Uber Backers Discuss Stock Sale to SoftBank, Others (bloomberg.com)

Eric Newcomer, Olivia Zaleski, Dinesh Nair, and Alex Sherman, reporting for Bloomberg: Uber shareholders and its board, led by early backer Benchmark, have discussed selling some of their shares to Japan's SoftBank and other potential investors, people familiar with the matter said. The talks represent a major turning point for the company. It has amassed more than 500 investors who fought to own a piece of the world's most-valuable startup. The fact that some of the earliest backers now want to reduce their stakes suggests the scandals and other troubles this year have taken a toll. The deal could include an injection of new money into the ride-hailing startup, the people said. They asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. It's unclear what valuation those shares would carry or how much may be sold. Any private share sale like this would need to be approved by San Francisco-based Uber's board. Uber's former Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick, who remains on the board, didn't learn about Benchmark's effort to sell early shares until recently, two people familiar with the matter said. Kalanick has often opposed allowing early shareholders to sell their stakes, though the board has allowed occasional exceptions. Even though Benchmark led an investor revolt against Kalanick, at least three major shareholders said they were unaware of Benchmark's effort to sell shares as of Friday morning, three people familiar with the matter said. SoftBank, which recently launched a $93 billion technology fund, has no plans to invest in Uber, a person close to the Japanese company said. SoftBank has backed Uber's primary rivals in India, Southeast Asia and China. Some of Uber's investors would like to see the startup cut deals with overseas competitors -- as it did with Didi Chuxing in China and Yandex NV in Russia. Grab, a leading ride-hailing startup in Asia, is raising as much as $2 billion from backers including SoftBank and Didi.

Comments

Eight years in - still "startup"?

[wvmarle]

Uber was founded in 2009. Now we're eight years in, the company has thousands of employees and millions of drivers working for them, yet still called a "startup"?

I think I have to amend my idea of what "startup" means.

Re:Eight years in - still "startup"?

[TWX]

They've never been profitable. They have a revenue stream but their expenses dwarf it and exist solely to help soften the impact until their real intended model, self-driving cars with no human operators, are ready.

Unfortunately for investors, it's looking like Uber will never achieve that intention because Google's parent company will sue the hell out of them if it ever looks like self-driving tech out of Uber was based on Google/Waymo developments. If Uber doesn't basically scrap the whole self-driving program entirely and basically fire all staff that worked on it and destroy all records then they're always going to have that cloud of industrial espionage over them.

Either way I do not expect them to ultimately become profitable, and to fold at some point when it is demonstrated that true 100% self-drive cars are too many years out.

Re:Eight years in - still "startup"?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it'll take a lot longer than another 8 years before actual self driving cars are on the road.

Uber's strategy was always:

(1) Ignore local laws ('cos they're disruptive!), which
(2) Enables exploitation of drivers for cheap, which
(3) Grabs market share and gets their branding in every MBA's brain, which
(4) Pumps up the share price ('cos they're disruptive, new, sharing economy, millennial buzzwords!), so they can
(5) Sell out and
(6) Profit!

before the company collapses, because turning an actual profit on all that revenue is hard.

Re:More sensibly...

[gravewax]

slightly overvalued? that is like calling the titanic a slight accident. They have had 8 years of hemorrhaging money and while they have had massive growth their seems to be no indication or way for them anytime soon to actually become profitable. it is massively over valued and is still riding on the wave over hype and hot air.

Business model - or lack thereof

[sphealey]

= = = The fact that some of the earliest backers now want to reduce their stakes suggests the scandals and other troubles this year have taken a toll. = = =

There's also the minor problem that no one can figure out how Uber could ever earn a return on the money invested. That might be a reason some of the early investors are looking for new suckers.