And yet Grab and Didi drove Uber out of South East Asia and China, Ola is giving Uber a run for its money in India and now GoJek in turn is challenging Grab. In my recent trip to Tokyo we were mostly advised to take regular cabs Vs Uber in contrast to a year ago. That's literally half the world where they're getting out competed.
When reasoning doesn't line up with facts, there are usually flaws in the logic. One possible flaw it turns out is that well off globe trotters or even people who frequently travel across cities in a country and would love to use the same app everywhere likely form a small % of total cab trips. Majority of trips are just local trips by an area's residents. So locally, majority just goes with whoever offers better service and relevance. Cutting Price can trump over these but by going public, bottom line became a lot more important to Uber and Lyft - so this isn't likely a viable strategy. Another possible flaw is that the compute required to support this is likely commoditized and there's not likely as much competitive advantage in data.
So it's going to be interesting...
I don't think there's an opposition of facts and logic here. Grab was founded in 2012 (https://www.grab.com/sg/about/), Ola in 2011 (https://www.olacabs.com/about.html), and GoJek in 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-Jek). All of these were entrenched players in their respective markets when Uber decided to put up a fight. Uber gave the Grab and Ola's VCs no option but to double down, if they were to save their existing investments. In this race to bottom, it was Uber who blinked first. Losing SE Asia was not an existential threat to Uber, but definitely for Grab. Media likes to talk winners and losers, but Uber did end up taking 27.5% stake in Grab just to leave the market (https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/24/grab-uber-deal-southeast-a...). However, their fight in India with Ola continues. But to my initial argument - back in 2010-2012, we thought that the network effect of social networks (like Facebook) extended to ride-sharing services too creating high barriers to entry. We know now that isn't the case. Imagine how a VC would react today to a startup founder pitching a ride-sharing idea in a market where Uber/Lyft are already entrenched, given what we have learned from Lyft IPO and Uber's SEC filing. My argument may seem counterintuitive here, but I believe that the Uber/Lyft's revealed financials is what may ultimately save them. They have successfully managed to make the ride-sharing market unattractive (at least for 10x return seeking VCs).
I'd go back to late 2000s when Nokia's and Blackberry's stranglehold on high end phone market seemed unassailable but how it was blown away in the preceding years by a more expensive product (better app store for developers, better device for the end user).
There is no way to differentiate in this market. The only thing that would make me switch is a guarantee of a good driver, but that would just raise the costs absurdly.
Even if you succeed temporarily, your competitor will clone you and your technology. Its similar in USA but in China its multiplied by the population factor in a region the same area so its more intense.
The competition also permeates downwards and creates beasts like the 996.
Actually, the success of Didi,Grab,Ola etc. vs. Uber proves that in the complex e-business, as long as there is enough market space in the local area, and you can organize a good team, you can win in the competition with foreign companies. Just like Alibaba and JD beat Amazon, Meituan beat Goupon in China.
That's BS. Yandex is an incredibly strong player in Russia in the search space and Google is not outcompeting them either. It was the case way before Putin's political ambitions became relevant.
All in all, there are many reasons to blame Russia for it's government, but that's blatantly not one of them.
They have a deeply inferior product, fail to catch up to Grab's breakneck innovation pace.
Also, being an Indonesian company, Go-Jek has a disorganized company culture that is not conducive to competing with a lean, well-oiled machine run by Singaporeans like Grab.
I also don't think being an Indonesian company has challenged Go-Jek in any way. Traveloka, Tiket.com, and Go-Jek are one of the most prominent businesses in Indonesia, and they all look like well-oiled machines.
Grabs two co-founders were born in Malaysia and the execs are from all over the world.
Both are very successful companies but from the innovation perspective Gojek is most definitely the leader. You need only look at their offering (dozens of products built in house) in comparison to everyone else outside of china. Their food business is now bigger than the ride sharing for example, and their rollout of this was exceptional. Light-years ahead strategy wise of the rest at the time (grab/uber).
The only thing I can think of that Grab has executed on better is international expansion and the initial grab-car service was at one stage far more popular than go-car.
UPDATE: Got it, self driving cars.
I am not deleting the comment in case others were confused as well.
My personal guess is that "soon" for fully autonomous cars is not any reasonable definition of soon. Even if you accept the tech is close to okay in Arizona (I wouldn't), think about the weather and driving conditions in most of the worlds' markets for these global companies.
