3 ms·
The link you provide is only for the first three quarters of 2017 and the add up to $25.9B. The NYT article indicates Uber's 2017 losses are $4.5B. If their l
by tryitnow 9y ago
The link you provide is only for the first three quarters of 2017 and the add up to $25.9B. The NYT article indicates Uber's 2017 losses are $4.5B. If their losses amount to 10% of gross bookings that would imply 2017 gross bookings of $45B, which implies 2017 Q4 gross bookings of ~$20B, is that correct?
Where does the author make this "math error"? I don't see it. I think the error he makes is just asserting that the "real cost" is $10. I have no idea where the author gets the notion that $10 is the real cost and Uber is charging half of it, but it doesn't appear to be backed out of the financials as you imply.
And no, it's not at all clear that Uber could breakeven by raising prices by 10%. For that to be true you would have to assume that the price increase wouldn't affect demand, an unlikely outcome in a market where Lyft is competing aggressively.
Stephen Hill's article is a joke, it's poorly reasoned and has scant supporting evidence, but I don't think he made a math error, I just think he didn't do any math at all.
- dibstern 9y agoI’m pretty sure by ‘math-impaired’ he meant that he didn’t do the math, not that he tried and failed. His use of the word ‘rhetoric’ implies the author knew he was pulling them from his arse and was using those numbers to make an argument.
- GCA10 9y agoYes, thanks. "Math fabrication" would have been the best way of expressing it in the first sentence. But the basic message is the same.