple trips a week therefor limiting Uber's supply pool to those who are only very serious about driving long term. While it is not a big deal to those who want to make a serious investment into being an Uber driver, it will discourage those who are "on the fence" about driving.


----------



## drivinindc

Lack9133 said:


> Yes, two years ago, Uber was winning every battle but as I mentioned, as times changed and government agencies got more involved, political climates changed, the needs/wants of third party companies such as the insurance world began changing their policies, things became more difficult for Uber. More regulations were wanted/enacted, insurance companies became more vocal and more politicians started weighing in on the matter all of which made life more difficult for Uber. While Uber is still winning court cases and regulatory battles, they are not winning them as frequently as they were in the past which is why they are having issues in Broward County and complying with some cities such as Houston.


They just won a staredown with San Antonio this week.

More to the point, they have an easy solution to cities that impose burdens they aren't willing to put up with: leave that city. It's not like they have massive infrastructure investments that they can't walk away from. If they decide that a negative precedent would cost more then the profits in that city, they can leave and it costs them nothing.


----------



## Gemgirlla

SECOTIME said:


> That Travis guy looks like a scheister. It looks like he has the devil in his eyes.


I would expect him to have a diamond pinky ring  Seems like the type.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lack9133 said:


> So we finally agree that it would be a burden that would hinder Uber's available driver pool and recruiting efforts.


No, we do not agree. But the world be a boring place if we did.
I think that implementing fingerprint requirements for driver candidates would improve the quality of active drivers, improve consumer confidence in the service and attract better riders and drivers.


> While it is not a big deal to those who want to make a serious investment into being an Uber driver, it will discourage those who are "on the fence" about driving.


You see that as a bad thing - I see it as a good thing.
Drivers '_on the fence_' shouldn't be driving rideshare.
Drivers who can't pass a background check shouldn't be driving rideshare.
Drivers who are driving under a false identity, shouldn't be driving, *at all*.


----------



## Uber 1

pbracing33b said:


> http://fortune.com/2015/08/11/uber-profitable-business-model/
> 
> Fortune states that uber is going too big and too fast and they are losing money. They state that Uber cannot keep doing this, because as other companies have tried to follow suit, those have failed and lost big. They believe that Uber business model is a bad business model, which could be devastating if Uber fails.
> 
> What are you thoughts? The video really clears some stuff up too and they do a really good job at explaining why this is a bad business model.


Win, lose, or draw I'm sure the creaters of Uber are plenty rich even if Uber fails at this point so from their perspective it was a success no matter what others think afterwards....

Andy


----------



## Lack9133

drivinindc said:


> They just won a staredown with San Antonio this week.
> 
> More to the point, they have an easy solution to cities that impose burdens they aren't willing to put up with: leave that city. It's not like they have massive infrastructure investments that they can't walk away from. If they decide that a negative precedent would cost more then the profits in that city, they can leave and it costs them nothing.


Completely agree but don't forget that a precedent is a precursor to other cities following suit. Eventually, they will have to comply or leave all cities who have in fact followed suit which will leave them with some tough decisions on how much they want to play by someone else's rules.


----------



## Lack9133

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No, we do not agree. But the world be a boring place if we did.
> I think that implementing fingerprint requirements for driver candidates would improve the quality of active drivers, improve consumer confidence in the service and attract better riders and drivers.
> 
> You see that as a bad thing - I see it as a good thing.
> Drivers '_on the fence_' shouldn't be driving rideshare.
> Drivers who can't pass a background check shouldn't be driving rideshare.
> Drivers who are driving under a false identity, shouldn't be driving, *at all*.


So yes we agree then. Implementing fingerprint background checks will improve driver quality. That was never the point I was trying to disagree with. I never said that it would be a bad thing for the public but you cannot say that it would limit the driver pool for Uber when all of those drivers are pulled from the system for committed full time drivers alone. As for consumer confidence, consumers don't care about fingerprint backgrounds because if they did, they would be flocking to taxi's who provide those checks who obviously they are not doing.

Everything you mentioned above is in fact a good thing, I agree with all of those points. But the point still remains that all of that will in fact cause a loss of drivers for Uber and their customers which will raise response time and cost. It's basic economics that when you limit supply with the same amount of demand, wait time and cost rises.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lack9133 said:


> So yes we agree then. Implementing fingerprint background checks will improve driver quality.


Yep.


> ...you cannot say that it would limit the driver pool for Uber when all of those drivers are pulled from the system for committed full time drivers alone.


 Not sure what your'e saying with that... but I am sure I never said background checks or fingerprinting would limit the pool of drivers. Others have made that argument, but I disagree.


> As for consumer confidence, consumers don't care about fingerprint backgrounds because if they did, they would be flocking to taxi's who provide those checks


 I just can't buy in to your sweeping generalizations or assumptions. There ARE riders who do not use Uber because they believe it is not safe (due in no small part to the high profile news stories of assaults from around the world) and there are riders who are NOT concerned about things like fingerprinting and background checks of Uber drivers. What I think we can agree on is that NO ONE would feel "less confident" in the service if all drivers were fingerprinted and properly background checked before being allowed to provide service.


> But the point still remains that all of that will in fact cause a loss of drivers for Uber and their customers which will raise response time and cost.


 That is another sweeping assumption on your part. You may be correct - but we do not know that. In order for that to be a valid argument, in my opinion, you would have to be able to cite some other industry that faces a problem recruiting workers & a lower level of customer service all due to their background check and fingerprinting requirements.
I can't think of one.