I was still thinking about it during my bike ride later in the day, and I noticed that more than a dozen times I exchanged looks and nods with drivers to ensure they had seen me and that it was safe to do something.
No self driving car is able to look a human in the eyes and determine their likely course of action. And it most certainly won't be able to signal to the human a message as complex as "I have understood your intentions".
 E.g. Car stopped in front; do you cross the continuous line to go to the opposite lane, or just wait a bit? Or merging from a side street into a busy main road.... some drivers will let you, but which ones? If you wait until "it's safe", well, good luck.
It is literally impossible to drive in Rome, Buenos Aires, Lima or Rio without looking at drivers for their intentions.
I'm thinking like 101 seems reasonably straightforward, modulo the occasional construction, but once you get into san Francisco, there's a lot of dodging pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, shopping carts, stopped delivery vehicles, etc... It doesn't look nearly as controlled, to my eyes, as 101 does further out.
VERY true, not just in finance.
For any of the above, I have to use the desktop site. These are not technical limitations either and should all be in the app if we want full parity with mobile.
What's more unrealistic to think is that a move to driverless cars / less car ownership would lead to the manufacturer's rolling over.
So how do we already have Lyft, Cabify, MyTaxi, Bolt, Kapten, Didi, AutoNavi, Meituan, Grab, OlaCabs, and a bunch more?
That aside, yeah, Uber has a negative moat; I don't see why the car drivers themselves couldn't band together to make a competing app if the mother company started to take a real cut.
But the business cycle goes up, and the business cycle goes down. (I mean, the general trend is upwards, but if you don't think there will be big downturns inbetween, well...)
The problem is that yes, uber and lyft have dominance for as long as they are willing to run the business for less money than anyone else; This puts a pretty hard cap on how profitable they can be.
(I mean, for an example of a competitor who might be willing to do it for very little over break-even, I've talked with several people who would be interested in setting up a competitor that was operated as a driver's cooperative. I mean, even that isn't workable when uber and lift are losing money, but it would work at profit levels that uber and lyft would consider break-even; such a cooperative could work really well as a break-even business, while investors in both uber and lyft would be super disappointed with a break-even business)
Compounding this, the ridesharing space is one that is massively price sensitive. Uber and lyft are so cheap that I've gotten rid of my car, and I use them all the time.
But if they raise their rates significantly? I'm gonna go buy a honda and drive myself; They get to duke it out for driving me around when I'm drunk, but we're talking less than 5% of my rides.
I suspect I'm not super unusual in this regard.
But usually? I switch from uber to lyft on my daily commute based on saving a few bucks almost every day. (right now, Lyft has some scheme where you can buy a 30-pack of $15 off coupons for $300. But they're used every time you ride lyft, so if you want to go somewhere for less than $15, you use Uber)
I mean, 90+% of my rides are areas I ride in a lot, where it would be worth my time to put a fair bit of effort into discovery.
I think that on the driver side, there's a lot of drivers with very strong locational preferences, too; If you are in SF and try to get a ride to San Jose, my experience is that 3 out of 4 uber drivers will kick you out of the car when they find out, so I think you might be able to recruit drivers that way, too.
Assuming that you have cheap/open source software (a big assumption) you could even setup federation. Like you and your crew setup a co-op in one area, and get a lot of riders through personal contacts. I and my friends setup a similar drivers co-op in a nearby area, and similarly use our contacts to build up a very local critical mass.
With federation, you could set it up so that if one of my drivers went to your area, say to drop off a customer, they could optionally be put on your network, either to work there, or maybe just to get customers on your network who wanted to go to my area.
I mean, you still have the huge problems of bad behavior, but I don't think uber/lyft have really addressed those problems very well, either. I think those problems are really hard, and maybe those problems would be easier to solve with a bunch of smaller but federated companies than with two large companies? Maybe not. I don't know.
I'm just saying, I think a lot of the critical mass issues could be pushed off to local leaders.
And fight they have, because they don't have a moat. A moat is a competitive advantage that is _cost_effective_ to defend. Uber/Lyft don't have that.
They titillated investors with tales about autonomous vehicles leading to skyrocketing profits. But now the hype over autonomous vehicles has faded, and it seems unlikely that fully autonomous cars will be mainstream any time soon.
$100B+ for unprofitable ride shares and lukewarm burrito delivery? If you say so.
It just doesn't seem to prove much beyond "subsidized pricing is popular".
