Let us start with fresh news. Bolt has just announced a line of credit worth €220 million from a consortium of banks, which I believe is the first time in the company's history you are borrowing instead of using equity. Is it a case of a solid financial situation, or is Bolt now a mature enough company to look to traditional funding models?

Yes, absolutely. Loan money tends to be cheaper than surrendering a share. All startups and technology sector companies would prefer to borrow. It's simply that few traditional banks are willing to offer loans to firms the financial situation of which is not solid enough.

It is a sign that Bolt has come far enough in the last ten years for leading banks, including J.P. Morgan, Citibank and LHV in Estonia, to be willing to lend us money.

Is it an indication of more positive financial results? Your latest annual report from 2022 puts turnover at €1.26 billion and loss at €70 million or thereabouts. Did you do markedly better in 2023?

Yes, our financial situation has been improving from one year to the next. Our turnover keeps growing rapidly and we're coming closer to profitability every year. But banks tend to look at the long term instead, and they see that the company is in a good place today. We made a loss not because we had to, but because we decided to invest in growing our turnover even faster. In other words, they can see that the company can afford to repay the loan irrespective of whether we're investing in the short term or not.

You've mentioned before that Bolt's long-term plan is to be listed. I take it that this new line of credit is a step in that direction. How far along is the process?

The plan to be listed has existed for a long time. We have raised over a billion euros from investors, and they'll want to see returns eventually. We have also given our employees hundreds of millions of euros worth of options, which they are hoping to be able to cash at one point. That is to say there are clear expectations for Bolt to be listed, and relevant preparations are underway. Because we are among the biggest tech companies in Europe, we would like to do it here, but we're keeping all of our options open for now.

Which European exchange could it be? Ireland or Tallinn perhaps?

We are analyzing all options, while the Amsterdam exchange seems to be our best bet right now, which many find surprising. But many large and successful tech firms have been listed there recently.

Why Amsterdam?

There are several reasons. One is the regulatory side of things, the cost of being listed in a given place. The other is availability of investors. Amsterdam seems to have a good combination of both today. But as I said, we're still analyzing all options and haven't made a decision at this time.

When could it happen? As early as next year perhaps?

Preparations are underway for us to be ready next year. Whether we'll go through with it next year... We have not decided yet as we do not need that kind of capital in the short term. We are willing to wait for the right time.

Interestingly and thankfully, Bolt is an international company with its headquarters in Estonia. For example, Wise, which is another well-known Estonian company, is not headquartered in Estonia. Communicating with partners, investors and banks, how do they perceive such an Estonian business today?

To be honest, things would be simpler if we were not an Estonian company. Talking to major U.S. banks and asking them for a loan of more than €100 million, one of the main things they ask is why we continue to be registered in Estonia. Why our headquarters is still in Estonia. That perhaps we'd like to move to a more traditional and larger European country, which is easier on the talent, where hiring is easier, which lies further away from Ukraine etc. The reason we're here is simply that we're Estonian patriots. Our founders and a considerable part of the management are Estonian, we live here and want big things to also be built in Estonia.

I mean in terms of how much more difficult it is to raise money here. Is it possible a potential investor will tell you that Saint Petersburg is just too close, or something else along those lines?

Every investor has their own way of looking at risks. Investing in Norway, Germany or Estonia, different countries have different risk premiums. The investor will want more productivity in return, which makes capital a little more expensive here.

But have things become more difficult after Russia launched a full-scale war in Ukraine?

This aspect didn't used to come up in our conversations, while, talking to banks or investors in the last two years, it is asked at least once.

The same goes for talent. Talking to people in America we'd like to move to Europe, they prefer to travel to a larger country and one they know better. More so in a situation where they are not familiar with Eastern Europe and where it seems frightening to move this close to Ukraine.

Have you still managed to convince people to come here even after the war started?

Bolt has brought more top-level tech people to Estonia than any other company. We still bring in several dozen new people or even more than a hundred every year. But it is true that selling the destination has become a lot more difficult.

You also have offices elsewhere in Europe. To what extent do you prioritize having a headquarters and how often can Bolt employees work from home or remotely?

I believe that people are more productive and happier in the long term if they physically work with other people. We have told our people that they need to be in the office at least twice a week, while they can work where they like the rest of the time. Having a physical location matters to us. Tallinn remains our headquarters and we have some 40 people here. The most important decisions are usually taken in Tallinn.

