I first wrote about Bird, the electric scooter company, back in March 2018. At the time, they had just raised $115 million and their pitch was that they were going to solve the last-mile mobility problem. This is a real problem, and so lots of urbanist-type people, including myself, were excited. I then rode my first shared scooter in 2019 in Lisbon, and I had a ton of fun. I wrote: "Now I know what all the fuss is about."
But it wasn't all puppy dogs and ice cream. People started getting annoyed by the clutter that dockless scooters were creating in our cities (see above photo). Safety also became a great concern, and so they started getting viewed as a nuisance. Toronto never allowed them (despite my insistent blog posts) and Paris -- which had arguably become the scooter capital of the world -- banned them in early 2023.
Now there's this: Bird announced this week that it has filed for bankruptcy. The once unicorn, which had its stock halted back in September because its market cap fell below $15 million for too long, needs cash. According to FT, they have about $3.25 million the bank, but they have an immediate need for $16.8 million to meet some "financial obligations" in January.
This is maybe not unexpected. But I think the important question is: Is this an existential moment for micro-mobility and shared scooters (i.e. this is a fundamentally bad business), or is it more of a case that money used to be mostly kind of free, and now it's not? Either way, I think there's no question that the latter is going to cause further distress throughout 2024.
But the question remains: Can shared scooters be a sustainable business?
My day job is not to be a scooter analyst. But I do think that a number of things are true:
Riders seem to really like using electric scooters and so top-line demand continues to grow.
There are many headwinds for this business ranging from winter usage to politics.
Barring regulation, there appears to be low barriers to entry.
Lime has already claimed to be the first micromobility company to post a full profitable year.
These first and last points are important ones. I believe it's always going to be easier to get people onto electric scooters and bikes than onto regular bikes; people will generally always choose what is easiest. At the same time, here is a company that has allegedly figured out how to offer this service profitably. Assuming these two things remain true, I think we'll continue to find scooters in our cities.
Photo by Gemma Evans on Unsplash
Canada has a lot going for it:
By land mass it is the second-largest country in the world, with the longest coastline. Bookended by the vast Pacific and Atlantic oceans it has enormous trading advantages, alongside access to the largely untapped Arctic to its north. It is a net energy exporter; it has the third-largest proven oil reserves and is the fifth-largest producer of natural gas — but it also boasts large deposits of critical minerals vital to the green energy transition. And, of course, it borders the world’s largest economy.
By purchasing power parity, its economy is ranked 15th globally by size, behind the likes of Turkey, Italy and Mexico. The OECD has forecast Canadian per capita gross domestic product growth up to 2060 to be the lowest among advanced nations.
Poor productivity is at the heart of the country’s growth challenges. In an hour a Canadian worker produces just over 70 per cent of what an American can — that’s below the euro area and even the UK based on 2022 data. Many would have expected the resource-rich economy to benefit as globalisation powered forward, but its relative labour productivity has actually slipped since 2000.
The solution is probably a simple one: We need to innovate, invest more in R&D, and create stronger links between research and Canadian businesses. But executing on this has proven difficult:
Enormous efforts have been made to understand why businesses in Canada invest so much less in R&D than their counterparts in the U.S., much of Western Europe, South Korea and Japan. Is it our reliance on the export of natural resources and agricultural products? Is it reduced incentives to innovate for our heavily regulated and profitable oligopolies in sectors such as banking and telecommunications? Is it our decades-old reliance on incentivizing industrial R&D through federal and provincial tax credits?
It's hard to imagine a more important topic affecting all Canadians. So I would encourage you to read this recent opinion piece by David Naylor (president emeritus of the University of Toronto) and Stephen J. Troops (president of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research).
It's a balanced piece. Neither of them are arguing for "empty credentialism" or for research that remains in academia. What matters is what we do with the work that our smartest minds are doing. And the overarching point is that innovative research needs to find demand within Canadian businesses.
Right now, we're very bad at this. That needs to change.
Chart: Globe and Mail
Here is a study by three researchers out of California that asked Americans to predict the impact of a supply shock on various things, such as durable goods, commodities, labor, trade, and yes, housing.
For basically all of these items, people tended to answer correctly. Usually by a factor of at least two to one. In other words, when asked what reducing the supply of new cars would do to the prices of used cars, the majority of people responded saying that it would lead to an increase in prices.
However, when asked about the impact of a 10% increase in housing supply, about 40% said that it would cause prices and rents to rise. Only about a third believed they would fall (the correct answer). This is fascinating because it shows that housing seems to be an outlier. Most people don't have the same intuitive sense.
Why is this? Well, one commonly held belief is that building market-rate housing leads to gentrification, and that this ultimately leads to the displacement of existing residents. This might have been why some people responded saying that new housing will cause an increase in prices and rents. It'll lead to all housing going up.
However, there's research to support that this isn't the case. The problem isn't outward displacement following new market-rate housing. The greatest driver of gentrification is actually "exclusionary displacement", which is the inability of people to move into areas because of a lack of housing. (This study was based on 2010-2014 housing data from the UK.)
The thing about housing supply is that it relieves pressure across the entire market. Instead of a high-income person buying an old home to renovate (and causing outward displacement), they can instead choose to buy a new home (and not cause any outward displacement).
By doing this, they also leave behind a home that can then be absorbed by lower earners. One US study found that for every 100 new market-rate homes that are built, somewhere between 45 and 70 people move out of a below-median income neighborhood.
It is for reasons like these that, time and time again, increased housing supply has been shown to moderate home prices and rents (see above regarding Minneapolis and the Midwest as a whole). So if you're worried about the cost of housing, the answer is to build more. And if you're worried about gentrification, the answer is also to build more.
Our intuitions are telling us that this is true for most things. But for whatever reason, housing feels different. It's not, though.
Source: The charts and studies in this post are from this great FT article by John Burn-Murdoch.