DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Road Again Mobility Observations and Predictions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Road Again Mobility Observations and Predictions On The Road Again Mobility Observations And Predictions September 2020 / Confidential Jefferies LLC Member SIPC The information provided in this document, including valuation discussions, represents the views of Jefferies Investment Banking. There is no assurance that the views expressed herein will be consistent with the views expressed by Jefferies Research or its Analysts. Nothing in this document should be understood as a promise or offer of favorable research coverage. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 Pre-COVID Commuters Cared About Four Things 1) Experience 2) Price 3) Privacy 4) Speed Comfort Loyalty programs Social group v. Wait time Convenience Perks Solo commute Number of stops Location tracking & data collection Image sources: Fox Business, VRBO, and Google. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 1 Creating A Race To Become An Integrated Mobility Solution Provider Public Personal Long Distance Rental / Ride- Company Bus Train Ferry Carpool Scooter Bike AV Bus Train Car Air Share Sharing Didi Autonomous × × × Driving × × × × × × × × (1) Route Guidance Only × × × × × × × × × In-App Public Transit Feature(2) × × × × OLADrive OLASHARE OLABIKE OLAFLEET × × × OLARENTAL × In-App Public Transit Feature(3) Bus(3) (1) Google Maps Ride-Service Providers include: Bitaksi, BlaBlaCar, Cabify, Careem, Chauffeur Prive, Gett, Go-jek, Grab, JapanTaxi, Juno, Lyft, Meru Cabs, MyTaxi, Ola Cabs, Beat, 99, and Uber. (2) Launched in select cities, Santa Monica is the only explicitly disclosed city with the “Transit” feature. (3) Currently only available in Denver, London, San Francisco. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 2 Covid: Massive Decline In Transit Created By Quarantine and Fear Transportation Nearly Halted With Shelter In Place Case Study – Seattle Mobility Index % of the city moving compared to usual(1) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% Trough of 5% 20% 0% Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Source: Citymapper, TomTom. (1) Typical usage period is defined as 4 weeks between Jan 6 and Feb 2, 2020.. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 3 Disadvantaging High-Volume Transit... Illustrative Human Interactions Per Day By Modality = 1 Human Interaction Personally Owned Shared Ride Share / Bus / Subway / Vehicle Scooter / Bike Taxi(1) Train • More difficult to sanitize • Solo rides • Solo rides • Crowded • Enclosed space • Assurance of • Few surfaces to • Contained space • No knowledge of cleanliness and sanitize Unavoidable communal previous passenger safety • Open environment surfaces history Note: Data provided is illustrative. (1) Assumes 12 trips per day, per the New York Taxi Workers Alliance. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 4 …Creating Substantial Friction In How We Commute Case Study – Where Will New York City Riders Go? Daily Weekday NYC Former Public Transit Riders 7.2M Public Transit Riders(1) 3M Current Non-Public Estimated Minimum Transit Commuters (40%) Rider Attrition Rate(2) 1.8M Decrease of 3M Daily Riders From Public Transit The Biggest Cities Will Be The Most Impacted Source: MTA NYC, U.S. Census Bureau, and news articles. (1) 2018 average weekday ridership. (2) McKinsey estimates. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 5 Mobility Networks: Diversifying, Expanding, and Increasing Efficiency Reopening State of the Markets Restricted Asia Europe North America Diversifying From Core Expanding Operations Focusing On Profitability ◼ Movement to diversify away from a single revenue ◼ Select networks are expanding while market heats up ◼ North American powerhouses are focusing on stream — This year Bolt has introduced grocery delivery increasing operational efficiency with an eye on — Didi launching a grocery delivery service in China services, eScooters, and eBikes throughout it’s profitability European markets — Gojek acquired Moka, a mobile