----------



## Lack9133

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yep.
> Not sure what your'e saying with that... but I am sure I never said background checks or fingerprinting would limit the pool of drivers. Others have made that argument, but I disagree.
> I just can't buy in to your sweeping generalizations or assumptions. There ARE riders who do not use Uber because they believe it is not safe (due in no small part to the high profile news stories of assaults from around the world) and there are riders who are NOT concerned about things like fingerprinting and background checks of Uber drivers. What I think we can agree on is that NO ONE would feel "less confident" in the service if all drivers were fingerprinted and properly background checked before being allowed to provide service.
> That is another sweeping assumption on your part. You may be correct - but we do not know that. In order for that to be a valid argument, in my opinion, you would have to be able to cite some other industry that faces a problem recruiting workers & a lower level of customer service all due to their background check and fingerprinting requirements.
> I can't think of one.


We could argue about this all day and we would still come back to agreeing with each other.

I agree with all the points you're trying to make but that still doesn't change basic economics that when additional government burdens are placed on potential employees, those burdens will pull prospective employees out of the job market which therefor lower supply. There is no arguing or trying to spin that at all.

Anyway, good chat.


----------



## Berliner

RamzFanz said:


> Yep, lots of hype and dump IPOs. We'll see. It will come down to Uber's financials before the IPO.


Seriously question:

AFAIK there is one person responsible for the numbers before going IPO, the CFO.
Uber's former CFO, Brent Callinicos, had quit in March 2015.
TK can tell the blue from the sky, it doesn`t matter.
The CFO has to tell the truth, or he is a candidate for the Darwin Award.
Is there any way for an IPO without CFO?

Thanks.


----------



## pbracing33b

Here is another article that http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...sheet-reveals-470-million-in-operating-losses
I really like the video on this page it goes into pretty good details about the company and what we face as well.


----------



## Kruhn

Michael - Cleveland, 

This is going to be a dumb question, but here it goes. What is the benefit of fingerprinting over the current system of monthly/bi-monthly background checks apart from perhaps increasing potential driver quality as it'll mean more effort than a few clicks at a website.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Kruhn said:


> Michael - Cleveland,
> 
> This is going to be a dumb question, but here it goes. What is the benefit of fingerprinting over the current system of monthly/bi-monthly background checks apart from perhaps increasing potential driver quality as it'll mean more effort than a few clicks at a website.


 That's not a dumb question at all - it's a very smart question.

The one thing that fingerprinting does that no other background check can do
is confirm IDENTITY.

The kind of background check that Uber and most employers do (including me!) just check online databases for a name, SS# or DL#.
In some instances, court runners are used to check county court house records for names and ss#s. But if the subject is using a false identity the only thing that will turn up is that the name/ss# - which may be associated with multiple people.

A fingerprint check will uncover different identities associated or used by that person.
Once discovered, the investigator can check the databases for all identities associated with that set of fingerprints.


----------



## Kruhn

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's not a dumb question at all - it's a very smart question.
> 
> The one thing that fingerprinting does that no other background check can do
> is confirm IDENTITY.
> 
> The kind of background check that Uber (and most employers - including me!) do, just check online databases for a name, SS# or DL#.
> In some instances, court runners are used to check county court house records for names and ss#s. But if the subject is using a false identity the only thing that will turn up is that the name/ss# are associated with multiple people.
> 
> A fingerprint check will uncover different identities associated or used by that person.
> Once discovered, the investigator can check the databases for all identities associated with that set of fingerprints.


Didn't consider that detail. Multiple identities didn't cross my mind.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Berliner said:


> Seriously question:
> 
> AFAIK there is one person responsible for the numbers before going IPO, the CFO.
> Uber's former CFO, Brent Callinicos, had quit in March 2015.
> TK can tell the blue from the sky, it doesn`t matter.
> The CFO has to tell the truth, or he is a candidate for the Darwin Award.
> Is there any way for an IPO without CFO?
> 
> Thanks.


They have an 'acting' CFO (Gautam Gupta - from Goldman Sachs) - 
We can be pretty certain that they will have a well known CFO in place long before the announcement of an IPO. 
And in an IPO, the auditing CPA firm is just as much on the hook for the accuracy of the financials as the CFO.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Finger print check here in Mecklenburg goes through the FBI database.
Not only will they catch AKAs, they will find terror suspects by going through the FBI.
More than worth it.


----------



## AgentGG

[B said:


> _Uber doesn't subsidize rides, rides are profitable. _[/B].


But not for drivers at UberX rates, so Uber is only getting desperate drivers and the attrition rate will be enormous, also considering there is no way to advance as an Uber driver, it is the definition of a dead end job. And so, Uber is forced to manipulate drivers to coerce as many as possible to join. That is the fatal flaw in the Uber model, needing a high density of drivers, while squeezing the auto expenses and investments of drivers in their own vehicles to generate revenue for Uber. They need to realize that drivers are people who determine the success of Uber, not the software.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> "Uber is subsidizing its cut price rides and using investor money to pay for it."


No. You said,


> Tell is again how Uber spend all it's money subsidizing rides. It was your best work!


I never said, as you misquoted, "Uber spends all its money subsidizing rides" That sentence doesn't even make logical sense.

Anyway, the bottom line is that Uber is hemorraging investor cash, spending $2 for every dollar they take in revenue, according to Forbes. So yes, the $8 fare costs $16 to provide if Uber is viewed as a whole.

Now, is there a convincing business plan which forecasts when breakeven will come? You say yes, but when asked for evidence, all you've got is "it's on the net". I for one am certainly far from convinced.


----------



## pbracing33b

I think fingerprints are a good idea, but who is going to administer it and how do you convince current drivers to go get one? The only way I see it being done is to force everyone to get it done.


----------



## pbracing33b

Also why can't uber implement some kind of radius. That cars can't be within x miles or feet from one another? I also think this would help their business model in the end. But I doubt that uber will ever listen to any of us, as they don't even value us as drivers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Finger print check here in Mecklenburg goes through the FBI database.
> Not only will they catch AKAs, they will find terror suspects by going through the FBI.
> More than worth it.


