This is silly. TAXI is not in the transportation business. It is a bank! Yes, a lot of the collateral for its loans is in taxi medallions but you can be assured that the NYC medallion business is not going to change anytime soon regardless of UBER. The bank has enough sense and ability if it needs to hedge its collateral or require more collateral from its borrowers. In addition, it has subsidiaries that have expanded this banks lending in other areas. To trade this stock based on UBER stories is utter nonsense. Sit back and collect the yield and enjoy.
What percentage of rides does Uber have in let's say New York City? These medallions have gotten a bit pricey, but somehow I feel like there is value in limiting the number of taxi's on the street, and as black cars will always have only a certain share of business.
The question I see is why would cities tolerate violations of their regulation? These companies operate in clear violation. The idea that regulation is bad is not new -one of our political parties is based on it -but you can't just go out and violate the law. You have to change it first.
How long will it take to realize that Uber and Lyft refuse to carry most passengers? Minorities? Bad neighborhoods? They violate employment laws by making drivers their own business and don't pay local taxes? They are nothing more than gypsy cabs for the rich -why wouldn't the city tax and regulate them the same as conforming cabs?
A cab is a cab is a cab. medallion doesn't do any business across the pond and I doubt that the NYC will let anybody and everybody pick up and carry riders anywhere at anytime. That is why they limited the cab numbers in the first place. So if you have a lot od so called delivery vehicles w/o
a taxi sign on them aren't they still a cab and subject to the medallion fee.
The courts will have to decide whether are not a city has the right to limit the number of cabs in
their city and whether are not calling for a....ride....on whatever device used is the same as calling for a cab.