[Uberbuddy123]

This chart is just amazing- in 2016-> Uber used to keep 19% of revenue- in 2017 -> Uber kept 30% of revenue and 2018 Uber kept 37% of revenue//

If this is not corporate greed then I do not know what is? Please note at the same time Uber's S,G&A increased from 2.5 Billion to $5 Billion.

R&D ( Self Driving Car)-> increased from 864 million to $1.5 billion.

But it is the drivers pay they cut- left-right -up and down.

Revenue	12/31/2018	12/31/2017	12/31/2016
Total Revenue	11,270,000	7,932,000	3,845,000
Cost of Revenue	7,139,000	5,514,000	3,109,000
Cost of Revenue	63%​	70%​	81%​

 

[Mpls55345]

R&D is not a cost of goods/services sold.

 

[Uberbuddy123]

R&D is not a cost of goods/services sold.

R&D is not part of the cost of revenue -and I do not think the chart shows that.

 

[The Gift of Fish]

This chart is just amazing

It's not a chart. It's a table.

And it does not show the percentage of revenue that Uber keeps. It shows Uber's gross margin.

 

[Uberbuddy123]

It's not a chart. It's a table.

And it does not show the percentage of revenue that Uber keeps. It shows Uber's gross margin.

Sir thanks for your comment-> not playing word game.

This Is Uber's gross revenue (PAX Payment) and cost of revenue ( Driver payment)// Uber's gross margin is the delta between the two.

 

[The Gift of Fish]

Sir thanks for your comment-> not playing word game.

Evidently

This Is Uber's gross revenue (PAX Payment) and cost of revenue ( Driver payment)// Uber's gross margin is the delta between the two.

Again, no. The revenue figures in your table are Uber's net revenue (after paying drivers, among others), not its gross revenue. From Uber's S-1 filed with the SEC, we can see what Uber's gross revenue (aka bookings or pax payments) actually were:

As you can see, pax payments for 2018 for example were a whopping $49.799bn. Core platform adjusted net revenue ($10,025 for 2018) is slightly lower than the net revenue figures you show in your table ($11,270) because driver incentives have been deducted.

The analysis you were attempting in your thread is the proportion of pax bookings that Uber keeps compared to what it pays drivers - to do this the numbers pair you need are Uber's gross revenue and its net revenue, not its net revenue and its operating costs as included in your table. (Uber's operating costs have no relevance to the Uber:driver revenue split analysis you are attempting). Hence in 2018, the proportion of customer payments that Uber kept was 10,025 / (10,025 + 49,799) = 16.8%. It is important to note that Uber's gross bookings include everything paid by all customers including Uber Eats and Uber Freight. From this total, taxes are paid by local governments and authorities, restaurants are paid for the food, freight suppliers are paid for delivering freight. So, in any case, even if you were to use the correct methodology, Uber's split with rideshare drivers cannot be calculated from this data.

Incidentally, the operating cost data you labelled "Cost of Revenue" in your table includes not only cost of revenue but, for some unknown reason, operation and support costs as well. From Uber's S-1, and taking 2018 as an example, we can see that your $7,139 figure that you call Cost of Revenue in your table is actually cost of revenue plus operation and support:

 

[Uberbuddy123]

Again you are playing word games -> Uber has reduced driver's pay it is a fact// The % what we receive has gone down over the last two years.

Posting selective data and mis leading investor data from the S1 will not hide those facts. I mean from crying out loud- according to the financial statement you just post - they made 997 million profit for the year

 

[The Gift of Fish]

Again you are playing word games -> Uber has reduced driver's pay it is a fact// The % what we receive has gone down over the last two years.

Posting selective data and mis leading investor data from the S1 will not hide those facts.

No, no games involved - I posted Uber's financial statements as presented to the SEC and used them to illustrate that (1) the data in your table was incorrect and (2) the financials that you were inaccurately quoting and incorrectly trying use in your calculations do not show rideshare driver earnings against gross rideshare bookings.

It is entirely correct that rideshare driver earnings as a percentage of totals paid by rideshare pax have decreased over the years. However, if you want to demonstrate this with numbers published by Uber, I would suggest that you first look for the relevant numbers, and then post them. They are available; Uber has published them, but the numbers above are not it.

 

[Uberbuddy123]

No, no games involved - I posted Uber's financial statements as presented to the SEC and used them to illustrate that (1) the data in your table was incorrect and (2) the financials that you were inaccurately quoting and incorrectly trying use in your calculations do not show rideshare driver earnings against gross rideshare bookings.

It is entirely correct that rideshare driver earnings as a percentage of totals paid by rideshare pax have decreased over the years. However, if you want to demonstrate this with numbers published by Uber, I would suggest that you first look for the relevant numbers, and then post them. They are available; Uber has published them, but the numbers above are not it.

Thanks it seems they are gaming what they posting and sharing with SEC-> I stand by my statement - this is the cost of the revenue

 

[The Gift of Fish]

Thanks it seems they are gaming what they posting and sharing with SEC-> I stand by my statement - this is the cost of the revenue

Again, the cost of revenue that Uber reported is not the same as the cost of revenue numbers that you contributed in your table. There is no guarantee, of course, that Uber accurately reported its cost of revenue (or any other figure) to the SEC. However, if I were asked which number had more credibility, the balance would be in Uber's favour over your unreferenced, uncredited numbers. If you had evidence that your numbers were more accurate than Uber's then of course that could be examined.

Regarding the different point made in the article you posted, yes, Uber et al are indeed attempting to make their financials look better by trying to invent new profit definitions by excluding some costs, and including these profit measurements as extras, in addition to US Gaap statements.

However, these new profit definitions are just fluff. As well as these nonsense "profit" measures, Uber does include all of its costs in its SEC filings, and these costs and the resulting losses are very clearly visible in the accounts by anyone who knows how to interpret financial statements.

 

[Uberbuddy123]

Again, the cost of revenue that Uber reported is not the same as the cost of revenue numbers that you contributed in your table. There is no guarantee, of course, that Uber accurately reported its cost of revenue (or any other figure) to the SEC. However, if I were asked which number had more credibility, the balance would be in Uber's favour over your unreferenced, uncredited numbers. If you had evidence that your numbers were more accurate than Uber's then of course that could be examined.

Regarding the different point made in the article you posted, yes, Uber et al are indeed attempting to make their financials look better by trying to invent new profit definitions by excluding some costs, and including these profit measurements as extras, in addition to US Gaap statements.

However, these new profit definitions are just fluff. As well as these nonsense "profit" measures, Uber does include all of its costs in its SEC filings, and these costs and the resulting losses are very clearly visible in the accounts by anyone who knows how to interpret financial statements.

Respectfully I disagreed with your first paragraph

 

[The Gift of Fish]

Respectfully I disagreed with your first paragraph

You can disagree if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that your numbers which you attribute to Uber are different from the numbers that Uber reports. 5 is not equal to 4, and someone could tell me that they disagree, which is fine, but it does not change the reality that 5 is not equal to 4.

Anyway, the reason I responded was because I wanted to explain to you a little about financial statements and terms in general, and Uber's reported financials specifically in order to show you the errors you were making in trying to interpret them. I see that I have not understood, so I will stop here.