Czyli może być dobrze a może i nie...Gett chose to focus on growth in its current markets because entering new markets incurs high expenses for marketing and for attractive offers to drivers. There is no reason that Gett should not succeed in this, because it is very difficult to topple a company that leads in each of its markets. This means, however, that Gett's growth potential is limited.
Investors are expressing concern about Uber and Lyft's respective annual burn rates of $3.7 billion and $900 million. In a different world and a different market, Gett's profit strategy could help it with investors in the public market, but it only seems that way. In practice, investors prefer rapid growth, even at the expense of the bottom line. At Amazon, it worked for years. The reason that investors are worried about Uber, which likes to call itself the "Amazon of transportation," is the stubborn competition in the market, which threatens all of the companies in it. Amazon never had to face such competition; it posed a threat to the conventional retailers.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-afte ... 1001285468Another element to be taken into account is the likelihood of Gett attaining a high company value in an IPO, especially in view of the disappointments of Uber and Lyft and in general, those of unicorns that failed to obtain a high value in their offerings. If the two companies' share prices do not recover, Gett is unlikely to provide a positive surprise. In any case, the company took a risk by foregoing any attempt to grab shares in new markets, in the hope that its new growth engines will compensate for it. The ideal scenario of the company's managers is unclear, but it can be said that it will be difficult to achieve.
tak jak pisałem kilka postów wcześniej. Młoddy z tym GETTem różnie może jeszcze być więc pułkowniku nie licz jeszcze tych 3-4mld$