It has been suggested, in connection with the Estonian economy cooling, that things have calmed down also in the IT sector, that the salary rally has slowed and people are easier to find. Do you find that? Has the Tallinn IT scene calmed down?

I wouldn't say salaries have come down, while the pace of salary advance has indeed slowed. Looking at the situation just three years ago, an annual salary advance of 20 percent was commonplace in the sector. I haven't seen much of that in the last 18 months. Rather, salaries have grown in tandem with the average wage and at a much slower pace. It's a positive short-term trend from where the employer is standing. But I see no fundamental changes in the long run. The world has great need of software engineers and I believe it will only continue to grow.

What do you pay your software engineers at Bolt?

A part of our salaries are public. You can look up average salaries. We see that we top the charts in Estonia in terms of what we pay people, and very few businesses can compete. It has its pros and cons. It is expensive for an entrepreneur, while it's what you have to do to attract the best talent in the world to Estonia.

Let us take a wider look now. We just learned that the Estonian economy has been shrinking for eight consecutive quarters, with Statistics Estonia's recent flash estimate putting recession at 2.1 percent on year. What does that tell you? Do you take an interest in the broader economic environment or why our economy is falling?

I have to admit that it has little bearing on our economic activity, which is why I do not delve too deep in these macro indicators. Rather, I look at them out of patriotic interest, in terms of whether I see something of interest there or can help in some way.

It seems to me that external factors have been the main culprits over the last two years. We see that several trade partners, whether we're talking about Germany or Sweden, are not doing well. On the other hand, the war has caused energy prices and inflation to soar. So there have been a lot of external factors. In terms of whether Estonia has done something wrong in the last two years... It's hard to say because we're largely doing the same things we've been doing for the past decade. We should probably ask whether what has brought us here can carry us forward. In some sectors perhaps, but not all of them.

For example, we need to seriously consider what can help us stand out in industry. We cannot continue as a cheap outsourcing destination. We need to move up the value chain. What should we do? I feel there are several aspects. But things still start with people. We need ambitious people with excellent education, capable of building world-class products and with enough drive to compete globally. Settling for manufacturing goods for the Swedes as subcontractors would make it very difficult to get anywhere.

But Finland and Sweden are nearby markets selling to which makes sense as why should we look beyond if we have relatively wealthy countries right here?

That is true on the one hand. But if I own a company in Sweden and think about where to take my labor and where to get it... Wages in Estonia aren't all that low anymore. There are much cheaper places in the world I can go. We cannot compete with low salaries alone anymore.

Supply chain disruptions during the pandemic highlighted the benefits of manufacturing being close to the market.

Absolutely, but looking at industrial figures in Estonia today, that risk premium isn't materializing.

We also have some other problems, such as rapid price advance and relatively high energy prices. Should we try to solve these matters somehow?

I'm a proponent of counter-cyclical economic philosophy. In a situation where Estonia's has been the poorest performing economy in the EU for the last two years, the government should do something. Instead of hiking taxes, we should be investing and trying to liven up the economy. Unfortunately, efforts seem to be headed in the opposite direction in the past few quarters.

What do you mean by livening up the economy? Looking at this year's state budget, our deficit is near as makes no difference 3.5 percent of GDP, which is more than EU fiscal rules allow. In other words, we are already stimulating quite a lot.

While that's true on one hand, the question we should be asking is where is that money being spent. Whether it is being put toward future productivity or not. Looking at the last two years, these investments seem to have come to nothing. It is therefore questionable whether we are spending the money wisely.

Where should it be spent?

I have a few concrete recommendations. Education continues to be a sensible target for long-term investment. While it will not yield immediate returns, it will pay off five or ten years down the line. The other major category where I see opportunity is defense. We have considerably boosted our defense spending, to nearly €1.3 billion. But we are importing almost everything, talking about weaponry. While it makes sense on one hand, as Estonia is a small country with no corresponding industrial tradition, I see potential for the future to service not only our own defense needs but also those of neighboring countries.

Manufacturing arms in Estonia is a good idea that no one is contesting as such. But what kind of weaponry could we realistically make here?

