a photo of an investor walking out of the Lyft roadshow
An investor walks out of the Lyft roadshow with documents in hand. Today, the company went public. Carlo Allegri/Reuters

Thanks to its IPO, Lyft—which lost $978 million in 2018—is now worth a very large sum of money. Here’s why.

Lyft became a public company today, valued at around $24 billion, which is a lot for a company that’s never made money, may never make money, and in fact lost nearly a billion dollars last year. As the company itself noted in its SEC filing, “We have incurred net losses each year since our inception and we may not be able to achieve or maintain profitability in the future.”

So, why are investors, big and small, pouring money into Lyft? Here’s how the business looks on paper.

First, there are really only two ride-sharing players in the United States—Uber, the clear leader, and Lyft, the clear number two. In addition, Lyft has been growing quickly and taking market share from Uber. The company claims it had 39 percent of the market in December 2018, up from 22 percent two years before.

Second, Lyft may be losing huge amounts of money, but it’s still growing revenue faster than it is growing costs. In particular, three numbers are going up: the total number of riders, the number of rides per rider, and the revenue per rider. To an optimist, it looks like more people are using Lyft’s services, and when they do, over time, they use them for more and longer rides.

At the same time, according to Ali Mogharabi, an equity analyst at Morningstar, various costs—for sales and marketing, for the tech required to run the core business, and for business expenses like payment processing—are going down as volume grows.

Assuming all of these trends continue—that Lyft can continue to close in on Uber as it grows revenue and shrink costs—the company will cross into profitability some time in the early 2020s.

But still—that’s a lot of assumptions. Lyft reports two different numbers, “bookings”—which is the total amount of money flowing through its system—and revenue, which is the money that actually lands in Lyft’s accounts. The difference between the two numbers is driver pay. In 2018, Lyft had $8.1 billion in bookings. Drivers got $5.9 billion. Lyft got $2.2 billion.

One way to drive more revenue is to take a bigger cut of the bookings, and that’s one thing that Lyft has been doing, increasing its take from 18 percent in 2016 to 27 percent in 2018.

But you can’t do that forever. It’s a two-sided market: Lyft needs drivers in order to have enough cars on the road to meet the rider demand. Driver pay is the key lever in getting people out on the road driving in general, and for Lyft (not Uber) in particular. If Lyft raises its cut so much that drivers defect, the thinking goes, wait times will go up and riders will defect too.

The other big cost factor is sales and marketing. Lyft and Uber are locked in a brutal competition for riders and drivers, which means they have to spend a lot to enter new markets and maintain their old ones. For Lyft to get to profitability, it will almost certainly have to cut its marketing costs relative to its growth in revenue.

Lyft has another huge cost that has been undercovered in the press: insurance. Ride-sharing companies need to offer good insurance to protect drivers, but that’s expensive. Something like 29 cents of every dollar that Lyft brings in as revenue is spent on insurance—and it’s not a fixed cost, either: The more rides Lyft does, the more it has to spend on insurance. And it’s possible that as Lyft has to scramble to find more drivers, it ends up paying more out in claims to inexperienced or worse driers.

“We believe insurance is a critical value proposition in recruiting drivers,” said Rohit Kulkarni, head of research for SharesPost, where he focuses on private tech growth companies. “However, recent trends indicate that insurance costs have risen due to higher frequency of claims and accidents.”

What’s fascinating about Lyft is that it has not proven that it can make money with its core service. The business is dependent on the subsidy that investors have been willing to provide all us riders. And even if it zeroed its sales and marketing expenses, it still wouldn’t be profitable. It’s also not hard to imagine that the company enters a damaging price war with Uber and has to eat the lower revenue to keep drivers on the road. And on and on, not even touching on the regulatory risks that the company might face in important cities, states, or countries. Each line of the company’s financial statements represents a complicated balancing act.

On the other hand, who wants to miss out on owning a piece of the ride-sharing duopoly, especially when there is almost certainly going to be consolidation of the business around the globe? As it turns out, SoftBank, the massive Japanese firm funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into technology companies, just so happens to have a finger in most pies, Kulkarni points out. “We believe SoftBank can bring order to chaos in ride-sharing,” he told me. “We estimate that SoftBank is a 10 percent-plus shareholder in four out of the top five global ride-sharing companies.”

As the world has seen with the internet platforms, there won’t be many winners, but the jackpot will be huge.

This post originally appeared on The Atlantic.

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. a map of future climate risks in the U.S.

    America After Climate Change, Mapped

    With “The 2100 Project: An Atlas for A Green New Deal,” the McHarg Center tries to visualize how the warming world will reshape the United States.

  2. photo: a commuter looks at a small map of the London Tube in 2009

    Help! The London Tube Map Is Out of Control.

    It’s never been easy to design a map of the city’s underground transit network. But soon, critics say, legibility concerns will demand a new look.

  3. photo: A man boards a bus in Kansas City, Missouri.

    Why Kansas City’s Free Transit Experiment Matters

    The Missouri city is the first major one in the U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation. Will a boost in subsidized mobility pay off with economic benefits?

  4. A photo of a police officer in El Paso, Texas.

    What New Research Says About Race and Police Shootings

    Two new studies have revived the long-running debate over how police respond to white criminal suspects versus African Americans.

  5. photo: Robert Marbut, the incoming director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness,

    The Consultant Leading the White House Push Against Homelessness

    In Texas and Florida, Robert Marbut Jr. sold cities on a controversial model for providing homeless services. Now he’s bringing it to the White House.