Skip to comments.Traffic comes to a halt in European cities due to protesting cab drivers (VIDEO)
Posted on 06/11/2014 1:09:21 PM PDT by PoloSec
Full Title: Traffic comes to a halt in European cities due to protesting cab drivers, travel industry pros///
The influx of new digital companies like Uber threatens to severely damage current businesses and threatens customers' safety, claims the protesters. But the companies say the current industry must adapt to the new changes.
Major cities throughout Europe experienced traffic gridlock as part of a unified protest against new digital enterprises that make it easier for people to move around, but may also pose a safety risk and are hurting longstanding industries.
In London, the drivers of the world-famous black cabs drove around at incredibly slow speeds and refused to pick up passengers leading to serious gridlock in the city.
There were similar scenes throughout Europe, such as in France, where employees of the national train network staged a strike in protest.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
~~~and refused to pick up passengers~~~
I would think that could backfire. But then, I am unfamiliar with this situation.
Is Über the European equivalent of Google and are they pushing the driverless vehicles just the same?
Uber is an American venture-funded startup and transportation network company based in San Francisco, California, that makes mobile application software (”app”) that connects passengers with drivers of vehicles for hire and ridesharing services. The company arranges pickups in dozens of cities around the world.
Smart move. This is how the Luddites won.
This Uber sounds like a good thing. Giving people the service they want at prices the market will bear.
Interestingly enough, the privately owned Detroit Bus Company is doing the same thing and actually growing in Detroit. They don’t have any regular routes unless contracted to do so. They use phone aps for riders to find the nearest bus which will come to a nearest corner. They drop little old ladies with groceries right at their doorstep. They also provide free rides for kids in after school programs.
Uber signups in Europe have leaped 850% since the Black Cab strike began. The protest has given them tons of free advertising, that they could never afford to buy.
In those cities where cabs for short trips are outrageously priced, this probably seems like a great idea.
But what if the driverless buses suddenly turn and head off to the Soylent Green factory after it figures that all of its passengers are 65 or older and drawing government benefits?.../s
There were so many complaints that the Tallahassee busses were always empty or with just a handful of riders that the city took action! They bought busses that you can’t see into. Those busses have an advertising graphic over the windows with thousands of tiny holes. You can see out but not in. Problem solved.
Yep. exactly. Uber has gone through multiple rounds of new financing and they are growing like crazy. It is a disruptive product for sure. That’s why the cabbie unions are upset :-)
The strike actually proves the need for the new model.
Effin' cabbies make more than minimum wage so they gotta go one way or another.
"Competition" as the justification is in this case, as is so often the case, a false flag. People with without the predisposition to kiss the butts of the nobility driving them around can't be allowed to continue spouting anti-Muzzie noise and otherwise disagreeing with the Nobility. No matter what the competition, as soon enough cabs are eliminated the alternatives will be regulated and/or taxed. Wait until people see the fines for having someone ride with you when your car is unsafe or insufficiently green; the authority to regulate is the authority to eliminate.
Anything and everything that claims to save energy or clean up the environment has become nothing more than a means to the end of dividing society into a nobility, servants the nobility require (especially plumbers given how full of chit the "nobility" is), peasants, and serfs.
I’m sure people criticize but I really don’t care. I respect the guy who gets off his ass and actually does something.
Uber supposedly is worth $17 billion.
Another scam company floating stock.
So in you expert opinion, what is the proper valuation? Do you use revenue or EBITDA multiples or a DCF valuation? What multiple of revenue do you determine as appropriate? 8x? 10X? Do you use current or forward revenue? What are your market comps? What is the 5-year revenue CAGR in your projections? SMDH...
People are still gawping at Uber’s last round of financing, a $1.2 billion deal that valued the company at $18.2 billion (post-money).
Most observers view that valuation as a sign of obvious insanity further confirmation of “a new tech bubble.”
That seems unlikely.
Uber’s new investors could obviously lose money, just like any investors. But, for two reasons, the investment is likely a more reasonable bet than it might initially appear.
First, Fidelity and the other Uber investors almost certainly bought preferred stock, not common stock.
When you buy preferred stock, your downside is usually limited. Preferred investors are higher in the capital structure than common investors (thus the “preferred”), so in a liquidity event, they usually get all their money back, even if the company sells for a much lower valuation than the one at which they invested. In many cases, including, possibly, this one, preferred investors also get a guaranteed return.
For Uber’s latest investors to lose money, in other words, Uber would likely have to sell for a valuation of less than $1.2 billion, more than 90% below the $18.2 billion valuation of the latest deal. Things would have to go horribly, catastrophically wrong for that to happen.
Second, and more important, Uber’s financial performance may easily justify the $18.2 billion valuation.
