Is "Freight-Tech" the future or Has Uber and Lyft Killed the Dream?

While I personally was unable to attend the annual Freightwaves Transparency19 conference this year I did watch a lot of the clips and I was fascinated by the shear volume of "Freight-tech"(I will abbreviate FT) companies coming out of the woodwork to help shippers ship product.  We are in the "golden age" of FT launches, venture capital money and potentially IPOs.

Or, as the title stated, has Uber and Lyft killed the dream?  More on that later but first, let's remind ourselves "how business works".

An entrepreneur comes up with a great idea and tries to get it to scale with a series of private fundings.  Venture capitalists get in early, generally get seats on the board and hope for an eventual big pay day when the company is either sold or goes public.  The company is built to scale (meaning it is generating cash - hopefully - or has a path to be cash flow positive.  Then, the early owners need to take money out of the company for a variety of reasons by going public or selling. Here are the reasons they may want to extract money:

1. Family wealth planning - they generally have a lot of their wealth in the company and they need some back.  
2. Pay Employees - Many early stage company employees are paid with options and they eventually want and need that money.  This is a warning to many employees who get in too late in the game.  If your options are valued right before the IPO then a lot of the time you are under water when it goes public (as are many Uber and Lyft employees).
3. All the juice is squeezed and the VC people want out. - Venture capitalists do not hold companies and eventually they want their money back.  Once they believe they have "squeezed all the juice out of they idea they will want to exit. 

Now, let's get back to Uber and Lyft and while I did not read the S-1 for the Lyft before it went public I did read the S-1 of Uber (skip the glitz slides and read the words) and it caused me to ask the question: "Who the hell would invest in this company"?  Let's look at what the S-1 (The S-1 is a required SEC filing before the company goes public and it generally is the first time you get to see their financials - it is required reading if you are going to invest in IPOs)  taught us:

1. Uber has lost over $3Bl in the last three years.  And that is if you count a gain on divestiture and "other investments".  If you look at just operations, in the last three years Uber has lost almost $10bl.  
2. They continually discuss incentives paid to the drivers and to the customers.  They are paying on both sides of the transaction.  
3. There is very little path to profitability.  They "sold" the IPO to the retail investor at exactly the right time (for them. 

Now, what are the learnings from e-commerce?  What we are starting to see is the "bricks and clicks" (Especially Wal-Mart) is the model to win.  Unfortunately, Wal-Mart took far too long to "get in the game" and it may be too late.  But, if Wal-Mart had responded back in 2013 as I had suggested when I wrote The Battle for Retail Sales is Really The Battle of Supply Chains, they would have killed it. Once Wal-Mart woke up I welcomed them back in 2017 in the article, "Welcome Back Wal-Mart. We Missed You Over the Last 5 Years". 

Which brings me to J.B. Hunt and their work with Box and J.B. HUNT360.  That is the winning formula!  It is the "Bricks and Clicks" of the freight world.  Like retail, eventually everything gets down to assets.  Someone needs to build stores and warehouses in retail and in freight someone needs to own the boxes, trucks and have drivers.  J.B. Hunt is showing they learned the lesson of Wal-Mart (Don't cede any ground to the tech guys), they jumped in early, they disrupted their own business and they are now the leader in this space for the asset players.  

What will come of all this?  I believe J.B. Hunt will continue to drive their leadership position further and the asset guys, to catch up, will have to buy a number of these FT companies.  Which means the VC population will get what they want but the asset guys will pay a huge premium for not getting in early.  

So, let me summarize:

1. Too much money chasing too few ideas... the "new" ideas are starting to be "me too's" (How many apps can have a competitive algorithm just to find an available truck)?
2. The FT VC population will want to sell.
3. The Asset guys will find out they are getting killed by the "trucks and clicks" model of J.B. Hunt and this will drive them to pay exorbitant prices to get the tech quick to catch up. 
4. JBHunt, by innovating early and fast will win this game big just like they did with intermodal. 