I don't see the point in doing things others are already doing well We need to stand out somehow. If we have factories elsewhere making high-quality shells or bullets, which are among simpler things to make, I cannot really see how Estonia would stand out. Perhaps experts might find a way to make something like that profitable. Rather, I believe Estonia could concentrate on smart systems where we use our existing IT competency, where we're super successful all over the world, and put that technology to use in the defense sector. The opportunities are myriad. I have seen several dozen Estonian startups crop up in this field in recent months. News came from the government this week that the state will start funding tech companies and helping them find their feet, with future export in mind.

What would be the product of these Estonian defense industry startups?

There are very different ideas. One of the most obvious things are drones. Tens of thousands of drones are used in Ukraine every month, whether for surveillance or offensive purposes. It is clearly one area holding opportunities for Estonia, and several companies are already working on it. But there are examples from the opposite end of the scale. For example, various software solutions for coordinating logistics, systems that are resistant to jamming etc. There are a lot of categories.

Have these startups approached you for counsel, contacts or funding?

Absolutely. They need the same things every new company that wants to find its feet and start exporting needs. They need funding, advice and talent to develop and sell their products. It is like building any other company, a complicated process with many facets.

And you feel Estonia could have a special advantage here?

Yes. For two reasons. First, we have world-class tech sector talent, which not all countries have. Secondly, we want to build things for the defense sector. Looking at America or Western Europe, the problem just isn't acute enough for them to want to spend their best years working on relevant things, while I see this interest and motivation in the Estonian tech sector.

Having discussed the opportunities of Estonian defense industry, let us also talk about the opportunities of other Estonian companies, such as Bolt, outside Estonia. You have expanded in Europe, but also Latin America and Africa. How easy is it for an Estonian to go to Kenya and say they want to start something there?

It largely depends on the sector. I must admit it has been relatively easy for Bolt. First, because ours is a software product which does not require you to build a physical office or production facility or send goods there. We can do it all over the internet. Secondly, we were at least active in a sector of historically modest regulation. Therefore, it was relatively easy for us to launch in a new country, we could do it over the air, without having to show up or apply for licenses. This made it relatively easy for us to go from a single country to more than 50. We could go to a new country with just a few people and a very modest budget.

I take it things have changed since then?

Things have changed a lot. First, most countries have passed strict regulations on what such a platform product means. If you cater to passengers and put them in touch with drivers, what are the various security requirements for the latter, privacy rules for software, tax declarations etc. These regulations are quite massive and complex today.

You're also lobbying hard to make said regulations more to you liking.

Absolutely. It is in every company's interest to secure favorable regulations for itself. We always try to strike a sensible balance between what's useful for us and what benefits the whole of society. While they usually coincide, we can also see proposed regulations that serve neither our interests not those of society. We are quite aggressive in fighting those.

What type of regulations are you aggressively fighting?

They run the gamut. They're usually started by old-school taxi companies that do not like competitors such as Bolt. That is when they bring their old political connections to bear to find ways of banning platforms like ours. One nuance is how they plan to limit the number of service providers in the city. I came from Madrid two weeks ago where it has been decided that the entire city can only have 8,000 drivers at any given time. It is a fixed number and there is no way around it. And we cannot enter the market in a situation where all permits have been given to existing companies. It's a monopoly situation pure and simple.

Such restrictions have historically been used in other cities too, such as New York if I'm not mistaken. On the other hand, listening perhaps to people who lean left politically, it has been suggested you do not offer your drivers sufficient social guarantees, which gives you an advantage compared to others who are required to pay taxes on their employees etc.

There are two major aspects here. First, if we look at what the taxi sector has been like historically, self-employed drivers are very much commonplace everywhere in the world. Millions of taxi drivers have been entrepreneurs in most countries. We have not changed that system. We enter a market and offer these drivers the chance to make a lot more money than they did previously. Instead of spending the day waiting for a fare in front of a hotel, they now get them digitally. We have seen tax receipts grow by leaps and bounds instead, because the taxi sector has been notorious for payment under the table. Every single Bolt fare is electronically registered today, all of our drivers are either self-employed persons, have limited companies or an entrepreneur account. It is all completely transparent digital commerce, and tax receipt is up considerably. We have introduced a lot of transparency to the sector and rather only positive change compared to a few decades ago.

Well, let's presume that someone comes to Estonia from a third country, such as Kyrgyzstan, registers as a self-employed person, works for Bolt and then leaves without paying a single cent in taxes. There is absolutely no way the Estonian Tax and Customs Board will be able to track them down.