I think the FBI is the only nationally maintained fingerprint database.
These days all background checks include the terrorist watchlist and national sex offender list.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> Also why can't uber implement some kind of radius. That cars can't be within x miles or feet from one another?


Or what... one of them explodes?
If we are independent contractors, Uber can't tell a driver where they can and cannot be.

But it would be nice if the driver app indicated how many other x, select, xl cars were within, maybe a half mile radius.


----------



## KMANDERSON

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Put simply, Uber is a transportation company run by people who don't understand the transportation industry.
> 
> Uber will not last.


I think in the future lyft going to be the biggest company in the United states


----------



## RamzFanz

pbracing33b said:


> Here is another article that http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...sheet-reveals-470-million-in-operating-losses
> I really like the video on this page it goes into pretty good details about the company and what we face as well.


It's a bit of a sensation piece. The $470 could never be called "Operating Losses" in the same story that they admit it's all about expansion right now.


----------



## Einstein

RamzFanz said:


> It's a bit of a sensation piece. The $470 could never be called "Operating Losses" in the same story that they admit it's all about expansion right now.


Much of the losses are due to high legal bills. They spend a fortune on lawyers.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Lack9133 said:


> I'm not saying they are not prepared for those challenges but the challenges that I mentioned are outside Uber's scope of control. While they may have contingency plans, those possible challenges will not stop the damage from being done by something as simple as cities requiring fingerprint background checks which would limit their driver pool or insurance companies creating new ride-sharing requirements that raise the costs on their drivers. Both of which could cause passenger resentment with longer wait times and higher costs. Coastal cities have contingency plans for when a hurricane is about to hit, and while the city might survive, that doesn't stop the hurricane from doing long term damage.


Background checks only slowed recruitment briefly in houston. What the city needed to do was limit drivers but the ordinance specifically says no caps.

Even in cities which require full insurance there is oversaturation. The rates are higher but tgat doesn't compensate if you have less and less business.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Kruhn said:


> Didn't consider that detail. Multiple identities didn't cross my mind.


When houston started fingerprinting drivers here there were many with multiple aliases and records tgat sailed through uber's check but not Houston's.


----------



## RamzFanz

Einstein said:


> Much of the losses are due to high legal bills. They spend a fortune on lawyers.


Probably a tiny fraction but that's the cost of doing business against a corrupt monopoly.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

elelegido said:


> Now, is there a convincing business plan which forecasts when breakeven will come? You say yes, but when asked for evidence, all you've got is "it's on the net". I for one am certainly far from convinced.


But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that investors injecting tens of millions of cash into Uber would have been presented with a business plan that makes sense to them? (People with tens of millions of dollars to invest of their own - or their investment company's money, don't tend to be stupid. Risk takers? Yes. Stupid? No.


----------



## elelegido

Michael - Cleveland said:


> But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that investors injecting tens of millions of cash into Uber would have been presented with a business plan that makes sense to them? (People with tens of millions of dollars to invest of their own - or their investment company's money, don't tend to be stupid. Risk takers? Yes. Stupid? No.


I meant a business plan in the public domain. I'm 100% sure that a business plan exists; ramzfanz says it is available for download.

Whatever the case; I think claims of the reason behind investors investing in certain companies being stupid/not stupid is of little use. For example, very prestigious investors such as HSBC, Nomura and ABN Amro invested heavily in Bernie Madoff. They probably thought that they were not stupid by investing in his offerings, before he "made off" with their billions. Stupid/not stupid has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

elelegido said:


> I meant a business plan in the public domain.


Why in the world would a privately held company 
(especially one that won't even turn statistical data to regulators or legislators)
publish a business plan to the public for their competitors to see?
Even publicly held companies more often than not, don't do that.


> I'm 100% sure that a business plan exists; ramzfanz says it is available for download.


I'd heard rumor that some kind of business plan was 'leaked' by an investor - but I haven't see one - and wouldn't trust it to be 'real'.


> Whatever the case; I think claims of the reason behind investors investing in certain companies being stupid/not stupid is of little use. For example, very prestigious investors such as HSBC, Nomura and ABN Amro invested heavily in Bernie Madoff.


Well, yes and no - they weren't investing in Madoff - they were having Madoff invest their money. Different animal altogether. 
A better example to your point would be Enron.


> Stupid/not stupid has nothing to do with it.


Disagree. - and that's ok.


----------



## RockinEZ

No one commenting here has mentioned the growth in the personal wealth of the principal partners. That is what this is all about.

TK is the best known. In the last year his personal wealth went from $8.4 billion to *$18.2 billion. *


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

RockinEZ said:


> No one commenting here has mentioned the growth in the personal wealth of the principal partners. That is what this is all about.


Now you're not suggesting that THAT IS the business plan are you:
"Hey folks, look at the popularity and growth... get in now and ride this donkey right through an IPO and we'll all retire in 18 months"


----------



## Lack9133

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Background checks only slowed recruitment briefly in houston. What the city needed to do was limit drivers but the ordinance specifically says no caps.
> 
> Even in cities which require full insurance there is oversaturation. The rates are higher but tgat doesn't compensate if you have less and less business.


Absolutely correct. The background checks and insurance do slow recruitment but Uber doesn't care about oversaturation, they only care about recruitment and getting as many drivers on the road. If any regulator puts any roadblock in front of them that prevents them from oversaturating the market, they will fight it as hard as they can. Especially if it could set a precedent that could lead to other markets following suit.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

AgentGG said:


> Uber is only getting desperate drivers and the attrition rate will be enormous,


Not all new drivers are desparate - many are curious and sign up to see what it's like. That's what sucked me in to this rabbit hole. And Uber NEEDS a high attrition rate - for a lot of reasons... high turnover IS by design.

