Cab Industry On Verge Of Collapse? Capital One's Taxi NPL Rate Soars Above 50%

Tyler Durden's picture

Having abandoned its venture to lend out roughly $1 billion to legacy Taxi "Medallion" drivers and businesses some two years ago, and shifting its backing over to Uber resulting in many unhappy drivers as well as a handful of lawsuits, Capital One has nonetheless provided a useful spotlight into the troubled state of the traditional "yellow cab" industry by breaking out the details of its runoff commercial taxi medallion loan portfolio in its quarterly reports.

And according to the latest, just released report (in which COF incidentally missed both the top and the bottom line, reported EPS and revenue of $1.45 and $6.60 billion, both below expectations), the US taxicab industry must be on the verge of collapse, because in COF's Q4 report, the company reported that while the size of its runoff Medallion "held for investment" loans tumbled by $83 million from $773MM to $690MM, it was the surge in the nonperforming loan rate that was the stunner: surging from 38.8% in Q3 to a whopping 51.5% in Q4, it suggests that legacy cab drivers in the US are not only barely making money, but are in financial dire straits.

Of course, the irony is that the Medallion industry's biggest nemesis, Uber, is likewise burning through billions in venture capital cash every year in hopes of putting its legacy competitor out of business. And, if these Capital One numbers are any indication, it may soon succeed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TalkToLind's picture

Y'all taxi drivers just hang on a little longer...while Uber is regulated out of existance. That is if their self driving cars don't put them out of business first!

PlayMoney's picture

I would say download that uber app....post haste

turnball the banker's picture
turnball the banker (not verified) PlayMoney Jan 24, 2017 6:25 PM

You got legs you can walk

The Saint's picture

I guess Uber will be having a big rate increase as soon as they put the regulated industry out of business.  $25 per bag, etc.  Believe me, this is not a good thing.

 

DownWithYogaPants's picture

You gotta love a happy ending!  But they told me he was a gentle giant and a scholar!

The Saint's picture
The Saint (not verified) bamawatson Jan 24, 2017 7:29 PM

Got to be careful what you wish for when you are a drug dealing gang member.

BTW, I wonder if Obama will re-introduce the "Choom Gang" now that he is out of the White House but still in drug allowing D.C.?

Saucy-Jack's picture

Maybe cities should stop shaking down taxis for medallion money?

 

But that would make too much sense.

NoDebt's picture

" surging from 38.8% in Q3 to a whopping 51.5% in Q4, it suggests that legacy cab drivers in the US are not only barely making money, but are in financial dire straits."

Or they're just realizing their "investment" in a medallion that cost them possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars is massively underwater.  Just like homes that would never go down in value, medallion prices are falling.

If you owed $500K on a medallion now worth $300K would you keep paying the loan?  Maybe, but certainly some sizable number of cab owners would just say "fuck it" and walk away.

Of course, you know what happens next.  Banks either repo the medallion and resell it (guaranteeing they recognize their loss) or they "extend and pretend" hoping that Uber is regulated out of existence or that prices for medallions magically go back up.

 

wren's picture

All of these stories are all fine and good, but I need to hear something about criminal aliens getting loaded up! He has released a lot of great news and done some HUGE things, but it's time for them to GO! We should have already loaded up a few C-5 Galaxies full of felons!

NoDebt's picture

Military mostly uses C-17 Globemasters now.  More fuel efficient.  

How many Central/South American countries took the opportunity to empty their jails while Obama left the border wide open?  I bet the answer is more than zero.

 

Txpl9421's picture

The C5 is alive and well. They are being refurbished with new engines that are more efficient.

Those are large planes. They used to fly over my office, non stop in late 1990 taxiing troops and material to KSA.

NoDebt's picture

Yeah, C5 is still around.  You're right about that.  It was the older variants that were retired.  Dover AFB is a place I drive past on my way to the beach in the summer.  Seeing those monsters out there on the tarmac you can't appreciate their size until you realize that thing standing next to their wheels isn't a mouse, it's a person.

 

withglee's picture

Damn that C-17 is HUGE.

C-5 carries twice the load of a C-17.

Joe Sichs Pach's picture

My neck of the woods is buzzed by C-5's all the time.  Love the sound of that monster flying overhead.  Amazing to see it lumbering through the sky at what looks like an unsustainably low speed.  

wren's picture

I'm ex Air Force. Spent a lot of time around that massive aircraft.

withglee's picture

 I bet the answer is more than zero.

