Lex專欄 優步要燒錢到什麼時候

Uberwants to be a tech company that Warren Buffett could invest in.

優步(Uber)想成爲沃倫.巴菲特(Warren Buffett)可能投資的科技公司。

Berkshire Hathaway’s portfolio encompasses railroads and airlines — it is not a big leap to urban transport.

伯克希爾哈撒韋(Berkshire Hathaway)的投資組合中包括鐵路公司和航空公司——如果投資城市交通的話，也不算大的跳躍。

As Uber approaches critical mass, it aspires to a similar investment thesis: dominance of regional markets; prices that rise with inflation; revenues linked to population growth; personal mobility in ubiquitous demand.

一步步接近臨界規模的優步渴望自身也能夠符合這種投資理念：區域市場的主導地位；與通脹一道上漲的價格；與人口增長保持一致的營收；無處不在的個人出行需求。

Railroads and airlines make money; Uber does not, yet, even after jettisoning its lossmaking Chinese business.

鐵路公司和航空公司能賺錢；但優步仍未盈利——即使是在拋下虧損的中國業務之後。

In the third quarter the company lost more than $800m on revenues of $1.7bn, according to figures first published on Tuesday by The Information website.

根據週二最先由The Information網站發佈的數據，優步第三財季營收17億美元，虧損逾8億美元。

This would matter more if Uber also thought of itself as a transportation company.

如果優步也自認爲是一家運輸公司，盈利問題就更加重要了。

But the goal is to be more like theNew York Stock Exchange than the BNSF Railway: a dominant marketplace matching human capital (drivers) and physical assets (cars) with those willing to pay for using them.

但優步似乎更想成爲像紐交所(NYSE)、而非北伯林頓鐵路(BNSF Railway)一樣的公司：一個將人力資本（司機）和實物資產（汽車）與願意付費使用它們的用戶匹配起來的最大市場。

The distinction matters in light of a case before the European Court of Justice, due to decide on Uber’s regulatory framework.

考慮到歐洲法院將就適用於優步的監管框架做出判決，這種區別很重要。

And it also explains why investors tolerate the cash burn, because exchanges reap a disproportionate share of the rewards a market can offer.

這也可以解釋，爲什麼投資者能容忍優步燒錢，因爲一個市場所能帶來的好處，很大一部分都歸了交易所。

The analogy with NYSE is not exact (although, like an exchange, to achieve dominance it has to squeeze out competitors).

與紐交所相提並論並不準確（雖然，像交易所一樣，要佔據主導地位就必須擠走競爭對手）。

A stock exchange does not dictate transaction clearing prices, while Uber’s pricing mechanism is intrinsic to its business.

交易所不決定交易結算價格，而優步的定價機制是其業務之本。

But most important is the debate about whether drivers should be considered independent from or employed by the company.

但最重要的是關於司機應被視爲獨立個體還是受僱於優步的討論。

If adjudged to be employees, Uber will approximate a taxi company more than an exchange, and the idea of a monopoly in local transportation suffers a blow.

如果司機被視爲僱員，優步就更像是出租車公司，而非交易所，而地方交通運輸業被壟斷的觀點將不成立。

If not, the question is whether investors will go on patiently watching their money going up in smoke while Uber chases the scale needed to achieve its dream.

如果司機不被視爲僱員，那麼優步面臨的問題便是：在優步追求擴大規模以實現夢想的時候，投資者是否會繼續耐心地看着自己的錢化作青煙？