Soham Parekh, a software developer from India, has recently become popular for working at at least 10 startups at the same time. This became known after company executives started talking about him on social media, writes CNBC.
At least 10 tech executives have publicly said they hired Parekh in recent weeks, only to be quickly fired after the public outcry. It all started with the CEO of analytics startup Mixpanel, who on Wednesday decided to warn his colleagues about Parekh, who was trying to work for multiple companies at once.
“PSA: there’s a guy named Soham Parekh (in India) who works at 3-4 startups at the same time. He’s been preying on YC companies and more. Beware.I fired this guy in his first week and told him to stop lying / scamming people. He hasn’t stopped a year later. No more excuses,” the executive’s post reads.
More people started sharing their experiences with Parekh in the comments. Some said they had only recently hired him, but had immediately cut off all contact with him after hearing such comments. Others said they had only recently interviewed him.
Later, the guy himself began giving interviews about the whole situation. He said that he was prompted to take such actions by a difficult financial situation, and that he had to spend many sleepless nights working at several startups.
“I’m not proud of what I’ve done. That’s not something that I endorse, either. But, you know, financial circumstances, essentially. No one really likes to work 140 hours a week, right? But I had to do this out of necessity. I was in extremely dire financial circumstances,” Parekh says.
One of Parekh’s former employers at Normic AI said that the guy worked at most four startups at a time, where he sometimes received a six-figure salary. According to his estimates, he could earn $30-40 thousand per month. Parekh himself said that he began to get a job at several companies at the same time in 2022.
Trillions of pounds worth of assets are managed by London’s listed investment houses. Their purpose is to deliver financial security for clients by growing and preserving the value of their capital.
Larger managers, such as Legal & General, Aberdeen, M&G and Schroders, offer access to a wide range of asset classes and geographies, can handle the largest mandates and tend to focus on mainstream markets.
Smaller players offer distinctive investment approaches and niche and specialist options for diversification, often catering to wealthy individuals with an appetite for impact investing or risk, or who carry tax burdens that are suitable for easing through venture capital trusts and enterprise investment schemes. These enable investors to earn tax breaks in return for providing capital to young British companies.
Among these smaller managers are Polar Capital, whose offering includes technology, scientific and financial funds. Foresight specialises in infrastructure and private equity opportunities that can help tackle climate change, and Liontrust with its range of funds focused on sustainability. A clue as to what makes Mercia Asset Management stand out is in the name of its range of VCTs: Northern.
This manager steers clear of overfished London and south-east England, preferring to find opportunities in regional towns and cities — 80 per cent of its investment activity is outside south-east England — where it can identify and support high-growth, ambitious businesses on attractive valuations, and which meet its impact and socially responsible requirements.
Investing in niche areas and cutting-edge smaller companies is not without its risks, and while there is demand in the market for differentiation and diversification in terms of strategies and processes, good performance is essential to keeping fund flows and management fees coming in.
BUY: Mercia Asset Management (MERC)
Inflows accelerated in the final quarter, writes Mark Robinson.
Mercia Asset Management slipped back into the black at its March year-end, as the specialist asset manager increased its cash margin. Performance was aided by economies of scale, and evidenced by a 390 basis point rise in the adjusted margin to 22.1 per cent.
It’s too early to judge whether this vindicates the “Mercia 27”, a 100 per cent growth target, as it was only outlined a year ago. But the scaling of the fund management business is under way, and it wouldn’t be fanciful to suggest that Mercia has already made strides to meet its Ebitda target of £10mn by full-year 2027.
The group realised a fair-value loss of £300,000 in the period, against a £4.5mn gain in the previous year, though fair-value movements strengthened appreciably in regard to unrealised assets. In contrast to many industry peers, Mercia increased its third-party funds under management (FUM) by around 10 per cent on an organic basis to £1.8bn, with no redemptions recorded. Venture FUM rose by 1.6 per cent to £928mn.
Meanwhile, the direct investment portfolio’s fair-value assessment stood at £126mn, against £117mn last time around. Management intends to offload about 70 per cent of these direct investments over the next couple of years, so exit activity is set to rise in the near term. Some mandates are moving into the realisation phase within its equity and debt funding businesses.
The bulk of the inflows were recorded in the final quarter of its financial year. They reflected both existing mandates and new fund management contracts. The period also saw successful Venture Capital Trust and Enterprise Investment Scheme fundraisings. Given the timing, it is unlikely that the related impact of the inflows on revenues is fully reflected in these figures.