Just a couple of reasons high turnover benefits Uber:

turnover brings onboard newer vehicles with lower miles
turnover replaces bitter, jaded, vocal drivers with fresh-faced drivers with better attitudes
Things like that point to a more positive User Experience - and Uber is ALL about the UX.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

RamzFanz said:


> ...by knowing who and how much was being invested I would know instinctively you are wrong in your false claim that they are subsidizing rides. These companies, unlike you, do their research before they form opinions. If Uber were subsidising rides at this point, they wouldn't get $1 from anyone.


I wish more drivers understood this.
Except for in the rare - and now mostly abandoned - event of 'GUARANTEES', Uber does not subsidize rides.
It never has.

The entire model of business is exactly the opposite of subsidizing rides:
it is to put 100% of the cost of the ride on independent contractor drivers.

If Uber DID subsidize rides, lawyers like Lis-Riordin would be all over the courts using that as evidence to support the argument that Uber is not just a "technology company", but a transportation company - and that drivers are employees.

One of my biggest disappointments with Uber is that when it decided to expand its user base of riders and blow Lyft out of the water with lower fares, it chose NOT to use investor money to subsidize rides, but instead chose to pass the entire burden of the fare decreases on to drivers and support that with a BS marketing campaign called "_Charge Less - Earn More_".


----------



## elelegido

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Why in the world would a privately held company
> (especially one that won't even turn statistical data to regulators or legislators)
> publish a business plan to the public for their competitors to see?


Who said anything about Uber publishing their business plan? I said it was alleged that a plan is in the public domain; I didn't say who put it there. This thread's becoming hard work! Too many misquotes.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

elelegido said:


> Who said anything about Uber publishing their business plan? I said it was alleged that a plan is in the public domain; I didn't say who put it there. This thread's becoming hard work! Too many misquotes.


didn't mean to 'misqote' you! You did say "public domain"...


> I meant a business plan in the public domain. I'm 100% sure that a business plan exists; ramzfanz says it is available for download.


----------



## Kruhn

Lack9133 said:


> Absolutely correct. The background checks and insurance do slow recruitment but Uber doesn't care about oversaturation, they only care about recruitment and getting as many drivers on the road. If any regulator puts any roadblock in front of them that prevents them from oversaturating the market, they will fight it as hard as they can. Especially if it could set a precedent that could lead to other markets following suit.


Weird, because I recall Seattle limiting TNC drivers within their jurisdiction a while ago.


----------



## Kruhn

pbracing33b said:


> I think fingerprints are a good idea, but who is going to administer it and how do you convince current drivers to go get one? The only way I see it being done is to force everyone to get it done.


An example would be in the DC Metro area. Like various cities in the Northeastern US, it has suburbs in multiple states. The Commonwealth of Virginia established a series of requirements including a yearly car inspection. So what Uber did was send a blast email that said that you have 60 days to complete the needed steps to meet Virginia law. If you didn't complete them, you won't be able to get any rides in Virginia. To sweeten the pot, if you complete the Virginia inspection by a certain date, you get a refund for the inspection.

The same thing could be done for the fingerprinting. Of course, would Uber want to lose a percentage of its driver pool that may not want or are uncomfortable with being fingerprinted?


----------



## RockinEZ

I would like to see all drivers get a Live Scan (fingerprint background check) and a drug test.


----------



## Lack9133

Kruhn said:


> Weird, because I recall Seattle limiting TNC drivers within their jurisdiction a while ago.


Yes that was up for consideration last year but that proposal was suspended in favor of revised insurance standards and a $.10 fee for every Uber trip to fund wheelchair accessible taxi's.


----------



## 944turb0

I just hope they go public first so I can short the ever living hell out of uber


----------



## FlDriver

Just shows that people who write for magazines don't always understand business.


----------



## Uberwagoner

TwoFiddyMile said:


> There is no such thing as "partially profitable".
> Operating in the black in certain cities or regions doesn't matter.
> If Uber takes in 400 million in revenue per quarter, and has 401 million in expenditures, it takes a loss.
> Amazing how some people can't wrap their minds around that.


I could point out that those people who can't wrap their minds around that fact would be only have armed in a battle of wits.

As Master Yoda might paraphrase, "Profitable or profitable not. Partially profitable there is no." After a certain point there is a limit to how much money one can spend of other people before they stop providing it or they demand one's head on a platter. Hemorrhaging money is not a business plan.


----------



## Einstein

Uberwagoner said:


> After a certain point there is a limit to how much money one can spend of other people before they stop providing it or they demand one's head on a platter. Hemorrhaging money is not a business plan.


https://uberpeople.net/threads/thick-white-smoke-and-50-billion-mirrors.41517/


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Uberwagoner said:


> I could point out that those people who can't wrap their minds around that fact would be only have armed in a battle of wits.
> 
> As Master Yoda might paraphrase, "Profitable or profitable not. Partially profitable there is no." After a certain point there is a limit to how much money one can spend of other people before they stop providing it or they demand one's head on a platter. Hemorrhaging money is not a business plan.


And then there's the so called "valuation".
50 billion. Where? It's mostly Goldman Sachs money, and at last count the total VC is under 10 billion. 
So heres how the valuation goes down.
"Dude, buy my company for 50 billion".
"K, what are the assets?"
"We have a cool piece of software".
"Do you operate in the black?"
"No way! We're in the red. Besides, we have almost 10 billion in VC"
"Oh, so you are at least 10 billion in the red?"
"No, damn you, we're Uber. We don't THINK like that. Gimme 50 billion and thank me!"
"No thanks dude. Have a nice 10 billion in the red day!".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

RamzFanz said:


> That's epicly ignorant. Cadabra...you know them as Amazon, took a decade. Everyone said the same thing, especially book stores.
> 
> Uber is expanding worldwide. That's expensive. Once they stop expanding , or reach the point where current area profits exceed expansion investment, they will have a wildly profitable business.