You think all those unaccompanied "kids" were let out of jail? It's an invasion ... financed by Soros.

Mustafa Kemal's picture

In the first couple of hours of his presidency as I recall

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

I can't believe someone hasn't developed an app similar to uber that can be licensed to local taxi companies. Once such an app gets out there, uber will be dead.

NoDebt's picture

They have.  Every major metro cab company has it's own app to help you hail one of their cabs.  It hasn't stopped the bleeding because licensed cabs are urine-soaked shitholes and the ride is still overpriced.

 

Saucy-Jack's picture

It's overpriced because they pay a shitload for their medallions.

Another regulation that kills market efficiency in the name of protecting people from themselves.

Time for a reset! Deregulate!

DownWithYogaPants's picture

Big cities are in general shitholes of corruption.  

spastic_colon's picture

the next fed bailout will be either the cab companies directly or the hedge fund(s) who buy up all of the crappy medallion debt off the books of lenders and securitizes them.

Treason Season's picture

Insurance fees represent up to 50% of daily costs whether the cab is on the road or not.

RyeWhiskey's picture

Why not have $70 BILLION dollar Uber pay for medallions? Medallions are city revenue, remember. What Uber is doing is theft.

hoos bin pharteen's picture

It's called a "tax."  People already pay taxes to maintain roads, police, etc.  

spastic_colon's picture

also major cab companies don't/can't dual employ like uber and lyft who's employees work for both companies in the same car; major cab companies don't/can't make a taxi out of every average drivers own car.

free_as_in_beer's picture

http://hailacabapp.com  obviously not working out as well as you might think.

No Time for Fishing's picture

How overpriced are traditional cabs. Drivers pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just for the right to drive 1 cab around town. That's a huge startup price that has to be paid!

withglee's picture

Once such an app gets out there, uber will be dead.

The reason they have medalions in the first place is because the stupid cab companies ... earlier independent drivers ... over supply the market and thus none are sustainable. It's a supply/demand imbalance that government thinks its involvement can fix. We have the same issues in agriculture.

You can't make water run uphill for very long. It takes too much effort.

RyeWhiskey's picture

Uber already over-supplied many markets with driver income bordering ziltch after expenses.

withglee's picture

Uber already over-supplied many markets with driver income bordering ziltch after expenses.

Just exactly what did Uber supply ... or over supply? From what I read they just made it easier for two parties to find each other and collaborate: Party A, someone needing a ride and willing to pay for it. Party B, someone willing to give them a ride for a price. A process for doing that was already in place but it was a protected monopoly and was not performing. The marketplace is littered with examples showing proctected monopolies "don't" work.

RagaMuffin's picture

Just re-brand like global warming  to global climate change.Just change Uber to Cab Cannibal ..........

angry_dad's picture
angry_dad (not verified) Jan 24, 2017 6:30 PM

This is what happens when you over regulated one business and let another operate without any oversight

Who needs a medallion when you have an app?

 

hooligan2009's picture

just another more visible consequence of an internet based company that doesn't pay taxes, carry insurance, or abide by regs (Uber) cannibalizing decades old business/gov/union/insurance infrastructures - same as AMZN

pipes's picture

Sounds very much like....liberty.

withglee's picture

just another more visible consequence of an internet based company that doesn't pay taxes, carry insurance, or abide by regs (Uber) cannibalizing decades old business/gov/union/insurance infrastructures - same as AMZN.

... and delivering better value to the customer. You have nailed the problem ... old business/gov/union/insurance infrastructure ... it's a cancer that is devouring us all.

And speaking of insurance, have you run the numbers on your homeowner's policy? On mine, the premium I'm "forced" to pay actuarially predicts fully 1/3 of all houses on my block will be completely destroyed over a 30 year period. My experience? Not a single house in a five mile radius of anywhere I have lived my whole life (over 70 years) has ever been destroyed.

That's a pretty serious disconnect!

Kickaha's picture

An F5 swirling down your street is not to entire risk covered by your premiums.  

I had tree roots get into and totally clog the outflow pipe from my home sewage system.  We first discovered the problem when the washer went into the beginning of its spin cycle.  One load of washing machine water mixed with pisswater and shitwater came up through the base of the toilet in my professionally finished walk-out basement.  I had good homeowner's insurance.  The damage from that one washer load of waste water came to $24,000, which amounted to more than I had paid in total for my policy since the time I moved in to that place.