Mercia’s ability to rejig its business focus is aided by an unencumbered balance sheet. And a number of funding rounds were completed following the period end. The group carries no debt and exited full-year 2025 with £39.3mn in net cash. This has underpinned a 5 per cent increase in the proposed final dividend, along with the commencement of an annual share buyback policy of up to £3.0mn.
It’s a niche offering for investors: venture capital funding, private equity and debt finance to high-growth regional UK small and medium-sized enterprises. Consequently, sell-side coverage is limited, but Mercia trades on a 45 per cent discount to the consensus target price, and by 23 per cent to net assets, giving rise to a price/book ratio of 0.7 times. We maintain that Mercia is undervalued, or maybe unfairly overlooked.
BUY: Currys (CURY)
The electronics retailer’s turnaround strategy is paying off despite ongoing cost pressures, writes Valeria Martinez.
Currys is showing why it was the right call to push back against Elliott Management’s takeover approach last year. The once-struggling retailer has turned a corner, with chief executive Alex Baldock’s turnaround plan starting to deliver. A sharp rise in free cash flow and profits has allowed the group to reinstate its dividend after a two-year break.
While the company is still dealing with cost pressures, from high inflation to rising national insurance contributions, it has done a decent job of managing them so far. Another £32mn in annual costs is expected from last year’s Autumn Budget, but Currys plans to offset this by cutting central costs and automating and offshoring parts of the business.
Helpfully, demand has been resilient despite the wider economic backdrop. UK and Ireland like-for-like sales rose 4 per cent in the year to May 3, with operating profits up 8 per cent to £153mn. Margins held steady at 2.9 per cent.
A growing focus for Currys is more profitable revenue streams, such as credit, repairs and connectivity services. These so-called “solution” sales rely less on one-off product purchases and tend to deliver better margins. Revenue from these areas rose 9 per cent to £814mn last year, and Panmure Liberum estimates they now make up 28 per cent of UK and Ireland revenue.
Net cash stood at £184mn at the year end, excluding leases and pensions. When accounting for a £103mn pension deficit, the net position is now £81mn, which Panmure Liberum analyst Wayne Brown said is £901mn better than six years ago. “The prospects for buybacks this year are very real,” he said, though they are likely to hinge on the outcome of the pension triennial review due later this year.
The shares are up more than 70 per cent over the past year, yet still trade at just 11.4 times forward earnings. That’s well below their five-year average of 31.7 times.
Good farm gate prices this year for all agricultural products has meant a decent profit harvest for suppliers to the industry. Feed and equipment supplier Wynnstay has reaped the benefit, reporting the same amount of profit in its first-half results as it managed for the whole of last year.
The half-year results are typically the highest point in the company’s annual working capital cycle as it stockpiles products in advance of the spring planting season. This meant the company’s business segments in fact reflected the vagaries of the preceding season.
For instance, feed and grain revenue more than doubled to £900,000, but grain trading was down 13 per cent as the poor harvest in 2024 worked its way through the supply system. In the meantime, the company sold off its Twyford mill and has outsourced milling for its poultry feed.
Arable profits tripled to £1.4mn on the back of better fertiliser prices and favourable spring planting conditions. Meanwhile, the company’s network of 51 stores generated a higher profit of £3.1mn with both footfall and margins remaining stable.
The company is midway through project Genesis, which is its plan to simplify the business and improve returns on capital consistently across the group and to invest where supply is constrained — Wynnstay’s investment in a new fertiliser facility in Avonmouth is part of this strategy.
Wynnstay’s shares have started to recover after a rocky couple of years. The price/earnings ratio of 13.6 for this year reflects its gradual reorganisation. However, until there is evidence of margin improvement, we remain cautious.
(Bloomberg) — US stock futures retreated Friday as American trade partners pushed for concessions ahead of a July 9 deadline to finalize trade deals with the Trump administration.
Contracts for the US benchmark fell 0.6% after the gauge ended the trading week at a fresh all-time high. US President Donald Trump dialed up trade tensions after Thursday’s close, warning partners he may start setting levies of as much as 70% unilaterally as soon as today.
With less than a week to go before the deadline, European Union carmakers and capitals were pushing for an agreement that would allow for tariff relief in return for increasing US investments, Bloomberg News reported. Meanwhile, a draft US-Swiss trade accord contained assurances about tariffs on pharma exports, according to people familiar with the matter.
