Lyft You Up: Rideshare IPO Could Mean Big Payday for GM

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

Back in 2016, General Motors invested half a billion bucks in Lyft, the rideshare company bent on taking Uber to school. When the deal was made, the companies portrayed it as a long-term strategic alliance. Since then, investments have been made in Lyft by GM’s competitors (namely Ford), and GM has made investments in potential Lyft competitors like Cruise Automation. Pro tip: don’t try to draw this particular family tree.

Today, Lyft went public on the stock market, seeing an astounding open of $87.24 a share. As a gearhead, why should you care about this? Well, remember that investment GM made in the company? The General now owns 18.6 million shares, which now translates into a net value of over $1.5 billion.

In a company besieged by idling plants and layoffs, suddenly finding an extra billion-and-a-half bucks on the books is surely a big deal.

It’s not as if GM can make like a Vegas winner and immediately cash out, however. To my understanding, the company cannot sell its stock for a period of six months after the IPO. Given market and socioeconomic volatility, who knows what Lyft’s stock price will be this autumn. However, some back-of-napkin math reveals that the stock would have to fall to just $26.88 in order for it to be worth less than the $500 million General Motors invested in the company three years ago.

Lyft’s stock is sure to fluctuate wildly over the days and weeks ahead before settling in to something remotely resembling an even keel. Since its IPO this morning, the price has bounced around like a proverbial rubber ball, currently sitting at $80.62 as of this writing. Even if GM eventually sells off some or all of its shares, it is unlikely they’ll sever ties with Lyft entirely.

You know all this has to rankle the corner offices in the Glass House, as Ford’s stock price has been languishing under $10 for ages. So far as they’re concerned, they’ve been innovating and powering their way to a portfolio of desirable vehicles only to see Wall Street reward yet another start-up (ish) company with gonzo valuations. It must be frustrating. For its part, GM stock sits around $37 today.

Keep in mind that GM also has its corporate fingers in the pies called Maven and Cruise Automation, so trying to tease out Lyft’s role in the company’s future plans is like trying to untangle a ball of fishing line that’s been sitting in the bottom of a tackle box for months.

Beyond General Motors, companies like Google (12.8 million shares) and Fidelity (about the same investment as GM) also stand to make a few bucks from Lyft. One thing’s for sure – the line between traditional automakers and new mobility solution companies is quickly being erased.

[Image: Lyft]

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 14 comments
  • Stuki Stuki on Mar 30, 2019

    Hence why the US as a leading place for manufacturing, and for productive enterprise in general, is by now merely an historical anecdote.

  • Civicjohn Civicjohn on Apr 01, 2019

    Well the stock lost 11% today, thanks Mary for not taking my advice, but I know $150 million is pocket change.

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next