My idiot son once hooked up with a racy young woman who turned out to be a whore and a oxi addict.  While my wife and I were out one evening, the skank rummaged through our bedroom, lifted a lot of nice jewelry, then disapeared out of town somewhere.  The jewelry was scheduled under our policy and we got full retail from the insurer.

(BTW, you all need to read a standard homeowner's policy.  The theft coverage is laughable.  Basically, nothing that a thief could pick up and carry from your house is covered unless you schedule it and pay extra for a rider covering scheduled property.) 

I, like just about everybody else, hate insurance companies.  I think it has something to do with paying the premiums year after year and getting nothing for it unless or until a claim needs to be made.

I don't know how they figure out their finnces and arrive at policy rates.  I do have some faith in the idea that people will shop for insurance and find for themselves the best combination of coverage and premiums.  There sure seems to be enough companies offering the product so as to negate any inference of monopoly or oligopoly pricing power, although I am suspicious of any industry for which you must obtain a license before selling your product.  That is always an open invitation to capture the regulatory agency and reduce the number of licensees to the point where you'd have to be a corpse not to make a tidy profit.

FreedomGuy's picture

I like the "idiot son" part. It conjures up a whole story full of drama. I can smile because I am not part of the story...unlike you.

Etteguj Guj's picture

  Yes, more stories about the 'idiot son', please. I'll get my pipe and cardigan.

nufio's picture

shopping for home insurance policies is not as easy as switching car insurance. because the insurnace payments are paid from the escrow account in the bank. its a lot of hassle to change the policy. also their bundling with home and car insurance makes it hard to switch car insurance as well. anyway.. im pretty convinced that home insurance premiums are mostly tied to marketing costs than anything else.

withglee's picture

Try this specific case: When you get an FHA loan there is a clause that contracts you to provide "replacement cost" insurance for the life of the loan. What's up with that? I can see a contract to supply insurance to pay the remaining balance ... but not replacement cost. It's the remaining balance that the contract is risking.

In my particular case, my balance is now well below the cost of the dirt the improvements sit on. Thus, the remaining balance is just for the dirt which can not be destroyed. I can't buy replacement cost insurance at a reasonable cost as I illustrated ... and neither can you. Further, I illustrated that it is so ridiculously priced, no one should be buying it.

I told the loan company "I chose to self insure" and cancelled my policy. They showed me where if I didn't supply a policy, they would, even at a higher premium. And guess what. They supplied a policy from their "own" insurance company.

I am now keeping two sets of books. I have just a couple years left on the mortgage. Already the accelerated payments of applying the insurance premium to the principal have reduced my principal (on my accounting) to twice that premium when compared to their accounting.

The fact that you are negligent in your maintenace should only affect your premium. I have made zero claims on any house I have ever owned. I should be able to cherry p;ick what I want protected and not. It is the insurance company that cherry picks. If the water gets in by rising, not covered. If it gets in by falling, covered.

Kickaha's picture

As I understand your recitation of your circumstances, you took out an FHA mortgage that requires you by contract to purchase "replacement cost" property insurance on the structure.  I'm thinking such a requirement is pretty much standard for all mortgages absent the chance some rare bird manages to negotiate something else as part of the negotiations over the terms of his mortgage.  My thoughts are based upon an assumption that the lender, or the guarantor of the loan, wants the best coverage available for their collateral, which is perfectly understandable, especially if they are not paying for it.

Your point about the inequity of having to purchase replacement cost property insurance is well-taken here.  I live in Metro Detroit, and there are a lot of WW II era homes down in the Detroit that were of excellent constrution, using premium materials, such as beveled leaded glass windows and fireplaces rimmed with Pewabic pottery tiles.  All brick, solid oak doors and trim throughout.  But the neighborhood has gone so far downhill that these homes market for at best $20,000 when the replacement cost would be maybe $200,000 if the entire structure had to be rebuilt from scratch.  Replacement cost can work out to be many multiples of the FMV for the home and the land together, so it is actually a much more onerous burden than just thinking about the reduction in the need for collateral protection as a loan gets paid down.

