Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 305

It's unlikely Uber has a long-term future

When Uber’s private equity owners and other shareholders hinted they were ready to float in late 2018, a valuation of up to US$120 billion was quickly adopted following investment banker indications. But then rival ride-hail and loss-making, Lyft, hit the market and promptly fell 28%, from a first day market valuation of US$22 billion to just US$16 billion at its 15 April low.

Uber Technologies Inc has now unveiled its IPO terms and Lyft’s on-market experience has had a detrimental impact on the valuation. Uber is seeking a valuation of between US$80 billion and US$90 billion (still above the last private share sale at US$72 billion) and is looking to raise as much as US$9 billion. This is still an extraordinary amount considering the company has stated that it doesn’t make any money and that it may not make any money.

Cheap money looking for new homes

Since the GFC, cheap and abundant money searching for a better yield filled the coffers of funds launched by private equity managers, which in turn allowed them to gamble on some unconventional roads to prosperity.

In the case of Uber, one can reasonably assume the loss of US$7.9 billion since 2009 is due to an attempt to leverage a first-mover advantage and synthesise a network effect to become more valuable as more customers adopted it. The only problem of course is that more Uber users doesn’t make the service better.

And Uber doesn’t benefit from scale advantages either. Consider that taxi companies rarely, if ever, monopolise more than one city and that there has been little desire on the part of buyers to consolidate taxi operators.

Of course, Uber’s strategy necessitated the disruption of incumbent taxi businesses, which initially regulators were delighted about. Competition begets lower prices and the cushy taxi monopolies and duopolies of many cities needed a kick in the backside. But the strategy also relied on by-passing the proper employment of drivers, something society and their representatives might ultimately be less happy about.

By throwing enough money and lawyers at the challenge, however, it was probably hoped that Uber would emerge victorious before any regulator could catch up.

Ultimately, great for consumers, lousy for investors

Perhaps what private equity didn’t count on was the emergence of competitors and the rapid adoption of their offerings. The preponderance of competitors such as Lyft in the US, Didi in China, EasyTaxi in Latin America, Grab in Asia, Yandex in Russia (now merged with Uber), Careem in the Middle East, Taxify (backed by Didi and now rebranded Bolt) and Gett in the UK, Israel and Russia, is evidence of not only lower than anticipated barriers to entry but also the commoditisation of the offering.

This suggests that depicting Uber as a technology company that transforms initial losses into future profits is an error of judgement. Uber, and ride hailing more generally, I believe will prove to be merely another example in a long line of ‘technologies’ that proved to be great for consumers but lousy for investors.

I cannot think of a large and successful major technology company that was as unprofitable for as long as Uber has been. Uber is already ranked as the biggest loss-making start up in history. By way of comparison both Facebook and Amazon were generating positive cash flows by year five.

The boldness of a strategy to offer an under-priced product (the providers don’t generate an economic return), flood the streets with cars and lose billions in order to decimate incumbents and bully regulators is typical only of boom-time conditions.

Private equity simply used mountains of other people’s money to engineer an outcome that history suggests must be organically-derived to prosper. Uber has raised more than US$20 billion since its Series-A funding round. This is two-and-a-half-thousand times more than Amazon’s pre-IPO funding and suggests Uber is being pushed to consumers rather than being pulled by them. It's an artifice than cannot be maintained indefinitely.

In his book The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses, professor Amar Bhide, stated;

“Many giga-businesses have no clue, when they start, about how they will become behemoths — think Microsoft developing Basic for the Altair in 1975, Sam Walton starting a country store, and Hewlett and Packard selling audio-oscillators. But being small, they can experiment to figure out what is profitably scalable and make radical changes if necessary. Which is why not having deep pockets to start with is a blessing not a curse.”

It is clear that Uber is providing its services at a discount to its costs. In 2018 that discount was roughly 27%. Meanwhile Uber drivers are reported to now be earning less per hour than taxi-driving operators. Clearly Uber cannot cut costs to boost returns without triggering even higher driver churn.

The popularity of the service is therefore more than partly due to it being too cheap.

IPO will pass the parcel to 'greater fools'

Tech insiders typically make all their money prior to the company floating. Venture capital and private equity funds and their limited partners are patient investors, happy to wait to sell their shares to a ‘greater fool’. But the stock market is far less generous. In the quarter to 31 December 2018, Uber’s bookings and revenue growth slowed dramatically. Year-on-year bookings growth has slowed from nearly 75% to less than 25%.

And this number may also reflect the disturbing fact that the proportion of people hailing a ride more than once per week is falling.

I am reasonably confident that investors who buy shares in Uber’s IPO will not make returns that justify the risk because I am far less confident that Uber has a place in the future of transport.

 

Roger Montgomery is Chairman and Chief Investment Officer at Montgomery Investment Management. This article is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

 

6 Comments
Gary M
May 14, 2019

Uber is arbitraging two extremes which may not last: at the top end, an unlimited taxi license cost $450,000 at its peak, and insuring a taxi costs multiple times more than a normal car, plus fees to radio companies, etc. Most of these costs are removed for an Uber driver. But at the bottom end, the driver does not realise the true cost of wear on the car, extra tyres, all the running costs are not considered day-to-day. They will realise it when they sell their car with 200,000km on the clock.

brenden
May 14, 2019

uber might be good for customers when they are not price surging but they will get u later when u want to go home as no taxis on the road so uber is then your only choice @ 5/6 times surge price ! also the taxes etc they dont pay in any country they operate in then the government of that country will come after every resisdent to make up the shortfall because everyone wants schools & hospitals etc.

Greg
May 12, 2019

I do not think that it is a matter of under-pricing. Uber is not cheap anymore. Uber provides, or at least initially provided, a far superior service. The public readily adopted it and abandoned taxis. However, the failing in Uber's business plan is that this competitive advantage is not sustainable as others can catch up and, as Roger points out, Uber's scale economics are not sufficient to prevent this.

Graham Hand
May 11, 2019

Uber floated on Friday, and fell 7%. Don't say you weren't warned: From SMH

The ride-hailing company injected investors with a dose of reality right out of the gate, trading at $US42 a share Friday - or nearly 7 per cent below its IPO price of $US45 on an already volatile day for the markets. Its shares closed at $US41.57, leaving it with a market capitalisation of around $US76.5 billion. Last year, insiders said Uber could be valued as high as $US120 billion upon its IPO.

Giselle
May 09, 2019

There is a future for Uber, maybe different to today. Try getting or seeing a cab in LA, Uber has taken over that service. It’s now a question of pricing. Classic of disenfranchising the incumbent and leaving no choice. Cabs won’t return, there are enough willing to be Uber drivers. This is not a defence of their treatment of drivers nor their economics, but that the past is now history. Something Uberish is normal.

Bobby
May 09, 2019

thank god for the greater fools. you can always "excite" them into a concept that's never going to make any money.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Failed IPOs show power of active vigilantes

Insane prices as private equity quits market

Opportunities in new company floats

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.