The personal mobility, meal delivery, and logistics industries are highly competitive, with well-established and low-cost alternatives that have been available for decades, low barriers to entry, low switching costs, and well-capitalized competitors in nearly every major geographic region. If we are unable to compete effectively in these industries, our business and financial prospects would be adversely impacted.
Taxis only make sense in the very small perecent of the US where you can walk outside and hail one coming down the street.
I know it can be an issue on the driver side in terms of job security, but poor customer service and behaviour is weeded out much better on ridesharing apps due to how their rating and tracking systems work.
In Germany, we have two types: Funkmietwagen (kinda "callable cabs") which can't pick up someone without being called and proper taxis which both get dispatched but can also wait at taxi ranks to pick people up (or pick someone up on their way somewhere when empty).
Neither of those would abandon someone they've been dispatched to and dispatcher estimations are usually pretty accurate.
The few times I've reserved a taxi for someone the estimation was accurate and the driver very friendly. Same for the company I work for, no real issues with taxis. Company wise it's often easier to just take public transport though (quickest to/from airport).
The same thing happened on my most recent arrival back home. I am probably going to simply return to taxis at my home airport for now on.
If they are willing to let their ridership fall to just above cab ridership numbers? sure.
That's the biggest problem with the market; demand is elastic. Uber's major competitor for my transportation dollars isn't lyft; it's me going out and buying a honda and driving myself. If they charged taxi prices, I'd buy a honda, and I'd use the rideshare less than 5% of the time I use it now.
That's the multi billion $ question, if they hike prices to become profitable, will customers swallow it, or jump to local alternatives. My feeling is the latter, I don't think you get economy of scale for running a taxi business, because your biggest cost is paying local drivers.
- Expected to be teh largest IPO this year in the US.
- 10th largest all time
- trying to raise around $10B
- 2018 Year Ended Revenue $11.27 billion
- 2018 Year Ended Net Income $997 million
- 2017 Year End lost $4.03 billion.
- 10 billion trips in September 2018, up from 5 billion in September 2017
- Gross Bookings From Ridesharing $41.5 billion in 2018
- Revenue From Ridesharing Products $9.2 Billion in 2018
- List under UBER, good ticker!!
- 29 banks listed as underwriting the IPO, for those of you wondering, yes that is alot. Like 20+ more than a typical IPO.
- 2018, Uber's operating loss totaled $3.03 billion, however it technically turned a profit in 2018, generating $997 million in net income. That's thanks to a $5 billion "other income" benefit.
Other Income is defined as:
- Interest income, which consists primarily of interest earned on our cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash and cash equivalents.
- Gain on divestitures, which consists of gain on sale of divested operations.
- Unrealized gain on investments, which consists primarily of gains from fair value adjustments relating to our investments such as our investment in Didi.
- Foreign currency exchange gains (losses), net, which consist primarily of remeasurement of transactions and monetary assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than the functional currency at the end of the period.
- Change in fair value of embedded derivatives, which consists primarily of gains and losses on embedded derivatives related to our Convertible Notes.
- Other, which consists primarily of changes in the fair value of warrants and income from forfeitures of warrants.
- Lyft now at $61/share, ouch, there just is no other way to put it. THey pulled a lot of financial engineering tricks to boost their IPO price and well the results speak for themselves:(
Biggest Surprise to me:
- Uber Eats comes in at $165 million for Q4, for comparison Ride sharing generated a total of $2.5B in net revenue, the rest being ride sharing.
- So Uber is not really all that diversified in terms of ride sharing vs other, they are essentially Lyft in more markets.
I don't understand why this is seen as a negative. An IPO is a share issuance — the higher the price per share, the more money they receive in exchange for the same percentage of the company. Post-IPO "pops" represent money left on the table, effectively a transfer to the high-dollar investors with connections to the underwriter who can buy at the issue price.
Any sort of financial engineering tricks that goose the accounting numbers without affecting the long-term health of the business are basically a transfer payment from people who buy in at the inflated price to entities who sell at the inflated price. It's rational for the company to try to pull them; it's also rational for prospective shareholders to refuse to take the other side of the trade (at least until the price corrects to the point where the true fundamentals make it worth it). In today's markets, you can always find someone irrational.
Again, in less than a year, rose from $44 to $61 with a brief uptick to $72 in the middle.
How is that plummeting?