*5 Successful Companies That Didn't Make a Dollar for 5 Years*
http://www.inc.com/drew-hendricks/5...at-didn-8217-t-make-a-dollar-for-5-years.html


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

elelegido said:


> My points are simply:
> - It is easy to run a loss making business and pay for those losses with someone else's money
> - No business will survive indefinitely if it only makes losses and never breaks even
> - Uber will not survive indefinitely if it only makes losses and never breaks even.


That's kind of a weird choice of terms, isn't it? "indefinitely"?
<shrug> I'm not sure that most tech start-ups have the goal of lasting indefinitely...
Seems like their goal is to last long enough to make the founders and initial investors very wealthy
and allow the market to determine where the business goes in the future.

Because we drive Uber - or use Uber 'for transportation' - we think of Uber in narrow terms.
Kalanick did, too - early on.
But that's not the vision of the company now.
It's raising capital by demonstrating it's desire, ability, and plan to become *an on-demand 'logistics' company*.

Uber doesn't care if it's moving people or pound-cake
so long as cutomers think of the *Uber brand *when they want to get anything from point A to point B
(with a possible waypoint at the Taco Bell Drive Thru).

Investors are buying in to "the brand".

*The Problem With Profitless Start-ups*
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/problem-with-profitless-start-ups.html#


----------



## Txchick

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's kind of a weird choice of terms, isn't it? "indefinitely"?
> <shrug> I'm not sure that most tech start-ups have the goal of lasting indefinitely...
> Seems like their goal is to last long enough to make the founders and initial investors very wealthy
> and allow the market to determine where the business goes in the future.
> 
> Because we drive Uber - or use Uber 'for transportation' - we think of Uber in narrow terms.
> Kalanick did, too - early on.
> But that's not the vision of the company now.
> It's raising capital by demonstrating it's desire, ability, and plan to become an on-demand 'logistics' company.
> 
> Uber doesn't care if it's moving people or pound-cake
> so long as cutomers think of the *Uber brand*
> when they want to get anything from point A to point B
> (with a possible waypoint at the Taco Bell Drive Thru).
> 
> Investors are buying in to "the brand".
> 
> *The Problem With Profitless Start-ups*
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/problem-with-profitless-start-ups.html#


Good article...true.


----------



## elelegido

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's kind of a weird choice of terms, isn't it? "indefinitely"?
> <shrug> I'm not sure that most tech start-ups have the goal of lasting indefinitely...
> Seems like their goal is to last long enough to make the founders and initial investors very wealthy
> and allow the market to determine where the business goes in the future.
> 
> Because we drive Uber - or use Uber 'for transportation' - we think of Uber in narrow terms.
> Kalanick did, too - early on.
> But that's not the vision of the company now.
> It's raising capital by demonstrating it's desire, ability, and plan to become *an on-demand 'logistics' company*.
> 
> Uber doesn't care if it's moving people or pound-cake
> so long as cutomers think of the *Uber brand *when they want to get anything from point A to point B
> (with a possible waypoint at the Taco Bell Drive Thru).
> 
> Investors are buying in to "the brand".
> 
> *The Problem With Profitless Start-ups*
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/problem-with-profitless-start-ups.html#


A good article containing _exactly_ the points I made above.


----------



## pbracing33b

RockinEZ said:


> I would like to see all drivers get a Live Scan (fingerprint background check) and a drug test.


Ive actually had riders tell me one driver was drinking and driving while taking them on an uber ride. Plus I think it would cut back on those who use drugs then think it is ok to go out and use drugs and drive. I know it happens, but I WOULD WELCOME A DRUG TEST.


----------



## pbracing33b

FlDriver said:


> Just shows that people who write for magazines don't always understand business.


Just goes to show ur very gullible. I for one would TRUST AN ESTABLISED MAGIZINE LIKE FORTUNE, than what uber is trying to portray. Not only that BLOOMBERG said the same thing, SO WHAT BLOOMBERG IS WRONG NOW TOO? Bloomberg is like the foundation to finance news. Just go stick ur head in the sand somewhere. Bc to me u just don't want to believe anything BAD about uber. Especially with all of the posts u have been posting to my threads that u have commented on.


----------



## pbracing33b

Uberwagoner said:


> I could point out that those people who can't wrap their minds around that fact would be only have armed in a battle of wits.
> 
> As Master Yoda might paraphrase, "Profitable or profitable not. Partially profitable there is no." After a certain point there is a limit to how much money one can spend of other people before they stop providing it or they demand one's head on a platter. Hemorrhaging money is not a business plan.


EXACTLY, people who invest WANT a return on their money, or QUITE SIMPLY THEY WON'T INVEST.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> EXACTLY, people who invest WANT a return on their money, or QUITE SIMPLY THEY WON'T INVEST.


I think you're overlooking the point being made, which is that investment companies do not invest the same way individual investors do. Investment companies, portfolio managers and high-wealth individuals manage a portfolio of investments -
They're not just saying, gee, 'I've got a million bucks, what's my best choice?' -

They have tens, hundreds of millions - sometimes billions...
and they don't screw around with 'small' investmensts (just ask any entrepreneur how hard it is find an investment co to put up anythin gunder $5mil). It's actaully very difficult to find a place to park a $10-$25 mil investment that is earmarked for high-risk start-ups.

They diversify their holdings to include stable, safe investments (T-bills, top Dow and NASDQ equities, bonds) and much riskier investments like start-ups.

They can lose a huge pile of cash on 9 of 10 investments in start-ups, but the return on the one winner more than makes up for the other losses - which are then used to offset the taxable profit from the winner.