The same risk exists in every sector. From where I'm standing, this risk is much lower in the taxi sector today thanks to us, because a driver has a digital account from day one, all of their fares are digitally registered, making them very easy for the tax authority to verify. This compared to many other sectors where a person can work without the Tax Board ever learning of it.

Even so, if you had to register everyone working for your platform as employees, it would cost you a lot more than the current system. That would in turn translate to higher prices and fewer fares.

There are several aspects. Firstly, there are plenty of sectors sporting such a format. It has been working for a 100 years in the taxi business. There are other sectors where people work as self-employed persons under various companies. Most of our drivers and couriers, around 90 percent of them prefer this option where they're completely free to work for who they want and when they want.

No one tells them that this is your shift, and you need to work from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. Friday night. They like having the freedom to decide. If a government told us that this doesn't work, that we'd need to hire them, we would be obligated to do so, but it would not be what our drivers and couriers prefer, nor would it sit well with our customers since we would have fewer drivers.

While you don't tell them they need to work from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m., you create conditions that motivate people to work these hours by paying more at certain times etc. In the end, the flow is managed.

It's minimal really. The philosophical side for us is that we try not to have an opinion of what the market should be doing. Our goal is for every customer to have access to a high-quality car and driver in five minutes. On the other hand, for our drivers to always have enough work. Our work is striking that balance. We aim our marketing activities and prices at meeting those two conditions simultaneously. In the end, the more turnover our platform sees, the more money we make as a company. Our interests clearly coincide with those of drivers here. The more money people spend on Bolt services, the better the company does.

For example, there was a wave of semi-public indignation this spring when a lot of drivers complained of their income having taken a nose dive because of new drivers on the platform. Such things will keep happening. And people who drive for the platforms have many more such risks compared to those who are employed.

Those are the sector's pros and cons. At the same time, looking at [drivers'] income in December, we hardly get any complaints, because drivers make a lot more during that period. This is followed by a slower period in spring where the number of drivers has grown, while demand falls off and drivers make less. Those are the advantages and disadvantages of working in the sector. It has been like that for decades. Should the government decide that things need to change and that we should hire everyone, companies like us will need to reorganize. But I see nothing fundamentally wrong with how things are. Our driver numbers are growing annually to suggest that it works for people.

I'm sure you're talking to the government and would not like legislation to move in that direction. Looking at the last few weeks' scandal, involving Ministry of Economic Affairs Undersecretary and former Bolt employee Sandra Särav, who helped your efforts while owning tens of thousands worth of undeclared Bolt share options and describing relations as friendly, did it surprise you that so much was made of it?

I do not know all the details since I was not directly involved, but it does seem surprising. Lobbying seems to be a relatively new concept in Estonia. Lobbying doesn't have to be a bad thing. It seems that most Estonians equate lobbying efforts with corruption, which is not how it works in most of Europe. When Mercedes-Benz or another major Western company talks to politicians to shape EU positions, it is considered entirely normal. For some reason, it comes as a major surprise and is considered a scandal in Estonia.

The reason it has been regarded as major scandal is that it did come as a surprise – it did not reflect in any database and no part of the correspondence has been made public. But is lobbying somehow fundamentally different in Estonia?

Not really. Of course, things need to be done right technically. That is why we have relevant laws for the process, what officials need to declare etc. That is their side of it and nothing we can affect at Bolt. They'll need to legally formalize their affairs. But looking at the meat of it, we have actually been positively surprised by the constructive attitudes of Estonian and Baltic politicians. We see that people are trying to do the right thing, find the best solution for all of society. They're willing to consult with and listen to companies. That is not always the case in some other European countries. It is obvious when people represent other private interests or oppose sensible proposals. We need to work a lot harder to be heard in those countries.

Could it be because Bolt is an Estonian company, that Estonian officials and politicians are more willing to hear you out?

We have not experienced this especially in Estonia. As I said, we see politicians being open and constructive in the Baltics and some other European countries, while they're less so in others. Rather, it boils down to individual people.

What about in Brussels?

It largely depends on who's in power. Regarding certain matters, they can come up with completely harebrained proposals, which have nothing to do with reality. There are times when they do not understand what they're trying to regulate or how it would turn out. But other times you see well thought-out and constructive proposals which would have a very positive effect. Everything depends on the matter at hand and the people involved.