An industry friend has heard that Uber’s recent revenue growth has been so spectacular that those who have seen the four-year-old company’s projections are talking about $10 billion in gross revenue.
Uber keeps 20% of gross revenue and gives the rest to its drivers. So $10 billion of gross revenue would equate to $2 billion of net revenue.
It’s not clear whether the $10 billion figure is a current run-rate or a projection for this year or next (I’m assuming it’s a forward projection), but if it’s even close to accurate, it’s astounding. For what it’s worth, the number is in the range of numbers that one smart industry analyst, Paul Kedrosky, extrapolated from some information that leaked at the end of last year.
If Uber is on track to do $2 billion of net revenue, the $18 billion valuation would be about 10 times revenue.
Ten times revenue isn’t a low revenue multiple, certainly, but it’s also not a sky-high one. Especially for a company that has few costs other than software development, training, marketing, and lobbying (the latter to stop taxi organizations and local governments from banning it). There’s no reason to think that Uber couldn’t eventually have a profit margin of 20%, 30%, or even more. And with that kind of profit margin, a 10X revenue multiple on a fast-growing revenue stream is perfectly reasonable.
To put the 10X multiple in context, it’s in the same range as the forward multiples for some other hot tech stocks. Facebook is trading at about 10X projected 2015 revenue. LinkedIn is trading at about 8X. This is a point that Kalanick himself made recently in the Wall Street Journal, that Uber’s deal was actually priced below the multiples of comparable public-market companies.
Uber’s revenue, moreover, is growing astoundingly quicklymuch faster than these other companies.
Few companies in history, if any, have grown as fast as Uber has.
Travis Kalanick, Uber’s CEO, recently said that Uber’s revenue is doubling every six months.
Even if Uber’s revenue growth suddenly slowed, so it only doubled once a year, or once every two years, the $18 billion valuation wouldn’t seem extreme.
And then there’s another statistic that my industry friend has heard:
Most of Uber’s current revenue comes from only five cities.
Why is that startling?
Because Uber is now operating in 130 cities.
If Uber were operating mature businesses in all of those cities, and were unable to generate much revenue in them, this statistic might be cause for concern. But the Uber operations in most of those 130 cities are relatively new. And if Uber is generating most of its ~$10 billion of gross revenue from only five cities, imagine how big the company will be when the operations in the 125 other cities really kick in. Not to mention the operations in all the other cities Uber will likely launch in in the next several years.
(In San Francisco, Uber’s first city, the company is now doing several hundred million of revenue. Kalanick has not specified whether this is gross revenue or net revenue, but, either way, it’s impressive. San Francisco is a relatively small city.)
Yes, you say. But taxi companies hate Uber. And they’re busy trying to shut it down in some of those cities.
Yes, taxi companies are fighting Uber. But so far, Kalanick tells The Wall Street Journal, Uber has been shut down in only one of those 130 cities. And given how much Uber users love Uber as evidenced by the company’s supernatural growth rate it seems safe to say that it won’t be easy for many more cities to shut Uber down. (A dozen or two? Maybe. But that would still leave 100-plus cities).
And all this revenue, of course, is coming from Uber’s taxi business. Uber recently launched a delivery business. We don’t yet know how successful that new business will be, but if it is even a fraction as successful as the taxi business, it will create another massive new revenue stream.
Then there’s one last startling fact.
Kalanick says that Uber is growing even faster now than it was last year, when everyone was ridiculing the $3 billion valuation that Uber’s prior round of investors paid. In other words, far from slowing, Uber’s revenues are accelerating.
From 2004 to 2012, industry observers ridiculed every successive increase in Facebook’s private-market valuation. They dismissed its investors as stupid and declared the price the investors paid as proof of a new tech bubble. And they did the same with Twitter’s valuations, and Google’s valuations, as well as the valuations of many other Internet companies. And yet, in the end, many of these valuations proved cheap.
If Uber’s revenues are anything close to the figure my industry friend is hearing, Uber’s $18 billion valuation may end up looking quite reasonable.
That is totally awesome. When did it start? Here in Chicago when the CTA cancels a route, it’s illegal for a private company to run a service on that route or any active CTA route.
Freedom to compete with the city for at least some services is one of those advantages of Detroit. I think they’ve been in operation for nearly 5 years now.
I’d love to take their prohibition history tour.
When you come to Chicago I’ll take you on a free drug prohibition tour. You’ll love it.
Actually, Illinois is so crony capitalist that I’m not certain they’ll ever fall hard enough to change.
Don’t know about when the CTA closes routes, but UBER is simply amazing. I use it all the time in Chicago. Private black cars instead of taxis with vomit cleanup fees. Barely even more expensive.