point-of-sale — Lyft aims to remove ~$300M from annual startup, April — Cabify has expanded services to several more expense run-rate through 17% workforce Spanish cities, aiming to have national coverage — Grab is focusing on financial services as it reduction, furloughs, etc. recently released the GrabPay Card and within two years — Uber has unloaded unprofitable segments such acquisition of Bento Invest, a robo-advisory — Free Now launched its mobility services in as its India Eats and Jump assets startup France, integrating the services of former ◼ Aggregate capital raised: $1.4B since May acquisition, Kapten — Ola’s acquisition of Etergo, an e-scooter manufacturer, with plans to launch its own — Gett announced a partnership with eBay to scooters next year provide same-day delivery service in Israel ◼ Aggregate capital raised: $2.05B since April — Yandex is in discussions to purchase Uber’s share of Russian JV ◼ Aggregate capital raised: $210M since May Source: Wall Street research reports and industry reports. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 6 While Profitability Timing Has Been Pushed Out Further YTD Stock Price Index YTD Forward Revenue Multiple 60% 6.0x 40% 5.0x 4.8x 20% Nasdaq 4.0x 13.2% 12.0% 0% 3.0x 2.7x -20% 2.0x -40% (37.8%) 1.0x -60% 0.0x Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Jan-20 Feb-20Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Metrics ($M) Pre-Covid Current Pre-Covid Current 2021 Revenue $23,387 $17,959 $5,733 $3,777 2021 EBITDA Margin 0.3% (1.8%) (2.7%) (7.6%) Profitability Timeframe Q4 2020 Q3 2021 Q4 2021 Q1 2022 Price Target (Implied Upside) $45.0 $42.6 (+23.6%) $62.0 $40.7 (+47.95%) Buy / Sell / Hold Breakdown 68% / 32% / 0% 84% / 3% / 13% 69% / 28% / 3% 56% / 0% / 44% Source: Earnings transcripts, Wall Street research, and Capital IQ as of 9/25/20. (1) Represents peak in February 2020. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 7 Predicting The Future Image sources: Adobe. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 8 Predictions 1 Migration To “Safer” Modes Of Transportation Underway 2 The Biggest Cities Will Be The Most Impacted 3 Auto eCommerce Will Grow Exponentially 4 Accelerating Adoption Of Technology & New Services To Ensure Safety 5 Driving Cities To Alter Their Infrastructure… 6 …And Expand Partnerships With Mobility Providers Jefferies LLC / September 2020 9 China Has Reopened While the Rest of the World Catches Up China vs. U.S. Since Shutdown Global Change in Traffic Since Reopening 120 Congestion Index Since Shutdown Traffic Congestion Index(1) (YoY Change) T = Shutdown T = Reopening Reopening State of Markets Restricted 100 9% 80 -15% -15% 60 -42% Congestion Level Congestion -50% -56% 40 T+0 T+10 Today 20 April May 4 May 27 18 May 4 May June 18 8 0 T=0 T+1 T+2 T+3 T+4 T+5 T+6 T+7 T+8 T+9 T+11 T+12 T+13 T+14 T+15 T+16 T+17 T+18 T+19 T+20 T+21 T+22 T+23 T+10 Date Severe Restrictions Were Lifted Number of Weeks Since Shutdown Source: TomTom and Wall Street Research as of 8/30/2020. (1) The congestion index analyzes how long a trip would take compared to baseline uncongested conditions. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 10 1 A Change Is Underway In How We Commute Trough(1) Legend Current Current Transportation Recovery Shortest Time to Recovery Longest Intracity Travel Ridehailing Public Transit Domestic Air International Air 100% 100% (2%) (2%) (50%) (75%) (77%) (90%) (90%) (90%) Intracity Travel Ridehailing Public Transit Domestic Air International Air (38%) (44%) (54%) (70%) (68%) (74%) (94%) (90%) (95%) (90%) Source: Wall Street research, News articles, Second Measure, TSA, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, The Wall Street Journal, Time, Jefferies Equity Research and BBC (1) Trough for China defined as late January. Trough for U.S. defined as late March / early April Note: Data from North America, Europe, China, Japan Jefferies LLC / September 2020 11 2 The Biggest Cities Will Be The Most Impacted Slowing Growth In …Leading to Expectations for Suggesting an Increasing the Biggest U.S. Cities… Growth in Small to Mid-tier Cities Reliance on Vehicles