What could be an example of a harebrained proposal from Brussels?

For example, the platform work regulation directive. We have been fighting against it for over two years. Looking at where it started, it was rather in left-leaning European countries, such as Spain and Italy, where they see platform work clash fundamentally with their whole worldview. They believe that such an enterprise-based sector should not exist at all and should be banned. And that the five million people who work in the sector in Europe should be reclassified as employees. Luckily, we managed to find likeminded countries in France and Germany who believe it is quite normal to have self-employed persons in some sectors who can choose who they work with and when. Estonia did not have a special place as the two leading European economies where in that fight with us.

With your brother, you've donated quite a lot of money to political parties in Estonia in recent years. It comes to around €220,000 euros in all, which may not be too much looking at parties' budgets, but is plenty considering the local culture. What have you gotten out of it or why have you been doing it?

Hopefully, we've managed to make donating to political parties more of a normality in Estonia. Similarly to attitudes concerning lobbying culture, a decade ago, people who donated to parties were seen as seeking services in return. As tech sector entrepreneurs, we found the situation abnormal. One should support political parties for ideological reasons and to better the Estonian society, not to get something in return. That is why we started with small donations at first to normalize the practice and for other entrepreneurs and individuals to realize that donating to parties and representing one's worldview is a normal thing to do from time to time.

The donations have mainly reached Eesti 200, Reform Party and the Social Democrats. Also Isamaa to a lesser extent. Does that betray a worldview?

To some extent. Others have also donated, and we'd have to ask every individual why they decided to support a given party. In my case, I saw them as parties representing an open Estonia, a digital society, which are values I care about.

Open Estonia and a digital society? What do these things mean for you?

Several aspects. First, if some parties say that e-voting is crooked, unsafe etc., then those are just plain lies which I oppose. I believe that Estonia is hugely successful because we've invested in our tech sector and especially IT. So such efforts to devalue and undermine it are just objectively harmful for Estonia.

Still, critics of e-voting would say that there is a reason such elections do not take place elsewhere in the world.

Yes. But I think it is an advantage where the rest of the world should emulate Estonia and not the other way around.

What about other ways in which Estonia should be open? I take it you are rather pro immigration?

I see that it needs to be controlled. We see that unlimited immigration is bad because it makes it impossible to integrate everyone, which will not end well for anyone. That said, we believe that importing top specialists with the potential of helping the Estonian economy grow and who absolutely will integrate should be encouraged. It has always been our position.

If you value a strong public education system, does that also mean you support a high level of public services and high taxes?

In some areas. Taxes need to come from where there's money. We cannot collect them from the lowest-paid people who are already struggling to cope with everyday life. On the other hand, we also need to consider where we spend the money. There are sensible investments and less sensible ones. Estonia has clearly been a success story in education. We top PISA tests. I can also rely on my experience here as I come from a less than wealthy family in Kuressaare. I had luck, managed to get into the best schools in Estonia, which has made me successful at developing Bolt. I got an excellent education in Estonia, and I believe every young person in Estonia should have that opportunity.

Does that mean wealthy people should pay more taxes than they do now?

Unless there is no other way, that is what needs to happen.

Would you prefer income, property or consumption taxes?

Analyses suggest consumption-based taxes tend to hit less fortunate people harder, which is why I'm more a proponent of income tax. It is also the course most Western European states have plotted.

But Estonia has much lower than average property taxes compared to Europe.

I have seen different analyses. There seem to be very few countries that can effectively handle property taxes, and most seem to be concentrating on income tax instead.

It's quite straightforward to calculate the value of a piece of real estate and tax it.

On the one hand, but tax policy makes for a very technical field where you need to look at the cost of administration, what can realistically be done and who will tend to scheme to try and avoid paying. You need to be careful with these things.

For example, looking at the car tax debate in Estonia, it seems to be going your company's way.

Pros and cons. On one hand, Bolt has the largest fleet of cars in Estonia. Our platform has 17,000 drivers and couriers, while Bolt Drive has over 1,000 rental cars. We will definitely be the biggest taxpayer indirectly once the car tax lands. On the other hand, I support the tax ideologically, because I see that most cities in the world, including Tallinn, are too car-centric. Most streets and our urban architecture is geared toward making it easy to get around by car. We often sacrifice the mobility of pedestrians and cyclists as a result. And I see this should change over time. Most citizens tend to support an urban environment with more greenery and ways for pedestrians to conveniently get around.