Again, the people and companies investing in Uber are not stupid.
They know the risk - and can afford to take the loss, should it come to that -
but you can bet they will put their combined considerable clout into doing what ever they can to see Uber through a succesful IPO.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> I for one would TRUST AN ESTABLISED MAGIZINE LIKE FORTUNE, than what uber is trying to portray. Not only that BLOOMBERG said the same thing, SO WHAT BLOOMBERG IS WRONG NOW TOO?


Magazines like Fortune and Bloomberg (Bloomberg especially) publish articles exploring all sides and points of view. They are information brokers. To point to one article and suggest that opinion of the author is the opinion of the publication or parent company is a mistake.

Here's what 'Bloomberg' had to say in March:
_"For now, at least, Uber's business model has been validated by investors, as well as by brand-name companies that have adopted the young company as a business partner. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, for instance, is giving extra points to preferred guests who link their accounts to Uber's, while American Express credit card holders can spend points on Uber rides. Morgan Stanley and Citigroup have adopted Uber for Business as their corporate black car service."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-11/inside-big-taxi-s-dirty-war-with-uber_​


----------



## RamzFanz

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *5 Successful Companies That Didn't Make a Dollar for 5 Years*
> http://www.inc.com/drew-hendricks/5...at-didn-8217-t-make-a-dollar-for-5-years.html


99% of people who have the balls to comment about business investments have less knowledge about it than my dog. As you so well point out.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

RamzFanz said:


> 99% of people who have the balls to comment about business investments have less knowledge about it than my dog. As you so well point out.


51% of the population have no balls, and never will.
And you know full well that I've never even met your dog.


----------



## RamzFanz

I apologize, and so does my balless dog. I thought you met that one night in Vegas...but I digress...

...I would invest with you and I don't even have anything to invest other than a sackless female dog. Sad really. I sound like a bitter Uber driver that hates his pax and is certain no driver ever gets tipped. DON'T EVER TRY TO FIND A $50 FARE 3 FEET AWAY! THEY WON'T TIP FOR A SMELLY RIDE WITH A BAD ATTITUDE DRIVER! TAKE THE $5 AND OWN THOSE DUMB ASS CUSTOMERS! THEY WILL TIP AND RATE BETTER IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE DONE LEARNED UM!

But you are smart. Not kidding.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

RamzFanz said:


> I apologize, and so does my balless dog. I thought you met that one night in Vegas...but I digress...
> 
> ...I would invest with you and I don't even have anything to invest other than a sackless female dog. Sad really.
> 
> But you are smart. Not kidding.


 You are too. I just wish you wouldn't hide it by being so antogonistic to others here all the time.
Try to remember that people (myself included) don't know what they don't know.
It might make us 'wrong' - but it doesn't make us stupid.


----------



## pbracing33b

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I think you're overlooking the point being made, which is that investment companies do not invest the same way individual investors do. Investment companies, portfolio managers and high-wealth individuals manage a portfolio of investments -
> They're not just saying, gee, 'I've got a million bucks, what's my best choice?' -
> 
> They have tens, hundreds of millions - sometimes billions...
> and they don't screw around with 'small' investmensts (just ask any entrepreneur how hard it is find an investment co to put up anythin gunder $5mil). It's actaully very difficult to find a place to park a $10-$25 mil investment that is earmarked for high-risk start-ups.
> 
> They diversify their holdings to include stable, safe investments (T-bills, top Dow and NASDQ equities, bonds) and much riskier investments like start-ups.
> 
> They can lose a huge pile of cash on 9 of 10 investments in start-ups, but the return on the one winner more than makes up for the other losses - which are then used to offset the taxable profit from the winner.
> 
> Again, the people and companies investing in Uber are not stupid.
> They know the risk - and can afford to take the loss, should it come to that -
> but you can bet they will put their combined considerable clout into doing what ever they can to see Uber through a succesful IPO.


I totally disagree with this statement, most companies will not invest in uber because it is a high risk, Venture capitalist will because that is what they do. I had several business classes, and I've never heard of a company taking big risks, in fact in school your taught to be conservative and don't take to high of a risk, so I find it highly unlikely that a major company would invest heavily into uber (money, not promotions). Also as a CEO you have to answer to your board member on why you invested in x company. Board member rate their CEO on performance, if they don't feel like it is a safe investment then the CEO who invested the money may be in hot water and lose his job. Board members and investors don't like to see a CEO take big risks with their money, so therefore, they won't invest in a high stakes company like uber, they have to have some proven groundwork before major companies will start to invest.


----------



## Hackenstein

They just got another Billion. The VC money seems to be unlimited.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> I totally disagree with this statement, most companies will not invest in uber because it is a high risk, Venture capitalist will because that is what they do. I had several business classes, and I've never heard of a company taking big risks, in fact in school your taught to be conservative and don't take to high of a risk, so I find it highly unlikely that a major company would invest heavily into uber (money, not promotions). Also as a CEO you have to answer to your board member on why you invested in x company. Board member rate their CEO on performance, if they don't feel like it is a safe investment then the CEO who invested the money may be in hot water and lose his job. Board members and investors don't like to see a CEO take big risks with their money, so therefore, they won't invest in a high stakes company like uber, they have to have some proven groundwork before major companies will start to invest.


I mean no offense, but have you looked at the list of companieas investing in Uber? Or the list of high-risk invenstments GOOGLE, AMAZON, MICROSOFT and FACEBOOK make? You don't seem to understand that these companies (along with several extraordinarily high-wealth individuals) have so much cash on hand, that NOT investing a small portion of their cash in High Risk ventures would [almost] be tantamount to fiduciary irresposnibility.


----------



## pbracing33b

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I mean no offense, but have you looked at the list of companieas investing in Uber? Or the list of high-risk invenstments GOOGLE, AMAZON, MICROSOFT and FACEBOOK make? You don't seem to understand that these companies (along with several of extraordinarily high-wealth individuals) have so much cash on hand, that NOT investing a small portion of their cash in High Risk ventures would [almost] be tantamount to fiduciary irresposnibility.