Annual Change In US County US Urban Population by Size Class Average % Drive to Work 2.0% Population 400,000 Vehicle Ownership 76 1.7 % 350,000 Small and mid- sized cities continue to expand 1.5% 300,000 2 cities 250,000 2 cities 50 8 cities 1.1 % 1.0% 7 cities 200,000 2 cities 45 cities 1 city 150,000 36 cities 30 cities 0.5% 50 cities 100,000 43 cities 25 cities 50,000 28 cities 56 cities 53 cities 0.0% '10 - '11 - '12 - '13 - '14 - '15 - '16 - '17 - '18 - 0 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 1990 2018 2030E Urban Core Mature Suburbs <500k 500-1,000k 1-5m 5-10m 10m Large Cities Mid-Sized Large Cities Mid-Sized Emerging Suburbs Exurbs Cities Cities Source: Wall Street research, Redfin, U.S. Census Bureau, Brookings Institute. Jefferies LLC / September 2020 12 3 Auto eCommerce Will Grow Exponentially Automotive Transactions Remain A Massive Investors Remain Bullish on Digital Providers Untapped Market NTM Revenue Multiple YTD Stock Price Index Lead Gen: 10.7x Digital Providers: 5.0x Traditional Dealers: 0.8x 70% 50% 48% ~$1T 30% 14% 10% (1%) (10%) 3.6% (30%) Penetration (50%) in 2019 The Largest Players Are Expanding Footprint And Capabilities Lead Gen Digital Providers Traditional Dealers Extending capabilities to dealer and further Geographic and facility expansion Expanding partnerships and dealerships integrating the transaction ◼ Copart opened 10+ new locations in North ◼ CarMax partnered with digital automotive ◼ AutoTrader acquired KeeResources, a provider America and Europe leader Edmunds, aiming to strengthen of software solutions, data and services to the CarMax’s new omni-channel experience automotive industry ◼ Carvana created ~2,000 new jobs over the last year and built new facilities in various cities ◼ Lithia Motors acquired ~10 new dealerships ◼ CarGurus acquired car shopping platform including Cincinnati, Chesterfield, and over the last year Autolist, hoping to drive consumer traffic and Oklahoma City shopper connections for dealers across both sites Source: Industry research and Capital IQ as of 9/25/20.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HIGHLIGHTS the Company
    Transportation, Online Food Ordering and Food Delivery| Founded 2012 | Singapore grab.com MARKETPLACE TYPE OF SECURITY: HIGHLIGHTS Equity - Direct Investment DEAL SIZE: • Grab has served more than 187 million users in over 330 cities across eight countries1. $ 3,410,000 MINIMUM INVESTMENT: • In December 2018, Grab claimed to have served 920 million kil- ometers worth of rides to its users that year $ 100,000 • Grab has raised a total of $10.1B in funding over 31 rounds. Their latest funding was raised on Aug 3, 20202 KEY INVESTORS: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial group: • In March 2018 Grab acquired Uber’s operations in Southeast $706 Million Asia and Uber now holds a 28% stake in Grab3. TIS INTEC: $150 Million Booking Holdings: $200 Million Se- ries H funding The Company SoftBank, Didi, Toyota: $2.5 Billion series G funding Grab, is a Singaporean multinational ride-hailing compa- ny headquartered in Queenstown, Singapore. In addition to SoftBank, Didi, Honda: $750 Mil- transportation, the company offers food delivery and digital lion, payments services via a mobile app. Series F funding It currently operates in the Asian countries Didi Chuxing, China Investment of Singapore, Malaysia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippi Corp: $350 Million nes, Thailand, Vietnam, and Japan. It is Southeast Asia's first Series E funding "decacorn" (a startup with a valuation of over US$10 billion)4. SoftBank: $250 Million Series D funding Grab’s growth of its “super app” — in which it provides a one- Tiger Global: $65 Million stop shop for consumers to both see to their transportation Series C funding needs, but also other aspects of their connected consumer life, GGV Capital: $15 Million such as eating, entertainment and managing their money — has Series B funding involved the company partnering with a number of other finan- cial giants, including Mastercard, Credit Saison, Chubb, and Vertex Venture: $10 Million ZhongAn Online P&C Insurance Co.