This situation doesn't apply when you have straight RSUs that you sell when the lockup ends. These are withheld at income tax rates when vesting, and then taxed as capital gains rate when you sell. The IPO price doesn't matter in this case.
RSU risk is worse because it is outside of your control, unless of course you don't have RSUs. You get taxed on the vest date. Withholding is often at the 25% minimum government rate. Assuming you're in a no-sell window, any downward movement before you can sell increases your effective tax rate, potentially to over 100% in the worst case. Consider the dot-com crash case where your RSUs were worth $1M on the vest date, withholding is $250K, taxes owed are ~$370K, and your regular salary is $100K. If the stock goes to $0 before you can sell... On April 15, the government will demand a check from you for something around $120K, but all you actually took home was around $70K. An effective tax rate of around 170%!
The real issue here might be that you can only deduct $3000 per year in losses. With $1M in losses, you'll be able to carry that over for centuries!
Also, with $1M in losses, one would not be limited to the $3k offset against ordinary income. Presumably one would have other gains along the way from other investments.
And yes, you are correct on the other point. You would be able to avoid paying tax on your next $1M in lifetime capital gains. *disclaimer: This is not financial advice.
Edit: something similar can happen with options as mentioned, but the mechanics are slightly different.
Usually this results in significant underwithholding on RSU for federal tax.
I was and continue to be surprised companies release RSUs at IPO and not lock up expiry, the later of which avoids the tax risk.
"“Derivatives” is sort of a vague term, and there is a persistent folk belief that they have magic powers, that any legal or financial problem can somehow be solved by doing a derivative."
Besides, any current employee is barred from trading options by the insider trading policy.
Aren't there issues with follow-on offerings? By taking the entire IPO pot for itself, the company will probably struggle to find investors if/when it needs to come back to the capital markets--which seems like an eventuality with Lyft.
Which in turn is and for the company since the new co-owners (shareholders) don't want to lose money but push the executives to "do something" (while in reality even combined most of the new shareholders don't have much voting power
In general the big Pops only help the banks and their top investors.
regarding other income:
> Gain on divestitures increased by $3.2 billion from 2017 to 2018. This increase was due to gains on the divestitures of our Russia/CIS and Southeast Asia operations.
Covered on page 85, basically spinoffs with other regional leaders
We gave them the benefit of the doubt and tried the in house delivery service - food took ~2 hours to arrive, presumably because their throughput to fulfil orders was capped by the number of drivers they could afford to hire full time - it was like going back to the days of every place having delivery men.
UberEats usually takes ~35 minutes for reference.
But in the McDonalds/Uber case I don't think that Uner is imortant enough to McDonalds.
Imagine my surprise when I first went to Europe and found out that McDonald's is not 24/7 and doesn't do delivery.
The Q4 numbers I see:
Uber Eats: $165 million
Grub Hub: $205 million*
GrubHub's 2018 Revenue was 1.0B (https://investors.grubhub.com/investors/press-releases/press...)
- The whole calculation around "Other Income" are nothing short of financial engineering to show bottom line profitability.
- 24% of Uber's gross bookings come from 5 cities - Los Angeles, New York City, and the San Francisco Bay Area in the United States; London in the United Kingdom; and São Paulo in Brazil
- 15% rides started or were completed at an airport.
Seems they priced it perfectly, extracted maximum value for their investors and left nothing to gain for the public.
You make it sound like they had 10 billion trips in that month alone. It is 10 billion by September 2018
It's basically a 4B loss for 2018. The numbers all around are just unreal.
Could you elaborate? Interested in knowing more
I challenge the fundamental premise that SDCs will make them profitable. There is no stickiness to their business model. Moving on to another ride sharing service is frictionless today. Most people I know use both Lyft and Uber. So if tomorrow SDCs become popular and offer a cheaper rate, people will move to them in droves. Nothing stopping them. We know Uber and Lyft are way behind on SDCs compared to Google on that front. It also looks like GM and Ford could there before these two. So what makes them a good investment either in the short or long term?
After the IPO I'd give it a year before the investors starts to demand slashing drivers pay, and cancelling the self driving car project.
I doubt this is true, at least not across their primary stock market index funds. For example, VTSAX only holds about 3500 stocks .
I don't know how the fund usually treats new, large IPOs, but I highly doubt that they would just blindly buy it at "any price"
EDIT: I just checked the holdings of VTSAX  and VGT , neither holds Lyft.
 - https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/portfolio...
 - https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/overview/...
