Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicAt 17.5x earnings — a 73% discount to the sector average of 65.0x — UBER is in the lower valuation range. Financial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 3.5. DCF fair value of $130 implies 80% upside from current prices based on model assumptions.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company's capital allocation efficiency currently lags, evidenced by an ROIC of 10.0% falling short of the 11.8% cost of equity, resulting in a negative spread that erodes long-term shareholder value despite robust operational leverage. The elevated DuPont ROE of 35.8% is primarily engineered through high financial leverage (2.20x) and exceptional net margins (19.3%), rather than superior asset turnover or margin expansion alone. While the Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 suggests moderate fundamental strength, the Altman Z-Score of 3.7 indicates a safe zone regarding bankruptcy risk, yet the Beneish M-Score of -2.31 flags low earnings manipulation probability, creating a mixed picture where high profitability masks inefficient capital deployment relative to industry peers.
Valuation metrics present a significant divergence between current pricing and intrinsic value models. Trading at 15.2x forward earnings, which appears compressed compared to the implied growth trajectory in the DCF model, suggests the market may be underweighting future cash flow potential. The DCF fair value estimate of $129 implies substantial upside relative to current levels, driven by an assumed long-term free cash flow growth rate of 7.0%. However, this optimistic valuation premise must be weighed against specific factor tilts; the negative Profitability Factor (RMW) score of -0.739 and Growth tilt in Value Factor (HML) indicate that traditional risk models view the stock as overvalued or lacking sustainable profitability characteristics relative to its sector peers.
Risk-adjusted return profiles reveal conflicting signals regarding future performance. The Fama-French Alpha of 12.15% annually suggests strong historical outperformance after adjusting for market, size, and value factors, yet recent insider activity shows $633,825 in net selling over the last 90 days, potentially signaling management caution near current price levels. Investors must reconcile the high implied growth assumptions embedded in the DCF with the weak profitability factor score and negative ROIC spread to determine if the current valuation adequately compensates for these fundamental headwinds or if the market is pricing in a reversion to mean regarding capital efficiency.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
Interactive5-year two-stage DCF. Terminal growth 3%. Default sliders match the pre-computed base case. Drag to explore scenarios. Not investment advice.
The growth rate the market implicitly expects over the next 10 years to justify today's price. Compare with historical growth of 18% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 9.7% | 11.7% | 13.7% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $155 | $119 | $96 |
| 3% | $174 | $130 | $103 |
| 4% | $200 | $144 | $112 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $71.62.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=11.7%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $130 (+80.2%). Not investment advice.
Valuation Context
Currently trading 26% above its 5-year average P/E of 11.8x.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition
Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.
Balance Sheet Health
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
Earnings Surprise History
EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Max drawdown = largest peak-to-trough decline. 1,200+ trading days.
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the stock's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Fama-French 5-Factor Exposure
Academic factor model decomposition — what's really driving this stock's returns.
Fama-French 5-Factor Model. Data: Kenneth French Data Library. Regression over 3 years of daily returns.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like XLI or IYC, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell UBER shares regardless of Uber Technologies, Inc.'s individual fundamentals. We estimate $17.3B of passive capital is structurally linked to UBER through 8 tracked ETFs. This substantial passive exposure means that ETF inflows and outflows — not company fundamentals — can dominate daily volume on this stock.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 8 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in Uber Technologies, Inc. to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Amazon.com Inc (AMZN) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with UBER. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 28 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
UBER Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 8 UBER shares, reducing daily market volatility.
Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 2.9% of the State Street Industrial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLI) and 2.5% of the IYC (IYC). Across 28 tracked ETFs, approximately 244M shares (12.0% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. This level of passive ownership means index rebalances can create outsized volume events.
ETFs with Highest UBER Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 28 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
UBER Institutional Volume Profile
252-day volume distribution by price level. The Point of Control (POC) marks — the price where the most institutional volume transacted — an implicit support/resistance floor.