Finally, in the UBER S-1 we get our first public glance of UBER Freight and I am amazed at how small it is.  Now that UBER is public we will get to see more and more of their financials.  They believe the industry is moving to an "On-Demand" industry.  I find this hard to believe as big shippers need predictable freight and solutions like the J.B. HUNT 360Box where you get access to trailer pools.  I could be wrong, but I do not see a huge future for this.  

The New Transportation Technology Ecosystem is Shaping

Developing the future is messy.  It always appears it cannot be done and individual technologies, when looked at in isolation, look like they will never work.  However, I submit this is short term and to borrow a Star Trek phrase, is "Two Dimensional thinking".  Let's think about this in "three dimensions - think about the ecosystem and the connection of this ecosystem.

Let's review some key technologies being developed or deployed now:

1. Electronic logging
2. In cab cameras that go beyond just filming but rather sends signals to centralized managers who make real time decisions.
3. "Uber" type applications for booking, managing, and tracking freight
4. Autonomous vehicles and the "Otto" type technologies. 
5. On line immediate economy (hour type delivery)

All of these technologies have advocates and enemies when looked at in isolation. However, I submit that you have to think of this in "three dimensions"; you have to connect the dots. All of these technologies need to come together to build the infrastructure of the future for transportation.  They all point to one thing:  A driverless truck.

The core to this is the autonomous vehicle - which probably explains why Uber buys Otto.  But then, once this is solved, there are other things that have to come into place for this new ecosystem to work:  You have to book the freight easily (enter Uber), you will want to see what is happening (especially at delivery and pick up points) (enter cameras), you will need to track where the truck is and what it is doing (enter E-logging).  

The one thing I cannot figure out is how the truck will fuel and perhaps that leads to a futuristic truck stop which caters to the autonomous truck. Perhaps the biggest issue with this entire ecosystem is how will the truck stops like Pilot make money when there is no one to go into the C-Store to buy stuff.  

So, when you look at the entire ecosystem of the future, you can see it taking shape, albeit messy, with all the technologies being developed.  If you look at them in isolation, solving an old problem (i.e., Does E-Logging really solve driver logging or does it prepare us for having no driver?) then you will wonder "why do we need this".  If you look at them together, building the new transportation ecosystem, then you say, "Got it!".

Those who look at these developments individually make me think of Khan and his two dimensional thinking:

Will The On Demand Economy Work in For Hire Freight?

I recently read a very well written article in Trucks.com titled:  Will The Sharing Economy Disrupt Trucking, Transportation and logistics?  It covered the very common topic of the day which  is the "Uberization of trucking".  Will it work?  Can shippers get over the fear of people they do not know actually hauling their freight?  Will it be consistent enough for commercial customers?

All of these questions are great questions and I have always said that all the answer to these questions are simple:  Yes, it will be messy during the transition;  Yes, these issues will all be solved; and Yes, the ultimate solution will not look exactly like we think today but we will move more towards "Uber" than we will stay where we are.

I think this is generally the conclusion of the author however I disagree with him in one major aspect: He still thinks of logistics in isolation of everything else that is involved in getting products to market.  He says:

" But for all the speed and mobility an evolving new model like this brings, there are tried-and-true, iron-clad laws of physics, geography and time that need to be respected by newcomers to the industry."

This hints that the author thinks of the final delivery in isolation but in reality this is just one part of the overall cost.  For example, what if the lack of retail space, the lack of moving product between nodes in a distribution network saves significant dollars. Some of those dollars are reinvested in a higher cost "final mile" solution and some are retained:  The net new cost is less than the old cost.

Think of the significant advantage in cost/sqft on line retailers have relative to those who have to get high cost real estate in commercial locations.  The bottom line is there is a total cost to deliver product from the raw materials, through manufacturing, through distribution and the finally, delivered to the customer.  This cost has to be looked at in its entirety and you cannot just look at one element and say something will not work due to the cost of that one element.  If other costs are reduced or eliminated then perhaps that final mile cost can go up a bit.

Finally, don't think that this is a "law of physics" cost structure as this author thinks.  Once you say "law of physics" it becomes a discussion where one believes the costs cannot be mitigated:

Well, along comes Uber buying Otto.  And, that, as they say, changes everything!