[iaw]

>> "Uber says it is profitable in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Australia — if you factor out taxes and interest payments."

There's a level of immaturity in the current definitions of profitability that the Valley is pushing. Being privately held ensures that no sensible accounting system will be anywhere near their books.

[refurb]

EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) is a real measure of earnings (i.e. they didn't make it up), but it looks like Uber just saw that on their income statements and latched on it. Not sure it's all that appropriate here.

This focus makes EBIT an especially useful metric for certain applications. For example, if an investor is thinking of buying a firm out, the existing capital structure is less important than the company's earning potential. Similarly, if an investor is comparing companies in a given industry that operate in different tax environments and have different strategies for financing themselves, tax and interest expenses would distract from the core question: how effectively do these companies generate profits from their operations?

[NeutronBoy]

"Uber's revenue is greater than its expenses, if you exclude a number of expenses"

[Animats]

Yes, Uber tries hard to avoid being held to GAAP numbers. This matters. If Uber is buying revenue at a loss, eventually the whole thing will come crashing down. Their business doesn't really have much lock-in; it's more about having the lowest rates.

Soon, it's going to be "Siri, get me a ride", and Apple's servers will find out what's available at what price.

[ojbyrne]

I highly doubt they don't also have GAAP numbers. For marketing purposes, they use the numbers that put them in the best light.

[prklmn]

Exactly this^. Hell, Facebook is still reporting misleading non-GAAP earnings next to its GAAP earnings.

[iaw]

That is my point. I suspect GAAP numbers paint a wholly different picture about Uber's business health.