Um your wrong on the investors https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/investors

Secondly if I invested in company (I'm talking huge amounts) then I wouldn't want my company to take unnecessary risks because it goes against good business principals. I would be a very conservative investor and if my company was making irrational decisions then I would want to know why, and the Board would have to answer to their investors like me to as why they are making those investments. If the investments are shaky then I don't want the company that I invested in to be taking huge unnecessary risks. Therefore I would be hammering the board day after do to drop risky investments. Btw it isn't good business since to take huge investments into an startup company, you would make very small investments into companies like this. Which would be good business sense.


----------



## elelegido

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are too. I just wish you wouldn't hide it by being so antogonistic to others here all the time.
> Try to remember that people (myself included) don't know what they don't know.
> It might make us 'wrong' - but it doesn't make us stupid.


Desert Driver used to do that too - he used to come on here and try to score points off people with his little "zingers".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> Um your wrong on the investors


That may be your opinion - but you're wrong.
https://uberpeople.net/threads/fort...model-your-thoughts.40122/page-11#post-550881
Did you even look at the list of investors that YOU linked to?


> Secondly if I invested in company (I'm talking huge amounts) then I wouldn't want my company to take unnecessary risks because it goes against good business principals. I would be a very conservative investor...


Again - that may be what YOU would do or not do...
but you are not Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. (are you?)

You do not understand the neccessity of large corporations and high-wealth investors to off-set their taxable income with high-risk investment - or the need to balance their portfolio of holdings.


----------



## pbracing33b

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That may be your opinion - but you're wrong.
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/fort...model-your-thoughts.40122/page-11#post-550881
> Did you even look at the list of investors that YOU linked to?
> 
> Again - that may be what YOU would do or not do...
> but you are not Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. (are you?)
> 
> You do not understand the neccessity of large corporations and high-wealth investors to off-set their taxable income with high-risk investment - or the need to balance their portfolio of holdings.


Facebook isn't even an investor, did you even look at the investors?


----------



## pbracing33b

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That may be your opinion - but you're wrong.
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/fort...model-your-thoughts.40122/page-11#post-550881
> Did you even look at the list of investors that YOU linked to?
> 
> Again - that may be what YOU would do or not do...
> but you are not Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. (are you?)
> 
> You do not understand the neccessity of large corporations and high-wealth investors to off-set their taxable income with high-risk investment - or the need to balance their portfolio of holdings.


Besides I don't think you know anything about business, bc if you did you know what I am saying is correct, and it is atypical for company to invest into a startup company. I really wanna know if you know anything about business at all, or where you learned it. If you just tell you just learned it from reading wsj or fox business or cnn business then you really don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> Facebook isn't even an investor, did you even look at the investors?


You were commenting on VC investment and corporate investment... not specifically about Uber... if you don't understand the point being made (like Google literally spinning off Google to create Alphabet specifically to invest in high risk ventures) then that's you're choice - and not my problem.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> Besides I don't think you know anything about business, bc if you did you know what I am saying is correct, and it is atypical for company to invest into a startup company. I really wanna know if you know anything about business at all, or where you learned it. If you just tell you just learned it from reading wsj or fox business or cnn business then you really don't know what you are talking about.


Fortunately for me - your opinion is irrelevant to my life.
Just as my opnion
(that you have absolutely know idea what you are talking about when it comes to business investment)
has no effect on you!
"You don't know what you don't know."

You do realize, don't you, that if VC investors actually did think the way you do, there would be no VC investment? (and the the 'V" in VC, stands for VENTURE?)

Happy trails.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Hackenstein said:


> The VC money seems to be unlimited.


It really is. 
Companies have been sitting on the sidelines since 2007, hoarding cash becuase the economy was so tanked.

I've been hearing from friends and relatives 'in the business' that the cash build-ups are so large, that the big-fish investors won't even look at small ventures anymore becuase they need to put such large amounts of cash into play - they need opportunities like Lyft and Uber.

What was it we just read in either Fortune or Inc?... that there are something like 140 "Unicorns" out there (start-ups valued at over $1bil) but only 9 of them have gone forward with an IPO... 
The reason being that with so much capital (cash) available in the private equity markets, there's no need to raise public capital to finance growth. Kalanick said as much in an interview last week.


----------



## pbracing33b

So apparently someone can't handle the truth and decided to report my last post, even though you have done this several times to other people. But yet nothing is done to the instigator. How nice.


----------



## pbracing33b

I love how people instigate stuff but yet when you point out exactly who they are they can't handle it and get mad. Bc you Point out there flaws, but yet when I see this same person do this to other people on this forum over and over again and nothing is done to him then there is something wrong with this forum. 

Any how, Venture capitalism is usually done by INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS. If a corporation that I had invested into this company had invested into uber or other Venture capitalism then I would be highly upset period. Big companies/corporations have no business in doing Venture capitalism.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> So apparently someone can't handle the truth and decided to report my last post, even though you have done this several times to other people. But yet nothing is done to the instigator. How nice.


<smh>


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

pbracing33b said:


> Any how, Venture capitalism is usually done by INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS.


THAT is absolutely hilarious!


----------



## pbracing33b

I think this explains all I need to say about venture capitalism: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/venturecapital.asp

It says exactly what venture capitalism is, and I totally agree with, hence just goes to show some people don't know what they are talking about. Js


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

It does - indeed!
(except that it's Venture CAPITAL, not "venture capitalism")


----------



## pbracing33b

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/the-peril-to-uber-is-its-business-model-not-bad-pr/


----------



## pbracing33b

This is a little related to this thread:

https://www.tnwinc.com/9334/uber-needs-business-ethics-training/


----------



## Choochie

I was always told that VC's have an 80-20 rule, as long as 80% make a return. This was stated by an owner of a company I used to work for who took his company to an IPO. He made millions from his little company which grew to over 20 locations and my stock quadrupled. Used the $$ to put down 20% on my first house, but I digress.


