scooped some of these.
in summary, i am willing to take a gamble on this for the following reason:
1. no doubt revenue fell largely because of taxi segment, company is holding on to net cash segment so it gives them opportunity to pivot quickly (onto a correct strategy, i hope)
2. i do not take taxi but i do take grab/uber. i feel that most people are taking u/g because of the ridiculous $1/3/4 fares that can take you quite a distance. did you take taxi before u/g came in? . no doubt customers were lost but the impact has been lesser than what i expected. believe most people are like me in terms of u/g vs taxi mindset.
3. the problem is that u/g are stealing the cdg drivers and they are enjoying life under "no boss" and "drive as you like". but on those rare times i get subsidised taxi for work i do talk to the drivers and you will know they eventually come back to taxi because the fares are unsustainable. i myself drove u/g for a mth to understand the market and indeed i find that on my best nights it is still what i would class as a 'high risk low pay' job that eventually most drivers will also quit when they find a better out
4. u/g can burn cash but let's put it this way would you buy them if they go to an ipo? cdg is accountable to its shareholders so while i enjoy the cheap rides i do not want my investments to follow suit. the market is inverted now because sometimes even taking a grabshare for 2 is cheaper than a bus! this must eventually correct itself
5. so far u/g is messing on 'gov turf' and all it takes for gov to ensure they keep their own cdg alive is to implement 2 likely laws: 1. drivers above 30; 2. fares must follow standard taxi fares. uber is already being squeezed out by aggressive grab marketing and fares i see the end point as grab and taxi to co-exist. they will not implement standard fare now because they will not want to save uber who is an 'outsider'. once uber is out, and if fares are standard one day, will you take phv or taxi?
just my 2 cents. keeping this for the very long run.