 - https://investor.vanguard.com/etf/profile/portfolio/VGT/port...
Yes, Vanguard will buy at "any price" and will buy more at a higher price -- the funds try to replicate the breakdown of the underlying indices on a market cap basis.
There's even a known arbitrage opportunity with things like S&P500. When the S&P committee decides to include a new stock (and delist some other stock) you can front-run the purchases by the giants like SPY or VOO, slightly inflating the stock's value just when the ETFs buy it from you.
Today people drive others around for money. Tomorrow people let their cars drive people around for money. No one thinks Lyft and Uber are going to be buying the cars, people just won't need to be physically in them to make money from Uber and Lyft any more.
This means complex matching, pricing and routing algorithms that have been developed for almost a decade. It's also about working with regulations at the city level and building a reliable labor force of contractors to supply the marketplace in every new city before the launch date.
There is so many experiments and tweaks to ensure that both supply and demand side remain properly incentivized, not to mentioned fighting deeply entrenched Taxi companies from city to city, that I'm surprised Uber and Lyft have gone to IPO so quickly, other than for cash raising.
Of course, Uber and Lyft right now ARE so big because of all the advantages you mention, but a lot of that is still due to boatloads of VC money that allow them to operate unprofitably.
In the end, I think the ride-sharing business will look a lot like the airlines: lots of people traveling, but not a particularly great business.
A thousand local or regional competitors are just as much an existential threat to Uber as one or two big ones.
TBH, I think that the autonomous vehicles is just a further illustration of the extent to which it's a commodity. To an approximation, the product is that you got from point A to point B for $dollars in #time. If you can get that sorted out, people will barely even care if the service is provided by JohnnyCab from Total Recall.
It's exactly the same economics as govern airlines, which are famously the last place you put your money if you're trying to turn it into more money. There's some room for differentiation based on quality of service, but it's proportional to the product of the percentage of people who aren't spending their own money and the percentage of companies whose operations departments are on the ball.
Doesn't that strengthen the argument for the network effect? The only places there have been successful 3rd party launches are in markets without Uber or Lyft, where there is no network effect to compete against.
2016-7: 100% revenue growth, 105% trips, 51% MAPC
2017-8: 40% revenue growth, 40% trips, 33% MAPC
(MAPC = active users)
These are sharp drops in the growth rate.
The quarterly revenue data is more worrying - December Quarter 2018 was up only 22% over the previous year. (Page 121)
On Page 126 we see that even that revenue increase was subsidised by excess driver incentives, and netting that out the growth was only 17% year on year.
They have tightened things and their adjusted yearly EBITDA loss fell by $800m to $1.65 billion, but has this come at the expense of growth? Or has the growth simply become too expensive to chase? Or are electric mobility devices taking away the shorter distance rides?
And they had a loss of $890 million in the last quarter, and it's hard to see tangible evidence of margin improvement. (P128)
A valuation today of, say, $100 million needs to have net income of, say, $10 billion to be a very real probability relatively soon, or of one much larger later.
At, say, a 20% net margin and 40% growth $10 billion income would take 5 years. But that is a courageous assumption about the growth rate, given the above, and it also assumes significant margin improvement, which will be hard if the marketing spend continues, which itself is required for growth. And pricing is hard because increased prices simply move customers onto other platforms. This is not a winner take all market.
For the model to work Uber Eats growth needs to be maintained for a while, and that's possibility, although I suspect their margins will be sharply squeezed as big brand chains respond. (e.g with Mobi2Go and 3rd party delivery agencies they can roll their own)
Yes, profitability is a big piece, but Uber is more diversified, in that they have other rev streams - Food Delivery and Freight, which they are ramping up (Focused on growth for now).
Also, by way of partnerships/equity, they have stakes in a lot of different market leaders in other markets/geographies. These companies are further diversified in terms of other rev streams (payments, commerce, food delivery etc).
Not sure how much of that is captured in the valuation.
SDCs (L5) are definitely a ways off in terms of becoming ubiquitous. Companies are doing fixed route or city/geo-fenced testing and for any of these companies to actually get to Uber's scale will take a long time and maybe Uber can acquire/partner with one/more of these before that happens.
Also, if we consider ride sharing as a commodity, Uber benefits from economies of scale as opposed to other competitors who may operate in smaller regions/markets so that's also going in their favor.