Europe’s Stoxx 600 closed 0.5% lower, recovering from a steeper intraday decline. Gold rose 0.3% as investors sought havens. The dollar dipped. US stock and Treasury markets were closed for the July 4 holiday.
Equity markets have rallied sharply since April’s tariff-driven volatility, partly fueled by the ongoing strength of the US economy. Still, some investor caution lingers as the trade war continues to cloud the outlook for inflation and corporate profitability.
“There’s a little bit of doubt creeping in, especially after the bump up this week,” said Neil Wilson, investor strategist at Saxo UK. “Today’s a good day to take a little bit of risk off. But I don’t think there’s a fundamental shift, it’s all on the margins at the moment.”
What Markets Live Strategists Say:
“It would take a shocking set of trade outcomes to overwhelm the slew of good news we’ve recently had. All the more so, given that the bullishness of institutional investors has been tempered by constant threats, leaving them relatively underexposed to a market at record highs.”
— Mark Cudmore, Markets Live Executive Editor
The S&P 500’s surge has put it on the verge of triggering a sell signal, according to Michael Hartnett of Bank of America Corp.
The strategist advised that investors consider trimming their holdings once the index climbs beyond 6,300, a level just 0.3% above where it closed on Thursday. He also reiterated that bubble risks are mounting into the summer, especially following the House’s approval of a $3.4 trillion fiscal package featuring tax cuts.
“Overbought markets can stay overbought as greed is harder to conquer than fear,” Hartnett wrote in a note.
UK gilts resumed their slide after a selloff on Wednesday that was driven by fiscal concerns. The yield on 10-year UK government debt advanced two basis points to 4.56%, compared with 4.45% at the close on Tuesday. The pound was flat.
In signs of diplomatic and trade tensions escalating between China and the EU, Beijing said it intends to cancel part of a two-day summit with EU leaders planned for later this month. China also imposed anti-dumping duties on European brandy for five years, while exempting major cognac makers that meet a price commitment.
In commodities, oil dropped in the lead-up to an OPEC+ meeting that’s set to deliver another oversized production hike, threatening to swell a glut forecast for later this year.
Corporate Highlights:
President Donald Trump’s administration plans to restrict shipments of AI chips from the likes of Nvidia Corp. to Malaysia and Thailand, part of an effort to crack down on suspected semiconductor smuggling into China.
India’s regulator has temporarily barred Jane Street Group LLC from accessing the local securities market, dealing a severe hit to the US firm that allegedly made $4.3 billion in trading gains in the South Asian nation in less than two years.
French train maker Alstom SA has won a €2 billion ($2.4 billion) order from New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is in the process of modernizing its fleet.
Frasers Group Plc warned Hugo Boss AG it will vote against any dividends, as the British retailer owned by billionaire Mike Ashley exerts its influence after years of building a stake in the German fashion house.
Airlines across Europe have canceled hundreds of flights on the second day of an air traffic controllers’ strike in France that’s causing chaos just as the busiest travel season of the year gets underway.
Banco Sabadell SA has called two shareholders meetings as it seeks to approve an extraordinary dividend after agreeing to sell it’s UK unit — part of its broader attempt to block a takeover by larger rival BBVA SA.
Country Garden Holdings Co.’s sales slid again in June, with the developer faring worse than peers, as a lack of policy support dampened demand.
Some of the main moves in markets:
Stocks
S&P 500 futures fell 0.6% as of 2:08 p.m. New York time
Futures on the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 0.6%
The MSCI World Index was little changed
The MSCI Asia Pacific Index fell 0.3%
The MSCI Emerging Markets Index fell 0.5%
Ibovespa rose 0.4% to a record high
S&P/BMV IPC was little changed
Currencies
The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index fell 0.1%
The euro rose 0.2% to $1.1775
The British pound was little changed at $1.3649
The Japanese yen rose 0.3% to 144.50 per dollar
The offshore yuan was little changed at 7.1658 per dollar
The Mexican peso was little changed at 18.6343
Cryptocurrencies
Bitcoin slipped 1.9%, more than any closing loss since June 22
Ether slipped 4.1%, more than any closing loss since June 22
Bonds
The yield on 10-year Treasuries was little changed at 4.35%
Germany’s 10-year yield was little changed at 2.61%
Britain’s 10-year yield advanced one basis point to 4.55%
Commodities
West Texas Intermediate crude fell 0.7%, more than any closing loss since June 24
Spot gold rose 0.3% to $3,337.39 an ounce
This story was produced with the assistance of Bloomberg Automation.