The highest-volume price zone for Uber Technologies, Inc. over the past year sits near $74.33 (10% of 252-day volume). The current price of $71.62 sits 3.6% below the POC — suggesting potential mean-reversion upside if institutional demand reasserts at this level.
Volume Profile computed from 252 trading days of OHLCV data. Volume allocated to price bins proportionally based on daily high-low range. Not investment advice.
UBER Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Uber Technologies, Inc. convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Uber Technologies, Inc. converts 140% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-1.7%), suggesting reinvested capital is destroying shareholder value.
Capital efficiency = Free Cash Flow ÷ EBITDA. Reinvestment = (EBITDA − FCF) ÷ EBITDA. Metrics from latest annual filings. Not investment advice.
Fails-to-Deliver (FTD) History
SEC-reported settlement failures. Elevated FTDs can indicate high short-selling pressure, operational settlement issues, or naked shorting activity.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-11 | 26,881 | $75.45 | $2.0M |
| 2026-05-07 | 17,054 | $79.17 | $1.4M |
| 2026-05-06 | 608,268 | $72.95 | $44.4M |
| 2026-05-04 | 1,700 | $75.12 | $127,704 |
| 2026-04-29 | 5,142 | $74.11 | $381,073.62 |
| 2026-04-27 | 100 | $74.64 | $7,464 |
| 2026-04-24 | 698 | $74.70 | $52,140.6 |
| 2026-04-22 | 13,283 | $77.26 | $1.0M |
| 2026-04-20 | 15,621 | $77.12 | $1.2M |
| 2026-04-17 | 57,878 | $76.48 | $4.4M |
| 2026-04-15 | 15,329 | $72.91 | $1.1M |
| 2026-04-14 | 55 | $72.34 | $3,978.7 |
| 2026-04-10 | 42,477 | $71.81 | $3.1M |
| 2026-04-08 | 1 | $71.73 | $71.73 |
| 2026-04-07 | 2,487 | $72.17 | $179,486.79 |
| 2026-04-06 | 13,008 | $71.84 | $934,494.72 |
| 2026-03-31 | 110 | $69.91 | $7,690.1 |
| 2026-03-30 | 793 | $69.18 | $54,859.74 |
| 2026-03-27 | 44 | $70.55 | $3,104.2 |
| 2026-03-26 | 3,500 | $73.08 | $255,780 |
| 2026-03-25 | 16,336 | $72.34 | $1.2M |
| 2026-03-24 | 2,125 | $75.12 | $159,630 |
| 2026-03-23 | 1,000 | $73.89 | $73,890 |
| 2026-03-17 | 257,539 | $74.66 | $19.2M |
| 2026-03-16 | 5,800 | $73.33 | $425,314 |
| 2026-03-10 | 20,679 | $73.84 | $1.5M |
| 2026-03-09 | 200 | $75.13 | $15,026 |
| 2026-03-05 | 1,723 | $76.65 | $132,067.95 |
| 2026-03-04 | 2,835 | $76.36 | $216,480.6 |
| 2026-03-02 | 2,121 | $75.42 | $159,965.82 |
Source: SEC Regulation SHO FTD data. Data is reported with a ~30 day delay. High FTD quantities relative to average daily volume may indicate settlement stress.
Price Correlations
Statistical correlation of daily returns with other stocks. High correlations indicate stocks that move together; negative correlations can offer diversification.
| Peer | 252-Day (1Y) | 126-Day (6M) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| WTGXX | NaN | NaN | |
| DASH | 0.461 | 0.408 | Moderate |
| HOOD | 0.376 | 0.366 | Moderate |
| ACHR | 0.374 | 0.362 | Moderate |
| CDNS | 0.356 | 0.392 | Moderate |
| SHOP | 0.356 | 0.399 | Moderate |
| MCHP | 0.353 | 0.381 | Moderate |
| SARO | 0.352 | 0.377 | Moderate |
| TRMB | 0.351 | 0.337 | Moderate |
| COIN | 0.349 | 0.333 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare UBER to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
SecuritiesDB provides programmatic data aggregation for informational purposes only. None of the metrics, summaries, or algorithmic flags constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any security.