----------



## pbracing33b

Choochie said:


> I was always told that VC's have an 80-20 rule, as long as 80% make a return. This was stated by an owner of a company I used to work for who took his company to an IPO. He made millions from his little company which grew to over 20 locations and my stock quadrupled. Used the $$ to put down 20% on my first house, but I digress.


But the odds are agsinst them it is more likely that they will fail then succeed. Which is why most business professionals advise against investing in them.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

<smh>


----------



## FlDriver

Anyone who thinks Uber's business model is bad doesn't understand much about business or the technology industry.

Pointing out that the company is not profitable yet is a prime example of this ignorance.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

FlDriver said:


> Anyone who thinks Uber's business model is bad doesn't understand much about business or the technology industry.
> 
> Pointing out that the company is not profitable yet is a prime example of this ignorance.


Thank you o guru.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

RamzFanz said:


> There are many many links available in this forum and easily found online. Your admitting you have done no research, and don't even know what I'm referring to, doesn't help your argument.
> 
> Yes, just by knowing who and how much was being invested I would know instinctively you are wrong in your false claim that they are subsidizing rides. These companies, unlike you, do their research before they form opinions. If Uber were subsidising rides at this point, they wouldn't get $1 from anyone.
> 
> You are insincere and uninformed.


I admit sometimes I forget to do the research. But I've been inspired by this posts. Thank you so much!!!



elelegido said:


> Obviously. And a dog is not a cat. What's your point?


You're right about. And a dog is not a duck and a cat is not a duck, of course a duck is a duck!!



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Lawyers lawyers lawyers.
> When you are the world's biggest scofflaw, you are bound to rack up massive legal expenses.


It's too bad there's no such things as "law insurance".



Fuzzyelvis said:


> Sticks in your yard???


lolololololol


----------



## Trump Economics

pbracing33b said:


> http://fortune.com/2015/08/11/uber-profitable-business-model/
> 
> Fortune states that uber is going too big and too fast and they are losing money. They state that Uber cannot keep doing this, because as other companies have tried to follow suit, those have failed and lost big. They believe that Uber business model is a bad business model, which could be devastating if Uber fails.
> 
> What are you thoughts? The video really clears some stuff up too and they do a really good job at explaining why this is a bad business model.


Pyramid Scheme.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Trump Economics said:


> Pyramid Scheme.


Just like Amway!


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> just by knowing who and how much was being invested I would know instinctively you are wrong in your false claim that they are subsidizing rides. These companies, unlike you, do their research before they form opinions. If Uber were subsidising rides at this point, they wouldn't get $1 from anyone.


You said that in reply to me in October 2015, 18 months ago. Now, the media has finally realized and is reporting that Uber is unprofitable and is subsidizing, e.g:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016...standing-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html

_*"Published financial data shows that Uber is losing more money than any startup in history and that its ability to capture customers and drivers from incumbent operators is entirely due to $2 billion in annual investor subsidies.*_* "*

The question is, do you now accept that you were wrong, or are all the news reports on Uber's ride subsidization wrong?


----------



## Jagent

elelegido said:


> You said that in reply to me in October 2015, 18 months ago. Now, the media has finally realized and is reporting that Uber is unprofitable and is subsidizing, e.g:
> 
> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016...standing-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html
> 
> _*"Published financial data shows that Uber is losing more money than any startup in history and that its ability to capture customers and drivers from incumbent operators is entirely due to $2 billion in annual investor subsidies.*_* "*
> 
> The question is, do you now accept that you were wrong, or are all the news reports on Uber's ride subsidization wrong?


Ramz is a good guy, but he also swears we will all be replaced by robot cars in 2018. It's a waste of time to debate him.


----------



## elelegido

Jagent said:


> Ramz is a good guy, but he also swears we will all be replaced by robot cars in 2018. It's a waste of time to debate him.


RamzFamz _is_ a robot, isn't he? He's the Autodenial 3000 model.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

elelegido said:


> RamzFamz _is_ a robot, isn't he? He's the Autodenial 3000 model.


I thought he was your long lost cousin.


----------



## 123dragon

pbracing33b said:


> I love how people instigate stuff but yet when you point out exactly who they are they can't handle it and get mad. Bc you Point out there flaws, but yet when I see this same person do this to other people on this forum over and over again and nothing is done to him then there is something wrong with this forum.
> 
> Any how, Venture capitalism is usually done by INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS. If a corporation that I had invested into this company had invested into uber or other Venture capitalism then I would be highly upset period. Big companies/corporations have no business in doing Venture capitalism.


A lot of companies have venture capital groups.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-china-idUSKCN0Y404W (Apple does not just relevant to uber)
https://www.gv.com
https://www.geventures.com
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/samsung-ventures

There's many reason to do this other then to just profit the way investors do. If you may enter those markets its good to sit on some of the early ones and have a seat at there table for when you launch your product that competes or leverages what the market the start up is addressing.

http://mashable.com/2016/05/16/apple-venture-capital/#83rm3FKaegqX

The federal government also does the same thing with it's VC wing called in In-Q-Tel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel


----------



## elelegido

ChortlingCrison said:


> I thought he was your long lost cousin.


Ba-Dum Tssshhhhhhhhhhh.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> That's epicly ignorant. Cadabra...you know them as Amazon, took a decade. Everyone said the same thing, especially book stores.
> 
> Uber is expanding worldwide. That's expensive. Once they stop expanding , or reach the point where current area profits exceed expansion investment, they will have a wildly profitable business.


You dumbass. Time has not been kind to you, or to your stupid posts. 

Epically ignorant, huh?


----------