    [Show full text]
  • We Can Go Anywhere': Understanding Independence Through a Case Study
    ‘We can go anywhere’: Understanding independence through a case study of ride-hailing use by people with visual impairments in metropolitan India VAISHNAV KAMESWARAN, University of Michigan JATIN GUPTA, University of Michigan JOYOJEET PAL, University of Michigan SILE O’MODHRAIN, University of Michigan TIFFANY C. VEINOT, University of Michigan ROBIN N. BREWER, University of Michigan AAKANKSHA PARAMESHWAR, University of Michigan VIDHYA Y, Microsoft Research India JACKI O’NEILL, Microsoft Research India Ride-hailing services have received attention as part of the growing work around the sharing economy, but the focus of these studies has largely been on drivers. In this paper, we examine how ride-hailing is transforming the transportation practices of one group of passengers - people with visual impairments in metropolitan India. Through a qualitative study consisting of interviews and observations, we examined the use and impact of these services on our target population, who otherwise contend with chaotic, unreliable, and largely inaccessible modes of transportation. We found that ride-hailing services positively affects participants’ notions of independence, and we tease out how independence for our participants is not just about ‘doing things alone, without help’ but is also situated, social and relative. Furthermore, we show how accessibility, in the case of ride-hailing in India, is a socio-technical and collaborative achievement, involving interactions between the passenger, the driver, and the technology. CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in accessibility; 85 Additional Key Words and Phrases: Accessibility, social accessibility, collaborative accessibility, independence, stigma, social interactions, ridesharing, Uber, Ola, blind users ACM Reference Format: Vaishnav Kameswaran, Jatin Gupta, Joyojeet Pal, Sile O’Modhrain, Tiffany C.
    [Show full text]
  • Ws2018-Transportation-Services-21St
    Just what do we actually know about household spending on transportation services and how are they changing in the 21st Century? Jonathan R. Peters, Ph.D. The College of Staten Island & The CUNY Graduate School David A. King, Ph.D. Arizona State University Cameron E. Gordon, Ph.D. University of Canberra Nora Tabori Santiago, MUA The CUNY High Performance Computing Center Bureau of Labor Statistics 2018 Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CE) Microdata Users’ Workshop Washington, DC July 20, 2018 How did we (Transportation Finance Folks & Urban Planners) wind up here at the BLS? Part III (2014, 2017 & 2018) Why are we interested in tracking the cost of transport services and fees? The Changing US Portfolio of Travel • Look at aspects of travel costs that are changing. • How are these costs reflected in the CEX? • How are these cost measured through other methods? • How are these costs spread across income groups? • How can we plan to measure future costs? Ola Cabs - India Sidecar - DOA Uber Trips Origins in “New York” – From Uber Data Obtained From Uber by NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission for April – October 2014 US Households Without a Vehicle Rank City % car-free 1 New York City 56% 2 Washington, DC 38% 3 Boston 37% 4 Philadelphia 33% 5 San Francisco 31% 6 Baltimore 31% 7 Chicago 28% 8 Detroit 26% U.S. Average = 9.22% Household Modes of Travel • Private Automobile • Shared Vehicle – Carpool / Fampool • Shared Vehicle – Taxi, Jitney, Lyft, Uber • Walking • Bicycle • Mass Transit – Commuter Rail, Metro, Bus, Ferry • Air Travel • Non-Travel – Online Shopping / Video Meetings • And Lodging - AirBNB versus Hotels Changing Households • Households used to travel a lot to get goods and services.
