"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting
these
losses?

No, but those losses will be carried forward to offset future profits
when they arrive.


Do you *really* think Uber's business is that simple?

Is how simple

yes I do

I look forward to your next management textbook. It should be refreshingly
short.


spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly

Ah well, you'd better sell your well-informed investment advice to the
billionaire funds investing in Uber. You clearly understand this market
much better than they do.

Everything that I did find when trying to research this shows that
everything in the Garden is not rosy for Uber

I suspect that the backers will get cold feet soon

tim

Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;158072']Robin9 wrote:-

tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

tim



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus-

Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be
losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to
provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing.
Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's
drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are
charged, in London at least the business must show a profit
before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far
too high?-

Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a
profit
in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US.



If Uber can't make a profit before overheads are included,
they must be grossly incompetent. Remember how the London
minicab trade works. The driver is deemed to be self-employed,
and pays for the car, insurance and petrol himself. The customer
pays Uber by credit card and Uber pays a small percentage to the
driver.

As Uber seems to have taken a huge share of the market away
from both Hackney cabs and minicabs, the number of jobs per
day must be in the thousands. Multiply that number of jobs by
an average net revenue of, say, five pounds and you arrive at a
gross income which must be more than the cost of a minimal
office set-up.

Uber is investing in market growth. That's where the big money goes. So it
subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot on marketing. I
dare say it spends a lot on political lobbying as well.

The really big losses were in China, but that's now stopped, so from now
on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive battles in
many markets, so bottom line profits will remain illusive.

It also seems to be spending a lot on driverless technologies, as it
expects these to be cheaper than drivers within a few years. But that means
it will need to invest in the cars.

I'm discussing the situation in London, and there is no
indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am
sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded
merely because it is stated on the Internet.

I'd like someone who believes that Uber are subsidising their
drivers to explain in detail how this is done.

Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;158092']Robin9 wrote:-

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
;158072']Robin9 wrote:-

tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

tim



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus-

Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be
losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to
provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing.
Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's
drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are
charged, in London at least the business must show a profit
before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far
too high?-

Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a
profit
in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US.

-

If Uber can't make a profit before overheads are included,
they must be grossly incompetent. Remember how the London
minicab trade works. The driver is deemed to be self-employed,
and pays for the car, insurance and petrol himself. The customer
pays Uber by credit card and Uber pays a small percentage to the
driver.

As Uber seems to have taken a huge share of the market away
from both Hackney cabs and minicabs, the number of jobs per
day must be in the thousands. Multiply that number of jobs by
an average net revenue of, say, five pounds and you arrive at a
gross income which must be more than the cost of a minimal
office set-up.-

Uber is investing in market growth. That's where the big money goes. So
it
subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot on
marketing. I
dare say it spends a lot on political lobbying as well.

The really big losses were in China, but that's now stopped, so from
now
on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive battles
in
many markets, so bottom line profits will remain illusive.

It also seems to be spending a lot on driverless technologies, as it
expects these to be cheaper than drivers within a few years. But that
means
it will need to invest in the cars.

I'm discussing the situation in London, and there is no
indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am
sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded
merely because it is stated on the Internet.

I'd like someone who believes that Uber are subsidising their
drivers to explain in detail how this is done.

Google is your friend:

https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/...-of-subsidies/

http://www.financialexpress.com/indu...n-loss/358291/

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...l-survive-uber

http://www.hybridcars.com/uber-loses...ke-their-toll/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhue.../#6fcde8ad2bd6

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ubers-hands...f-2016-1578115

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhue.../#354f4fe08c57

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...y-defeat-lyft/

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/47600297.cms

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:25:51 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting
these
losses?

No, but those losses will be carried forward to offset future profits
when they arrive.


Do you *really* think Uber's business is that simple?

Is how simple

yes I do

I look forward to your next management textbook. It should be refreshingly
short.


spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly

Ah well, you'd better sell your well-informed investment advice to the
billionaire funds investing in Uber. You clearly understand this market
much better than they do.

Everything that I did find when trying to research this shows that
everything in the Garden is not rosy for Uber

I think that was your view before doing any research.


I suspect that the backers will get cold feet soon

Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...oundation.html

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100
Recliner wrote:
Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...e-on-shaky-fou
dation.html

Like the majority of the current crop of silicon valley start ups then. I'm
amazed the bubble has lasted this long. There must be a boatload of gullible
rich idiots out there bankrolling them all.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100
Recliner wrote:
Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...e-on-shaky-fou
dation.html

Like the majority of the current crop of silicon valley start ups then. I'm
amazed the bubble has lasted this long. There must be a boatload of gullible
rich idiots out there bankrolling them all.

Yup, I can never understand the huge valuations put on high profile SV
startups. But sometimes they actually prove they can eventually make real
profits (eg, Facebook), and in many other cases they exit on a decent
valuation. So the early investors often make a very good multiple, which
pays for the others that don't make it.

With Uber, the investors aren't betting on the current business model, but
on an imagined future where people don't own their own cars, but rent
transport as they need it. Uber's plan is to dominate that market, and the
VCs are prepared to fund it to do so.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:25:51 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting
these
losses?

No, but those losses will be carried forward to offset future profits
when they arrive.


Do you *really* think Uber's business is that simple?

Is how simple

yes I do

I look forward to your next management textbook. It should be
refreshingly
short.


spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly

Ah well, you'd better sell your well-informed investment advice to the
billionaire funds investing in Uber. You clearly understand this market
much better than they do.

Everything that I did find when trying to research this shows that
everything in the Garden is not rosy for Uber

I think that was your view before doing any research.

Nope

I thought that it had questionable business practices, but I (sadly) also
thought that it was destined to take over the world



I suspect that the backers will get cold feet soon

Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...oundation.html

ISTR that I made some of these comments before (about its MO being easy to
replicate)

I also don't recognise the basic premise

"They integrated a mostly unused stockpile of personal automobiles"

Um? Nhow many people do you know with a nearly new Mercedes S class (the
mandated type of car for early adopters) sitting in the garage unused whilst
they sit in the lounge twiddling their thumbs.

The average underemployed person who considers being a cabbie to make ends
meet has a beat up old Sierra (at best) in the garage

tim

wrote in message ...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100
Recliner wrote:
Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...e-on-shaky-fou
dation.html

Like the majority of the current crop of silicon valley start ups then.
I'm
amazed the bubble has lasted this long. There must be a boatload of
gullible
rich idiots out there bankrolling them all.

with bank interest rate down at zero, there's a lot of money sloshing around
looking for a home

Early investors don't even need to believe in the long term prospects for
the company, all they need to believe in is the bigger fool coming along
later.

Just look at the absurd valuation of Ocardo against its piddly market share,
its piddly profit per delivery and it non-existent growth potential now that
every man and his dog supermarket has a competing operation (with lower
fulfilment costs)

tim

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:08:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
With Uber, the investors aren't betting on the current business model, but
on an imagined future where people don't own their own cars, but rent
transport as they need it. Uber's plan is to dominate that market, and the
VCs are prepared to fund it to do so.

Only people who only ever lived in a city flat would think renting a car on
an as-you-need-it basis is a viable model for family life out in the sticks.
If taxis and rental cars were the solution to every car problem then there
wouldn't be 15 million private cars in the UK.

Equally stupid is the rent your self driving car out when you're not using it
idea that I've seen put forward. Oh sure, I'll just let any old tom, dick or
harriett use the 2nd largest capital investment in my life as they see fit.
Vomit on the carpet and everything nicked from the boot is just what I want
the next day. Honestly , some of these californian techies live on another
planet. And I speak as a techie.

--
Spud