Does that mean that as mayor of Tallinn you would turn current four-lane roads into two-lane ones and line streets with new parks and groves?

Absolutely. I believe it is the right thing to do based on personal experience. There are several examples of it working well in Tallinn and other places. All studies say the same thing. A lot of cities in the world have done it in the last five years. Paris is among the most famous examples, drastically reducing car traffic in the city center in favor of bicycle and pedestrian paths. The decision has been hugely popular. Estonia could be inspired and experiment more boldly in this area.

The people in Paris are different from those in Estonia. If memory serves, Paris also threw out your scooters?

Not our scooters specifically. They simply decided not to allow rental scooters, which had nothing to do with Bolt.

Bolt was one company offering the service.

We had not been in Paris for years when they made that decision.

What about the scooter and mobility business in general? How much of your turnover comes from there?

It all depends on the city. We have places where we have more scooter rides than car rides, while we deliver more food than people in others. It all depends on various factors, such as local regulations, people's attitudes, the competition situation. But what I can say is that the taxi side of the business is still the biggest on the group level, and we're investing in our other products to have them reach the same level.

What is the significance of climate change and efforts to prevent it for you and Bolt?

It is extremely important. Both for me personally and increasingly, I believe, also for the business. First, thinking in the short term, it is clear there will be mounting regulation in Europe. For example, regulation is entering into force in Norway that requires our entire fleet to be electric. We won't be able to use internal combustion cars there anymore, meaning that thousands of our drivers will need new vehicles. This kind of regulation is happening all over Europe, and we must be ready for it.

On the other hand, as you said yourself, you indirectly operate a massive fleet. I believe the group's carbon footprint could be rather massive.

The question at the end of the days is what we compare it to. Yes, our platform caters to over two million drivers, meaning over two million cars, and that is a lot. But looking at cities, Bolt accounts for 4 percent of urban traffic on average. We are a relatively small piece of a much larger puzzle. Still, 90 percent of trips are made using privately owned cars.

Do you have indicators to show how much the availability of your rental cars affect the sale of cars in cities?

Yes, there have been many studies. At best, a single rental car can replace up to five private vehicles. It makes sense to me. Looking at Tallinn today, we are just getting started. We have added around 1,000 Bolt Drive rental cars, while Tallinn has more than quarter of a million privately owned cars. We are only getting started, while we can already hear people saying that Bolt Drive allowed them to give up their second car because they no longer need it every day.

How many Bolt rental cars could there be in a city the size of Tallinn?

Looking at examples from other countries, Tallinn could easily accommodate 10,000 or even 20,000 cars if we can replace five times the number of private vehicles. But it is not somethin we can do alone. It requires thinking through the entire transport system, including parking, public transport, light traffic etc. A lot of things need to be considered, while I see us having an ambitious and completely realistic plan.

That plan is to ultimately handle a considerable part of how Tallinners get around?

As much of it as possible. If we see that we can be more efficient than other modes of getting around, then everybody wins. Society wins and we win.

That said, moving people around in a bus is definitely more effective than using cars.

Absolutely. That is why we want public transport to do more than it has been doing. Unfortunately, statistics shows that use of public transport is down in Tallinn over the last ten years. We can speculate as to the reasons why, but we must invest to make a difference.

The trouble with companies like Bolt is that once they reach a certain size or achieve a local monopoly position, they tend to pay their suppliers very little, because they have nowhere else to go, while charging their customers a lot for the same reason. There comes a time when the company is really expected to make money. Should the people of Tallinn worry, seeing you go after such a large part of how they're supposed to get around? Will there be a time when renting a Bolt car or having a courier deliver your lunch will cost an arm and a leg?

We rather see it not as somethin we take, but as something Tallinners give us. If we do great work and create an excellent service, which thousands of citizens want to use, we'll need to earn their trust first. We have a lot of competitors. Looking at car rentals or the taxi service, we're so popular today because we offer a good service. Our customers have alternatives as soon as we stop doing that. Rather, we're quite paranoid today in terms of our ability to offer a good service and the level of competition. Looking at the United States, there are companies ten times our size, and they're not just sitting around either.

Those so-called good services are always dependent on the price at which they can be made available, and you've managed to offer a subsidized service so far. That is what your expansion is based on. Or are you turning a profit in Tallinn?