Physicians’ preferences for third-line treatment options in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany were primarily influenced by expected improvements in overall survival (OS), 3-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates, and the risk of grade 3 or higher neutropenia, according to findings from a survey shared during the 2025 ESMO Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress.¹ However, respondents indicated a willingness to place less emphasis on potential OS gains in favor of avoiding treatment-related toxicity risk or regimens with a higher treatment burden.
On average, physicians in Germany (n = 81) and the UK (n = 75) most frequently rated OS as the most important of the 8 attributes to improve (Germany, 1.8; UK, 2.0), followed by 3-month PFS rate (3.1; 3.2), grade 3 or higher neutropenia (3.7; 3.8), grade 3 or higher hand-foot syndrome (4.6; 5.5), all-grade diarrhea (4.6; 4.7), and all-grade fatigue (5.5; 5.0). Hypertension less than grade 3 (6.3; 6.2) or mode of administration (5.6; 6.5) were the lowest-ranked attributes in both countries, although mode of administration was ranked higher by UK vs German physicians.
Survey results also showed that a minimum additional OS benefit was required for physicians to accept a 10% increase in treatment-related risks or switch to a less desirable regimen. Physicians in Germany and the UK necessitated a 1.1-month and 1.3-month increase in OS, respectively, to accept treatment with a 10% increase in the risk of grade 3 or higher hand-foot syndrome. Similarly, to accept a twice-daily treatment regimen of 3 oral pills and an intravenous infusion every 2 weeks vs a regimen comprising 2 oral pills once daily, physicians in Germany and the UK required 1.1-month and 2.5-month increases in OS, respectively.
Regarding the management of adverse effects, most physicians in Germany and the UK reported being somewhat or very comfortable managing toxicities such as any-grade diarrhea (91.3%; 85.3%), grade 3 or higher neutropenia (91.4%; 78.7%), and less than grade 3 hypertension (93.8%; 82.7%). Additionally, approximately half of physicians were somewhat or very comfortable managing grade 3 or higher hand-foot disease (61.7%; 61.3%) and any-grade fatigue (48.2%; 60.0%).
“These findings indicate that physicians require survival gains to accept increased toxicity or more burdensome treatment regimens, such as those requiring IV administration” presenting author Ashley Geiger, PhD, associate director of Oncology Patient-Centered Outcomes at Takeda, and coauthors wrote in a poster presentation of the data.“[They also] highlight the importance of accounting for physicians’ preferences when developing new treatments, to support alignment with clinical decision-making and real-world treatment considerations.”
Survey Design and Physician Characteristics
The current third-line or later treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are associated with modest survival benefits, typically extending OS by approximately 2 to 3 months. However, the toxicity profiles of these regimens vary significantly, posing challenges in balancing survival gains with treatment-related risks and quality-of-life considerations during clinical decision-making.
To better characterize the factors influencing treatment selection, investigators conducted a survey to assess how specific treatment attributes affect physicians’ preferences for third-line mCRC therapies in Germany and the UK.
The study comprised oncologists and gastroenterologists who had self-reported treating 10 or more patients in the last year. Physicians were recruited through established panels. Of the 156 physicians who completed the survey, the majority were male (Germany, 80.2%; UK, 80.0%). Medical oncologists were the most represented medical specialty across both countries (86.4%; 82.7%) followed by gastroenterologists (22.2%; 20.0%) and radiation oncologists (3.7%; 16.0%). In Germany, 87.7% of physicians surveyed had treated 20 or more patients with mCRC in the last year, and 39.5% had 20 or more patients who mCRC who received third-line treatment in the past year. For UK physicians, these respective percentages were 90.7% and 46.7%.
Upon recruitment, physicians completed a survey of multidimensional thresholding exercises, including 2 attribute ranking exercises and a thresholding exercise consisting of 13 to 15 paired treatment comparison tasks. Treatment attributes were determined according to a targeted review of scientific literature and clinical data, patient engagement, and pilot interviews with both patients and physicians.
In the attribute-ranking exercise, physicians ranked each of the 8 identified attributes in order or most (1st place) to least (8th place) important to improve. In the thresholding exercise, which was constructed according to individual attribute rankings, physicians chose their preferred treatment through a series of paired comparison tasks. Preferences were examined through the ranking of attributes of importance and trade-offs they would be willing to make between these characteristics. These assessments were followed by sociodemographic and medical practice-related questions.