All of this is to say, they are definitely focusing on growth for now (which there is a lot of opportunity for), but at a certain point they could probably start becoming profitable by either reducing costs or ramping up prices (in tiny percentages) and still be better than the alternative.
We have incurred significant losses since inception, including in the United States and other major markets. We expect our operating expenses to increase significantly in the foreseeable future, and we may not achieve profitability.
Our business would be adversely affected if Drivers were classified as employees instead of independent contractors.
If we are unable to attract or maintain a critical mass of Drivers, consumers, restaurants, shippers, and carriers, whether as a result of competition or other factors, our platform will become less appealing to platform users.
We may fail to develop and successfully commercialize autonomous vehicle technologies and expect that our competitors will develop such technologies before us, and such technologies may fail to perform as expected, or may be inferior to those developed by our competitors.
I wouldn't be surprised if after their first earnings release, Lyft stock goes below 40 USD.
Both of these stock valuations are being pumped and dumped onto public markets with clever tricks. Funny thing is, many of us won't even realize that some of our money will be invested in these stocks without our knowledge(ETFs/Funds tracking indices). Most 401ks market tracking Funds/ETFs will pick up these horrible stocks in time.
Tech wizards of silicon valley have managed to one-up wall street this time, by creating a 100B taxi app. With the 10B they raise from IPO, they will try more desperate measures to try and close the gap in price($100B-$120B) and value($25B-$35B).
I honestly don't like either. But a plain analysis makes Uber more attractive by far.
Logistics: conveying goods;
Mobility: conveying people;
Uber is both and more. Those sectors are too small for their ambitions -- essentially they think they are in the transportation business which encompasses logistics, mobility and more.
Surely you'll have heard of Uber Elevate  which is a flying taxi service to augment urban mobility and of course there is Uber Freight , a haulage business that was supposed to benefit from their Otto acquisition, which built self-driving trucks.
Most people investing in Mutual Funds and ETFs aren't getting exposure to SNAP. That may be the case with LYFT and Uber as well.
What an interesting takeaway. Certainly bodes well for the average Uber investor, but really it only happened because of Travis.
If UBER gets into indices, that would be scamming hard earned 401k dollars of unsuspecting ordinary folks. Sigh... More hate for Silicon Valley when folks figure out
FYI I'm not even sure if what I'm saying even makes any sense or is realistic to do.
--- Warren Buffett
All of these revenue models are something that is pretty obvious how you make money at. And all of them are very different than crowd-sourcing rides for which it is not clear that the market prices is higher than the cost of providing the ride.
Expedia comes a distant second Booking Holdings.
So while he may have done well, he didn't do as well as the competition.
They're upfront about it at the least.
"We have previously received a high degree of negative media coverage around the world, which has adversely affected our brand and reputation and fueled distrust of our company. In 2017, the #DeleteUber campaign prompted hundreds of thousands of consumers to stop using our platform within days. Subsequently, our reputation was further harmed when an employee published a blog post alleging, among other things, that we had a toxic culture and that certain sexual harassment and discriminatory practices occurred in our workplace. Shortly thereafter, we had a number of highly publicized events and allegations, including investigations related to a software tool allegedly designed to evade and deceive authorities, a high-profile lawsuit filed against us by Waymo, and our disclosure of a data security breach."
> Maintaining and enhancing our brand and reputation is critical to our business prospects. We have previously received significant media coverage and negative publicity, particularly in 2017, regarding our brand and reputation, and failure to rehabilitate our brand and reputation will cause our business to suffer.
In detail, they state:
> Our brand and reputation might also be harmed by events outside of our control. For example, we faced negative press related to suicides of taxi drivers in New York City reportedly related to the impact of ridesharing on the taxi cab industry.
Yikes, I never heard about that until reading it now. I could totally see how some people may have placed the bulk of their money into a NYC Taxi medallion, which have more than halved in value since 2015. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a9d6f8a78e9c6e899cd886...
We have incurred significant losses since inception. We incurred operating losses of $4.0 billion and $3.0 billion in the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2018, and as of December 31, 2018, we had an accumulated deficit of $7.9 billion.
Revenue: $11.2BB (2018) $7.9BB (2017) $3.8BB (2016)
Growth: 3.3BB 4.1
NetInc: 1.0BB -4.0 -0.3
Other: $4.99BB (2018) -0.02BB (2017) $0.14BB (2016)
: Includes gain on divestiture of $3,214BB, plus unrealized gain on investments of $1,996BB.