From the viewpoint of a lender or guarantor, the idea that the borrower should be allowed to supply insurance which only covers that portion of the FMV of the collatreral equal to the remaining mortgage balance would be an administrative nightmare, requiring annual inspections of the property and some sort of market analysis to ascertain the current FMV of the home based upon recent listings or sales of similar homes in the neighborhood.

I would suggest that in the future you contract with a mortgage lender with less burdensome insurance requirements and no government guarantor imposing their own inequitable insurance requirements on the lender as a pre-condition for the loan guarantee.  I have to assume that your finances are such that refinancing out of the FHA loan is not possible based upon underwriting considerations.

Please let us know how your decision to cancel your homeowner's insurance and to also start deducting the cost of the policy obtained by your lender to replace it from your principal loan balance works out for you.

You might want to look into the details of your local foreclosure laws so you will be prepared as best you can when you stop sending in payments because your set of books shows the loan has been paid in full.

I hate mortgage companies, insurance companies, and the FHA, but I'm also a big advocate of dealing with reality, and a big fan of the freedom to contract.  I wish you the very best of luck in finding a resolution for your problem.

I will admit that my home maintenance was lax, but only as to what I allowed my adult son to bring in the door back when he was still living with us.  The number of visible tattos should have been taken as a warning sign.

withglee's picture

K: As I understand your recitation of your circumstances, you took out an FHA mortgage that requires you by contract to purchase "replacement cost" property insurance on the structure. 

WG: Actually it was very deceptive. What I "thought" I was doing was taking out a second (equity loan). I used it to put another property into a "free and clear" state. The underlying mortgage wasn't FHA. But after all the paperwork, it was. And the other party was the government and the industry lobby. You can't mark up such contracts. Take it or leave it.

K: I'm thinking such a requirement is pretty much standard for all mortgages absent the chance some rare bird manages to negotiate something else as part of the negotiations over the terms of his mortgage.

WG: Impossible to do I'm sure. I expect it to be openly reasonable and specifically advantageous to them and not me. But I assume I can fight exorbitant and unreasonable.

K: My thoughts are based upon an assumption that the lender, or the guarantor of the loan, wants the best coverage available for their collateral, which is perfectly understandable, especially if they are not paying for it.

WG: And what's to keep them from making you buy "twice" replacement cost and making them the beneficiary ... regardless of replacement cost?

K: Your point about the inequity of having to purchase replacement cost property insurance is well-taken here.

WG: It sure doesn't appear to be.

K: I live in Metro Detroit, and there are a lot of WW II era homes down in the Detroit that were of excellent constrution, using premium materials, such as beveled leaded glass windows and fireplaces rimmed with Pewabic pottery tiles.  All brick, solid oak doors and trim throughout.  But the neighborhood has gone so far downhill that these homes market for at best $20,000 when the replacement cost would be maybe $200,000 if the entire structure had to be rebuilt from scratch.  Replacement cost can work out to be many multiples of the FMV for the home and the land together, so it is actually a much more onerous burden than just thinking about the reduction in the need for collateral protection as a loan gets paid down.

WG: All irrelevant. If the house FMV is worth 1/2 what is owed, buying replacement cost insurance doesn't do anything. You'd be an idiot to replace it. Grow corn on it instead. But the so-called lender's fair position (you the trader are actually the money creator, not the lender) would, if the collateral is destroyed, provide insurance that pays off the mortgage in cash. End of risk to so-called lender. The remaining loss is for your account and your should be able to self insure that at your discretion.

K: From the viewpoint of a lender or guarantor, the idea that the borrower should be allowed to supply insurance which only covers that portion of the FMV of the collatreral equal to the remaining mortgage balance would be an administrative nightmare, requiring annual inspections of the property and some sort of market analysis to ascertain the current FMV of the home based upon recent listings or sales of similar homes in the neighborhood.

WG: Nonsense. The unpaid balance is "known" exactly in real time ... all the time. That's what should be insured ... not the land and improvements.

K: I would suggest that in the future you contract with a mortgage lender with less burdensome insurance requirements and no government guarantor imposing their own inequitable insurance requirements on the lender as a pre-condition for the loan guarantee. 

WG: Oh you would, would you? You're part of the problem. Try that yourself. They're all playing the same crooked game. Charging the same ridiculous premiums. We're talking at least an order of magnitude of gouging.  You're supporting a criminal operation (government and finance industry). I have never defaulted on any promise I've made to trade over time and space (i.e my creation of money commonly called a loan by those who demand I "stand and deliver"). There is no reason I should pay anything but zero interest. You clearly don't know what money is.