    [Show full text]
  • How Transportation Network Companies Could Replace Public Transportation in the United States Matthew L
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School November 2017 How Transportation Network Companies Could Replace Public Transportation in the United States Matthew L. Kessler University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Civil Engineering Commons, Public Policy Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Scholar Commons Citation Kessler, Matthew L., "How Transportation Network Companies Could Replace Public Transportation in the United States" (2017). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7045 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. How Transportation Network Companies Could Replace Public Transportation in the United States by Matthew L. Kessler A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering Science Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering College of Engineering University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Steven E. Polzin, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Abdul. R. Pinjari, Ph.D. Xuehao Chu, Ph.D. Martin D. Hanlon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 23, 2017 Keywords: TNC, Supplantment, Transit Agency, Ride-sourcing, Smartphone app Copyright © 2017, Matthew L. Kessler DEDICATION This page is dedicated in memory of my beloved uncle, Joel “Jerry” Kessler, my grandparents: Miriam Sylvia and William Berkowitz, Gertrude and Sam Kessler. Lifelong friend MariaLita Viafora, and a special friend, Michael R.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREMECOUR I" 0Rqn^® COUNSEL for APPELLEE, STATE of OHIO
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Supreme Court STAT'E OF OHIO Case No. 09-- .® 379 Appellee, On Appeal from the VS. Williams County Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District RANDALL D. SNYDER Court of Appeals Appellant. Case No. WM-08-004 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION OF APPELLANT RANDALL D. SNYDER WII..T IAM F. KLUGE Atto;^ney Reg. No. 0022433 124 South Metcalf Street Lima, Ohio 45801 (419) 225-5706 Fax No.: (419) 225-6003 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, RANDALL D. SNYDER THCsiti'IAS A. THOMPSON, #0068787 Prosos:,Ating Attorney Wiiliains County, Ohio 121(^i:vV: High Street Bryan, Uhio 43506 (419) 636-4411 CLFnk OF COIJRT Fax i`io.: (41 9) 636-3919 SUPREMECOUR I" 0rQN^® COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, STATE OF OHIO eisii . TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXPL'ANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS OF PUBLIC OR f.:I2EAT GENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A FELONY . .. .1 STA'mEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS .................................................... I ARGNMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION OF LAW .........................6 1tit: Proposition of Law I: Trial counsel's dual representation of the 1 Appellant and Co-Appellant without informed written consent violated Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and resulted in a violation of the Confrontation Clause pursuant '^, to U.S. v. Bruton (1968), 391 U.S. 128, 88 S. Ct. 1620 ..........................6 Proposition of Law II: Dental records which are not self -authenticating pursuant to R.C. 2317.422 are inadmissible under Evid. R. 901 unless authenticated or identified by a witness with knowledge . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...8 Proposition of Law III: A conviction must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial when, due to the affirmative defense of self- defense, the conviction is not based upon sufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of the evidence .
    [Show full text]
  • Download?Doi=10.1.1.133.5901&Rep=Rep1&Type=Pdf Zarei, A
    Volume 3, June 2020 ISSN: 2591 - 801X JALT J o g u n r i n h a c l a o Te f & Ap ng plied Learni Vol.3 No.1 (2020) Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1 Editor-in-Chief Jürgen Rudolph Editor-in-Chief Jürgen Rudolph, Kaplan Higher Education Singapore Associate Editors Joey Crawford, University of Tasmania Margarita Kefalaki, Communication Institute of Greece Nigel Starck, University of South Australia Shannon Tan, Kaplan Higher Education Singapore Eric Yeo Zhiwei, Kaplan Higher Education Singapore Editorial Board James Adonopoulos, Kaplan Business School, Australia Nelson Ang, Kaplan Higher Education Singapore William Baker, University of Tasmania, Australia Abhishek Bhati, James Cook University, Singapore Rob Burton, Griffith University, Australia Mike Christie, Kaplan Higher Education Singapore Joseph Crawford, University of Tasmania, Australia Ailson De Moraes, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK Fotini Diamantidaki, University College London, UK Michael D. Evans, Kaplan Higher Education Singapore Lucy Gill-Simmen, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK Matt Glowatz, University College Dublin, Ireland Lena Itangata, University of Portsmouth, UK Rhys Johnson, Kaplan Higher Education Singapore Margarita Kefalaki, Communication Institute of Greece Bashar Malkawi, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Paola A. Magni, Murdoch University, Singapore Justin O’Brien, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK Orna O’Brien, University College Dublin, Ireland Can-Seng Ooi, University of Tasmania,