Data were subsequently analyzed using a Dirichlet regression model, and marginal rates of substitution were calculated to quantify physicians’ willingness to accept treatment-related risks in exchange for benefits.
“Future studies should explore how these treatment attributes influence patients’ preferences,” Geiger and colleagues wrote in their conclusion.
Disclosures: Geiger disclosed full or part-time employment; receiving institutional sponsorship/funding from; and having personal stock/shares in Takeda.
Reference
Geiger A, Michaels-Igbokwe C, Hernandez L, et al. Physicians’ preferences for later-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Germany and the UK. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Gastrointestinal Cancers Congress; July 2-5, 2025; Barcelona, Spain. Abstract 67P.
On June 19 2025, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published guidance on the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA), which received Royal Assent on the same day. The DUAA introduces significant changes to the UK data protection and data sharing regimes, including to the UK GDPR, the DPA 2018, and PECR.
Guidance
To support the transition, the ICO has published a range of guidance and resources for organisations, law enforcement agencies, data protection experts, and the public. These include:
An overview of the DUAA for organisations, which summarises the changes relevant to organisations, and outlines (in the ICO’s view) how the DUAA could help such organisations to innovate – in particular, calling out the changes to research provisions, automated decision-making, and cookie rules.
An overview of the DUAA for law enforcement agencies – in particular, highlighting a new national security exemption and new provisions applicable to joint processing when working with intelligence services.
An overview of the DUAA for data protection experts and other practitioners (including DPOs and people with data protection responsibilities). This overview outlines the specific changes to the UK data protection and e-privacy regime, as well as the reforms to the structure and powers of the ICO.
The ICO notes that implementation of the DUAA will be phased, with most provisions expected to come into force within two to six months of Royal Assent, though some may take up to a year. The ICO encourages organisations to: (i) familiarise themselves with the changes, including by considering the ICO’s new guidance; (ii) consider children’s needs when processing personal data when offering an online service to children (to reflect the new explicit requirement, and in line with the ICO’s existing Children’s code); and (iii) prepare to handle complaints (in accordance with the new complaints procedure requirement).
ICO regulatory approach
Due to the phased implementation of the DUAA, the ICO has also published commentary clarifying its intended regulatory approach (including to enforcement) during the transition period. For example, the ICO notes that it may exercise discretion when considering regulatory action for alleged non-compliance with provisions under existing legislation, if such provisions will be removed, amended or replaced by the DUAA. Key points from the ICO’s commentary include:
The ICO will exercise discretion: The ICO states it will make judgment calls on whether to proceed with enforcement under the previous or updated regime if there is on-going non-compliance – “In some cases, we will need to exercise our discretion when considering regulatory action on alleged non-compliance with an existing provision under the data protection legislation which is going to be removed, amended or replaced with a similar provision under the DUAA. We will make a judgement on whether to proceed with regulatory action under the old provision or, where there is ongoing non-compliance, consider action under the new provisions.”
The ICO will consider contemporaneous guidance (when assessing non-compliance): “When considering regulatory action on the DUAA’s new provisions, we will consider the ICO guidance available to organisations at the time of the alleged non-compliance.”
The ICO will publish further guidance: The ICO confirms it plans to publish new and updated guidance to reflect the DUAA, and that it will identify the nature, scope, and timeline of such guidance on the ICO’s new dedicated planned guidance page (available here).
The ICO will conduct public consultations on new powers: The ICO notes that the DUAA provides the ICO with enhanced powers, such as the power to compel witnesses to attend interviews, request technical reports, and issue larger fines for breaches under PECR (up to a maximum of £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover, whichever higher). The ICO confirms that, as it is required to produce statutory guidance on such powers, it will launch public consultations on such guidance closer to the commencement of the relevant DUAA provisions.
ICO reform
Under the DUAA, the ICO will be restructured to align with the approach taken by other UK regulators. The future Information Commission will comprise a board of non-executive directors and a CEO, chaired by John Edwards (current Information Commissioner). On June 30 2025, the ICO announced Paul Arnold as being the first CEO of the future Information Commission.
The ICO’s press release and overview of its new and updated guidance is available here. For a high-level overview of the DUAA, please also see the A&O Shearman blog post here.