K: I have to assume that your finances are such that refinancing out of the FHA loan is not possible based upon underwriting considerations.

WG: I could pay the balance off in cash ... right now. I'm old. one of the responsibilities of the old is to leave the world a better place for the new. I'm taking these people to court (pro se). I may lose ... actually likely will lose ... but I'll tell the true story ... and 12 more people may get the real picture.

K: Please let us know how your decision to cancel your homeowner's insurance and to also start deducting the cost of the policy obtained by your lender to replace it from your principal loan balance works out for you.

WG: Consider yourself informed. I did just that ... and informed the lender immediately. Their robots sent me letters for several months, then recalculated my escrow account, and added a few hundred dollars to my monthly payment. I responded by sending them registered letters monthly with my "correct" accounting and repeated the complaint that they had no basis to demand insurance exceeding their "stake". I also included all kinds of clippings recounting other corruptions in their industry and their company and the government. These are part of the correspondence and thus cannot be withheld from the jurors.

K: You might want to look into the details of your local foreclosure laws so you will be prepared as best you can when you stop sending in payments because your set of books shows the loan has been paid in full.

WG: I care not what the contract says or what the laws say. They are both unknowable. I (and I'm sure you also) agree to terms multiple times daily without ever reading them. From a practical standpoint you don't have time to read them. From a practical standpoint you would never agree to the terms anyway ... and thus would never enter into any agreements. Agreements are really like a journal of cases the other party has lost.

K: I hate mortgage companies, insurance companies, and the FHA, but I'm also a big advocate of dealing with reality, and a big fan of the freedom to contract.

WG: I'm a big advocate of "principles" (like the golden rule). I can remember the days when contracts were hand-shakes and people went to great pains to protect their integrity. Now they're air tight volumes and nobody cares. With 40,000 new laws every year, you are a lawless society. With contract signatures required to go to the bathroom, you have no contracts.

K: I wish you the very best of luck in finding a resolution for your problem.

WG: I am in the front line that will be mowed down with the first burst from the machine guns. Everyone my age should be. We have nothing to lose. With enough waves and with others going around left end, you eventually take out the machine gun nest. You never take it out hunkering down in a trench. The other guy will never do it ... you have to. Why did WTC7 fall down? Only 6% by my poll even know it did. It's a pitiful collection of people I have ended up having to live with. I would never opt to do it again.

K: I will admit that my home maintenance was lax, but only as to what I allowed my adult son to bring in the door back when he was still living with us.  The number of visible tattos should have been taken as a warning sign.

WG: No parent who has raised more than one child should take credit or blame for how they turn out. They turn out different and you don't raise them different. Further, you have the least contribution of anyone regarding how they turn out ... if you think otherwise you are self delusional. You're feeding and clothing them and giving their mother the lifestyle to which she is accustomed ... until she finds someone better.

Kickaha's picture

Nobody else is going to return to this old thread to follow it, except for you and me.  It is my own habit to try and return and continue a thoughtful or interesting discussion.

Just a few final comments:

First, I've sat in many courtrooms and observed many litigants explain themselves to a Judge by stating they never bothered to read the contract.  Putting aside for the moment your comment about the length and intricacy these days of most corporate/consumer contracts, saying you never read the contract makes it too easy for the Judge to treat you with disdain, and that might explain to some degree my own posts in this thread, as I have already modified my own behavior as to not reading contracts I enter into because they appear to be too long and too complex.  

My own favorite personal anecdote involves an auto dealership and salesperson who wanted to pin me down to buying a car from him when I wanted to do some additional shopping.  He advised me that he would hold the car at the quoted price for me if I just put down a $200 deposit and signed the dealership deposit agreement, which he shoved in front of me with a pen in hand and an "x" on the signature line of the form.

I read the form.  It was convoluted and intentionally obscure, but the gist of it was that if I did not return to buy the car, I forfeited my $200.  It then gave the dealer the right to sell the car to anybody else it pleased at any time before I returned to buy it.  Finally, it even contained a clause providing that if they sold the car to somebody else in the interim before my return for a lower price than what there offer had been to me, I was liable to them for the difference in prices due to my failure to return and buy the car at their offered price.