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Sharing Economy: Redefining Industries Borders and Reinventing the Concept of Mobility
    Department of Business and Management Chair of Entrepreneurship & Innovation The Evolution of the Sharing Economy: Redefining Industries Borders and Reinventing the Concept of Mobility Prof. GIUSEPPE D’ALESSANDRO Prof. LUIGI GUBITOSI SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR VITTORIO DI LASCIO 705731 CANDIDATE Academic Year 2019/2020 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 Definition and leading principles of the concept of Sharing Economy ............................................. 4 1.2 Enabling Technology for Collaborative Consumption .......................................................................... 10 1.3 Cultural Elements influencing Sharing Economy ................................................................................. 18 1.3.1 How TooGoodToGo sensitizes against food waste ........................................................................................ 25 2 Evolution of the idea of Transportation with Sharing Economy ........................................................... 28 2.1 Innovative Platform reinventing Peer-To-Peer transportation .............................................................. 29 2.1.1 BUSINESS CASE: BlaBlaCar .............................................................................................................................. 33 2.1.2 BUSINESS CASE: Uber ..................................................................................................................................... 37 2.2 Car Sharing Services: from carmakers to mobility providers ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • General Terms and Conditions for Passengers United
    General Terms and Conditions for Passengers United Kingdom/Valid as of September 2019 of mytaxi Network Limited, Harling House, Floor 2, 47-51 Great Suffolk Street, London SE1 0BS ​ (hereinafter: "FREE NOW"), company number 07477274. Introductory Provisions: These General Terms and Conditions for Passengers ("Terms and ​ Conditions") apply to the services which are offered by FREE NOW to the Passengers ("FREE NOW Services") via the FREE NOW app (also referred to as “the App”) or the FREE NOW website or via websites and apps operated by third party cooperation partners ("Third Party Services"). Please read these Terms and Conditions carefully, in particular section 4, which tells you about the cancellation fees you may have to pay, and section 5, which tells you about the processing fees you may have to pay should you not make a payment on time. The use of the Third Party Services may be subject to additional terms and conditions of such third party cooperation partners. The Terms and Conditions apply to Passengers that use the FREE NOW Services in the United Kingdom. The Terms and Conditions shall apply in addition to any other terms and conditions additionally agreed between the parties. Any individual agreements entered into by the parties shall prevail over the Terms and Conditions and any other terms and conditions. In order to register for and use the FREE NOW Services, the Passenger is required to accept during the registration process these Terms and Conditions to be concluded between FREE NOW as the provider of the FREE NOW Services and the Passenger. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Platforms for Exchanging and Sharing Goods
    CASE STUDY ONLINE PLATFORMS FOR EXCHANGING AND SHARING GOODS by Anders Fremstad 2/2/2015 A project of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Americans own huge and underutilized stocks of consumer goods, including furniture, appliances, tools, toys, vehicles, and lodging. Websites like Craigslist, Couchsurfing, and NeighborGoods have lowered the transaction costs associated with acquiring secondhand goods and sharing underused goods, which may help us take advantage of this excess capacity. Indeed, advocates of the so-called sharing economy argue that technology can facilitate peer-to-peer transactions that enable us to save money, build community, and reduce environmental burdens. This case study evaluates the economic, social, and environmental effects of three online platforms. Craigslist provides an online market for local secondhand goods such as vehicles, furniture, appliances, and electronics. Couchsurfing matches travelers with hosts around the world who welcome guests into their homes. NeighborGoods helps people borrow and lend household goods free of charge. Together these case studies provide an overview of the role of online platforms as future economy initiatives. The economic benefits to these three platforms are significant, and likely to grow over time. Americans posted hundreds of millions of secondhand goods for sale on Craigslist in 2014, increasing access to affordable used goods. Couchsurfing has helped provide its members with millions of nights of free lodging, substantially reducing the cost of travel. While NeighborGoods has not achieved the scale of Craigslist or Couchsurfing, online platforms for sharing household goods could save Americans significant sums of money, especially if they can facilitate widespread ride-sharing and car-sharing. Online platforms may particularly improve the livelihoods of poor Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf (Arguing That the Sharing Economy Is a Consequence of Moore’S Law and the Internet)