Usually, we invest in a city for the first three or four years after which the service becomes profitable. In a situation where we have been active in Tallinn for a decade, our services became profitable virtually in our second year. Talk of subsidization and somehow artificial market control is just uninformed. We have become more popular every year because we offer the best service in the city in terms of the combination of price, quality and availability. That is the reason we keep growing.

Do you keep an eye on other markets? If you see a similar transport platform gaining ground somewhere, do you immediately jump in?

We have to react. If a new market entry start aggressively slashing prices, we have to react, take steps, or we'll simply lose our customer base and market share.

Reversely, if you see an opportunity in a city or country to make a lot of money, will you go for it?

Absolutely. That is one of the main reasons we've been aggressively expanding in Western Europe over the last five years. Had we seen others doing a good job with little left for Bolt do achieve, we wouldn't have gone there. The reason we've expanded to Germany, France or London is that we see we can be better than the competition. We can offer better prices and quality, shorter waiting times and more money for drivers. We would have no reason for being there otherwise.

With all due respect, the business model doesn't seem that different from one platform to the next. How can one company have a markedly different expenses base than another?

You could say the same thing about most companies in most sectors. But small percentages make for big differences at the end of the day. No one expects the taxi business to be a high-margin business. The difference is whether you can turn a profit of 2 percent or 5 percent. It's 7 percent at best. We're not talking about soaring profit margins.

To what extent do you stay in touch with the competition?

We have very few reasons to get together. Sometimes it can be regulatory matters, provided we share the same position. But we can also take very different approaches to regulatory matters. But other than that, we don't see there is much to gain from working together, and it's rather a case of fierce competition.

What about warning competitors not to expand somewhere because there's no room?

That couldn't happen. First, we would get into a lot of trouble on the EU level, not to mention our competitors are listed U.S. companies and would be looking at billions of euros in fines.

Have you plans for the U.S. market?

We are looking at the entire world, including America. We have not decided on an expansion yet, but we're keeping our eyes open. If we see we can offer something the others can't, that is when we'll move in.

What about Asia?

The same goes for Asia. We stayed out for years because of fierce competition. Things have changed over the past two years as several players have merged, moved closer to monopolies and hiked prices. The drivers are not happy, the customers are not happy, and that is Bolt's opportunity.

A Chinese company used to own a stake in Bolt. Aren't you afraid of competing with them?

We won't be going to China. First, because of competition, but also because we see that for political reasons Western companies haven't been successful there, and most of them are ousted by the Chinese government. It is a risk we're not willing to take.

To what extent do you stay in touch with other IT companies in Estonia? Do you have a cooperation platform?

Absolutely. I have to admit that Estonia is one of the best places to build a tech company in those terms. We have a very positive local community of several hundred entrepreneurs and early employees of these companies who are extremely supportive. There are a few events every month where you can ask for advice, learn how others have built their companies, and I believe it is a big part of the reason we're seeing so many new companies. They see that they have a support network which just isn't there in other sectors.

How often do you receive a call from a young person who says they have an idea and a half-finished app they want you to take a look at?

Very often. Three or four times a week. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to reply to most such inquiries, but I try to point them in the direction of people who can help.

How often do such things come to something?

I have no statistics on hand. But it seems to me that entrepreneurs in Estonia often make the mistake of not closing shop when they should. Global statistics tells us that around 90 percent of startups get nowhere. This seems to be almost reversed in Estonia. When I look at companies that have been at it for a decade, that haven't gone far but refuse to give up, I sometimes wonder whether they'd be more successful now had they picked another field sooner. But there is this kind of Estonian tenacity, the feeling of not giving up, which keeps them going no matter how hard things get.

Do you believe more Estonian businesses should just pack it up?

If they see they've been at it for years, have run out of ideas and road, I don't believe there is any shame in admitting failure. You just need to pick another sector and start over.

When did you feel Bolt, Taxify or M-Takso had become successful?

I still don't feel that they have. I still feel that our ambition is far ahead of where we are. We are growing quickly and investing, but looking at where we want to go, we would like to be a hundred times bigger than we are today, not just ten times bigger, and that is what we are working toward every day.

We're talking turnover of €150-200 billion?

Exactly. Our ambition is to be among the largest companies in Europe, and we see that it is entirely realistic.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!