I refused to sign, and was quite vocal about the fraud that the salesperson had tried to inflict upon me.  He played dumb and insisted the contract meant what he had said, and not what the words on the document said.  I was not pleased.  He left to get his manager, who returned with two mechanics, each holding very large monkey wrenches in their right hands, scowling at me.  The manager asked me if I had a problem.  I said "not really", and left and bought a car from someplace else.

2.  I agree that it is likely to be very difficult if not impossible to negotiate any changes to a form contract.  Not having universal knowledge regarding these types of transactions, I refrain from saying or agreeing it is impossible.

3.  Your rebuttal about the irrelevance of the any need to determine the value of the collateral made me pause to think.  You may be right.  On the other hand, the local governmental unit has an interest in requiring that damaged homes are rebuilt.  If the insurance would only pay for repairs costing the equivalent of the loan balance, instances could be expected to arise where the homeowner lacks the resources to fully repair the home after 100% of the insurance money has gone to pay down the principal loan balance.  That leads me to believe there might be laws or regulations at the state level requiring full coverage no matter what the loan balance might be, based upon a supposed governmental policy that half-repaired fire or storm damaged homes are bad for a community.  Certainly the home renovation and insurance industries would lobby for the enactment of such laws.  I'm not saying it is fair and just to have such laws in place.  I'm just suggesting they might be there if you looked for them.

4.  The legal name for your position is that you entered into a "contract of adhesion", one completely unfair to you due to a huge difference in economic power at the time you entered into the contract.  Check on Google Scholar as to whether the doctrine of contract of adhesion has ever been applied to your situation.  Beware of distinctions in the law between contracts involving real estate and those involving goods and services other than real estate, for the laws applying to each are different.  Where personal property is involved, the term "unconscionablity" is utilized due to the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code.

5.  "Handshake" contracts seem like a great alternative to 20 pages of fine print and legal terms, but I've seen multiple occassions of family members or life long friends who end up trying to strangle each other when a dispute arises and the two sides cannot agree on exactly what that handshake meant.  There is a "Plain English" movement afoot these days within the legal profession, and, amazingly, many contracts are now short and written in plain English.  I've taken to thinking that those companies who have ignored the Plain English trend are not to be trusted when it comes to the terms of their contracts.

6.  I don't beat myself up over the tale of my son and the skank.  He was old enough to take care of himself, a process which always involves some trial and error, and my initial thoughts were that he might as well take a walk on the wild side while still young and single, and it really wasn't for me to try and filter his choice in a female.  He learned a valuable lesson which altered how he viewed members of the opposite sex. As an aside, there is a similar insurance scam going on with jewelry.  Coverage is replacement cost under most standard policies, and oftentimes appraisals are required. You go to a jeweler and are delighted to get an appraisal showing that your jewelry has such a high value.  The premium for the jewelry rider is based upon replacement cost of the jewelry, which is much higher than necessary to actually replace it if you shopped for used items, which are readily available, especially online.  But when people suffer a loss, they tend to take the money back to the same jeweler and pay his 100% markup to replace the item, which is why the jeweler was so eager to give such a high appraisal to begin with.  It is a joint venture between the jewelers and insurance carriers to extract as much money from you as possible.

If I had been there at the time, I would have suggested to the Light Brigade that it should not charge into the Valley of Death.  You seem well aware of what you are trying to accomplish and the odds of success, so this is the last expression of my paternalistic impulses.

Aubiekong's picture

A cab is usually driven by a foreigner, Uber is usually driven by a good ole USA citizen.  I will take uber everyday thank you...

TalkToLind's picture

Uber just has a better class of drivers period. Heck, I once had a foreign Uber driver who spoke better English than I did. And no body odor, no butt crack.  

RyeWhiskey's picture

Better rapists and tax-evaders maybe.

TradingTroll's picture

True story.

I visited Princeton NJ for a conference November 2015. Took Uber to dinner then a bar. Both times college student driving Dads car for extra $. Bar closes at 2am. After chatting with my colleague who lives in Princeton until 2:30am I asked him to call Uber. No Uber! My buddy says Uber shuts down 2:30am-5:30am as college students don't work hard.

I tell him to call the taxi company. He said there used to be one but Uber put them out of business. Their license required 24-7 coverage.

So we slept on a concrete abutment. I was sick for three days.

Fuck Uber.