It is a rare sight for a corporation to act out of sheer benevolence, and rarer still when that corporation operates in the fiercely competitive, tightly regulated, and cash-strapped confines of Pakistan’s auto industry.
In a market where margins are thin, customer bases are limited, and price sensitivity is razor-sharp, altruism tends to take a back seat to survival. So, when Sazgar Engineering proudly announced that it would keep prices unchanged for its Haval lineup despite the post-budget tax shock, it was marketed as a gesture of goodwill. However, beneath the surface of the PR glitter, it is clear as day that this was not charity—it was chess. With Hyundai undercutting the market through aggressive pricing on the new Tucson, and Kia forced to follow suit, Sazgar found itself on the defensive. The only move left was to hold ground—freeze prices not to pamper the consumer, but to preserve market relevance.
The chess of SUV-pricing
Earlier this year when the 2025 Haval H6 facelift was announced in all the three variants, namely the 1.5T, the 2.0T and the H6 HEV, the company did not give it a price bump over the previous price, despite the car boasting a redesigned grill, LEDs, 14.6″ touchscreen, upgraded steering wheel, hybrid engine etc. The market hailed this as a highly altruistic decision lauding Haval for being considerate unlike other companies. But when the bar has been in the gutter in an industry for so many years, anything can be spun off as a relief for the consumer.
But the question remains, why did Sazgar not raise the prices? Sazgar Engineering’s decision to maintain ex-factory prices for the facelifted Haval H6 wasn’t a gift—it was a calculated competitive move.
Because at the time, rival Hyundai had just launched the new Tucson aggressively priced, undercutting competition with one clean sweep.
This forced Kia to respond with a price cut. In this war, Haval couldn’t risk losing share therefore it had to keep its price the same and therefore somewhat competitive. Meanwhile Haval’s premium hybrid variant the Haval H6 HEV was already a price outlier, a car priced at Rs 11.7 million, higher than the competition, making relative positioning critical.
In fact, a lot of consumers believed that the Haval H6 2.0T, was also slightly overpriced at around Rs 10.5 million being a non-hybrid vehicle. Making only the Haval 1.5T, priced at just under Rs. 9.1 million, a competitive option.
Another reason why Sazgar did not reduce its prices was that reducing a car’s price often comes with the added weight of perception and future expectation. Perception, while not such a big motivator for globally established brands like KIA, is the trump card for a novel brand like Haval. Had Sazgar reduced its price at the time, not only would it have harmed its perception but also the trust of its existing costumers.
A price decrease means an even higher fall in value in the secondary market, i.e; the used car market. In a country like Pakistan where a car is often times (though fallaciously) bought as a store of value, a fall in a car’s “resale value” creates a domino affect for that company’s brand value. So in introducing the newer model in the same price, Sazgar essentially cashed the opportunity to decrease its price without effectively having to decrease its prices at all.
The move worked, in May 2025, right after the facelift launch, the company’s four-wheeler sales went up by 67%, to 919 units and in June, the company saw yet another 47% increase taking its monthly sales to over 1300 units.
Why no hike now?
But after absorbing the shock once, one would believe that the company would increase the prices now, as the government rolls out the NEV (New Energy Vehicle) Adoption Levy Act, 2025—effectively introducing fresh taxes on vehicles. Yet this is where the game of chess really starts for Sazgar.
As the tax was announced Kia was the first to react, promptly raising prices and passing the burden directly onto consumers, since it had already been too reactive to Tuscon’s price in April. Hyundai, though still silent, is widely expected to follow suit given the mounting cost pressures and thinning margins in an already saturated and competitive C-SUV segment.
Haval, however, has chosen the same unorthodox route. Rather than hike prices, Sazgar—the local assembler of Haval vehicles—has strategically held prices steady, employing, once again, the same strategy it did when introducing the facelift.
In doing so, it has seized this unique moment to reposition its lineup. The move gives the hybrid and 2.0T variants a newfound price advantage relative to the competition, while turning the facelifted 1.5T into perhaps the most value-packed budget C-segment SUV in the market.
With a single, calculated step, Sazgar has effectively turned the tables—forcing pricing teams at Hyundai Nishat and Kia Lucky to return to the drawing board. For now, the pricing war has a new frontrunner.
It also reinforces one’s belief that in auto‑retail, maintaining prices amid rising costs isn’t benevolence—it’s business warfare disguised as consumer kindness and anyone who lags behind, might possibly stay behind for a while.