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 94 | Issue 1 Article 7 11-2018 The hS aring Economy as an Equalizing Economy John O. McGinnis Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law and Economics Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation 94 Notre Dame L. Rev. 329 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\94-1\NDL107.txt unknown Seq: 1 19-NOV-18 13:05 THE SHARING ECONOMY AS AN EQUALIZING ECONOMY John O. McGinnis* Economic equality is often said to be the key problem of our time. But information technol- ogy dematerializes the world in ways that are helpful to the ninety-nine percent, because informa- tion can be shared. This Article looks at how one fruit of the information revolution—the sharing economy—has important equalizing features on both its supply and demand sides. First, on the supply side, the intermediaries in the sharing economy, like Airbnb and Uber, allow owners of housing and cars to monetize their most important capital assets. The gig aspect of this economy creates spot markets in jobs that have flexible hours and monetizes people’s passions, such as cooking meals in their home. Such benefits make these jobs even more valuable than the earnings that show up imperfectly in income statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOBAL RIDESHARING VENDORS Request Full Research
    COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT JULY 10, 2018 Request Full Research CA-1238 GLOBAL RIDESHARING VENDORS INTRODUCTION Ridesharing services have grown at breakneck speeds over the past decade as an increasing number of people are using these services and bypassing conventional taxi services and other forms of public transport. The end goal for current ridesharing services is to disrupt and displace the much larger consumer vehicle ownership market through enhancement of their current services as well as the future application of driverless technology. This study analyzes and compares the strength of the current leading ridesharing providers worldwide through an analysis of their innovation programs, strategies, and implementation achievement, as measured through verifiable metrics. A ridesharing service is defined by ABI Research as any company that allows independent drivers to operate on the company’s mobility platform to provide on-demand transportation to the user. This study will also include ride-hailing providers—companies that do not utilize private drivers but instead partner with local taxi providers to provide on-demand transportation to the user. In addition, a global market share evaluation is also provided in the report and compares each vendor’s share of global ridesharing passenger trips. The vendors assessed in this report are Cabify, Careem, Curb, DiDi Chuxing, Easy Taxi, Gett, Go-Jek, Grab, Kakao Mobility Corporation, Lyft, MyTaxi, Ola Cabs, Taxify, and Uber. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW After individual scores are established for innovation and implementation, an overall company score is established using the Root Mean Square (RMS) method: The resulting overall scores are then ranked and used for percentile comparisons. The RMS method, in comparison with a straight summation or average of individual innovation and implementation values, rewards companies for standout performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Transportation Price War: Indonesian Style
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Klaipeda University Open Journal Systems SAKTI HENDRA PRAMUDYA ONLINE TRANSPORTATION PRICE WAR: INDONESIAN STYLE ONLINE TRANSPORTATION PRICE WAR: INDONESIAN STYLE Sakti Hendra Pramudya1 Universitas Bina Nusantara (Indonesia), University of Pécs (Hungary) ABStrAct thanks to the brilliant innovation of the expanding online transportation companies, the Indonesian people are able to obtain an affor- dable means of transportation. this three major ride-sharing companies (Go-Jek, Grab, and Uber) provide services which not only limited to transportation service but also providing services for food delivery, courier service, and even shopping assistance by utili- zing gigantic armada of motorbikes and cars which owned by their ‘driver partners’. these companies are competing to gain market share by implementing the same strategy which is offering the lowest price. this paper would discuss the Indonesian online trans- portation price war by using price comparison analysis between three companies. the analysis revealed that Uber was the winner of the price war, however, their ‘lowest price strategy’ would lead to their downfall not only in Indonesia but in all of South East Asia. KEYWOrDS: online transportation companies, price war, Indonesia. JEL cODES: D40, O18, O33 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15181/rfds.v29i3.2000 Introduction the idea of ride-hailing was unfamiliar to Indonesian people. Before the inception (and followed by the large adoption) of smartphone applications in Indonesia, the market of transportation service was to- tally different. the majority of middle to high income Indonesian urban dwellers at that time was using the conventional taxi as their second option of transportation after their personal car or motorbike.
    [Show full text]