Showing posts with label UBER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UBER. Show all posts

Sunday, November 14, 2021

A simulation-based valuation of Uber Technologies (UBER): November 2021


Summary

- Uber Technologies (UBER) is an American company () that provides mobility as a service.

- In this post we provide a simulation-based (sim-based) valuation () of UBER.

- Our results suggest the following fair values – stock price: $106.99, and price-to-earnings ratio: 130.65.

- At the time of this writing, UBER trades at $45.12, so it appears to be undervalued, with a potential upside of 137.12%.

Uber Technologies (UBER)

Uber Technologies (UBER) is an American company () that provides logistics services of a genre that is sometimes called “mobility as a service”. It does not own any transportation assets (e.g., cars, or trucks), and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

Its services are constantly expanding, and currently include: ride-hailing, food delivery, package delivery, freight transportation, electric bicycle and motorized scooter rental, and ferry transport. UBER receives a commission on fares, often of 25%. These fares are quoted to each customer in advance, using a dynamic pricing model.

Estimating a fair value for the stock

In this post we provide a simulation-based (sim-based) valuation () of UBER.

At the time of this writing, the company had a negative net profit margin of -17% and a price-to-sales ratio of 5.51. UBER’s estimated earnings growth rate for the next 5 years is 59.34%. We used 10% for net profit margin in our sim-based analysis; this is the margin of Avis, a car rental company.

Note that we assumed a positive net profit margin for a company that actually has a negative margin; we explained the rationale for this, in the context of our sim-based analyses, earlier in this blog ().

The table below summarize our sim-based results.



Since our sim-based analysis uses a S&P 500 return as a basis, our results summarized on the table above suggest the following fair values – stock price: $106.99, and price-to-earnings ratio: 130.65. At the time of this writing, UBER trades at $45.12, so it appears to be undervalued, with a potential upside of 137.12%.

Final thoughts

UBER has the potential to become a one-stop shop for all transportation needs, which makes its total addressable market quite large. Pressures to provide benefits to drivers will probably continue, but these may in fact create barriers for smaller competitors, further solidifying UBER’s leadership position.

One could argue that the development of autonomous vehicles could significantly increase UBER’s profit margins, but it is also possible that the developers of the technologies enabling autonomous vehicles will provide logistics services that could drive UBER out of business.

Disclosure

The author owns UBER shares at the time of this writing.

Saturday, June 13, 2020

How could the March-June 2020 stock market rally have happened if $1T moved to the sidelines?


Summary

- As the rally in the S&P 500 happened, approximately $1T of money moved to the “sidelines”; that is, into money market funds.

- Of that $1T, about 20% was from retail investors and 80% from institutional investors.

- This is not what we have seen in previous recessions. Normally when money moves to the sidelines the S&P 500 goes down.

- One could argue that the money that is on the sidelines would be coming in to take advantage of pullbacks, as the new money that came in earlier is taken out to fuel consumption. Some of these pullbacks could be severe.

The March-June 2020 rally in the S&P 500

The figure below shows the rally in the S&P 500 during the March-June 2020 period. The index has gone from approximately 2,237 to 3,055; up about 36%.



We used the charting feature of Yahoo Finance (). The slow-moving line is the 52-day moving average.

About $1T moved to the sidelines

As the rally in the S&P 500 happened, approximately $1T of money moved to the “sidelines”; that is, into money market funds. This is illustrated by the figure below, with charts from FRED (). Of that $1T, about 20% was from retail investors and 80% from institutional investors.



The top chart shows the growth in money market funds from retail investors. For example, if an individual investor with an account on E-Trade (i.e., a “retail” investor) sells a stock position, that money typically will go into a sweep account tied to a money market fund. The bottom chart shows the growth in money market funds from institutional investors.

So, both retail and institutional investors moved a lot of money to the sidelines. This is not what we have seen in previous recessions. Normally when money moves to the sidelines the S&P 500 goes down.

Many people would interpret this as money leaving the financial markets, in absolute terms. This is not what happened. For each stock sale there must be a corresponding purchase. If investors on the sidelines are buying, and sellers are moving to the sidelines, there should be no significant change the in the total amount held by money market funds.

If investors are selling to raise cash, and stock prices are going up, there must be “new” money coming into the stock market at a higher rate than the rate at which investors are selling.

The Fed’s balance sheet grew by $2T during the rally

As you can see in the figure below, the Fed’s balance sheet grew by about $2T during the rally. It grew $3T from February. That is partly what fueled the rally.



This new money that has been “created” by the Fed takes some time to make its way into the hands of people who can buy stocks. So, what we are seeing here is the beginning of something interesting; a rather rare occurrence.

What does this mean? The bull case

One could argue that the money that is on the sidelines would be coming in to take advantage of pullbacks, as the new money that came in earlier is taken out to fuel consumption. Some of these pullbacks could be severe, because newcomers may be parking money in stocks as they would with a bank account - with money that they need to pay for recurring expenses.

This should propel the stock market higher after each pullback. The increase in consumption caused by the money coming out of the stock market may give the impression that the economy is recovering by itself. The ensuing optimism would push stocks even higher.

But the impression that the economy is recovering would be a mirage, at least early on. This highly volatile bull market would be largely driven by the liquidity injected by the Fed. The volatility would be triggered by mixed headlines; e.g., consumer confidence is up, but so is the government deficit.

We could see something like the S&P 500 reaching 4,000 amid a wave of bankruptcies! Not all companies will go bankrupt, of course. For each local “Supa Burger” that goes bankrupt, there will be a bit more market share for the local McDonald’s and Burger King competitors.

Active investing may shine brighter than passive (index funds) in this scenario. Active investors have to think about a number of issues, such as how failures in one industry can benefit leaders in another. As a Hertz goes bankrupt, Uber may benefit. (Disclosure: the author owns shares of UBER at the time of this writing; and also of MCD and QSR, for the references above.)

What does this mean? The bear case

It is hard to see a scenario where this new money printed by the Fed, the portion available for stock purchases, will all go to the sidelines due to pessimism. Money market accounts are paying very little, because Treasury yields are so low. Investors are compelled to put the money somewhere. The stock market is one of the only options.

It is not hard to see a scenario where inflation will grow due to an increase in money supply, even as GDP contracts. Inflation is bad for fixed-income investing, making Treasuries even less attractive, but inflation is not necessarily bad for stock investing. At least not while inflation is growing but is still relatively low (e.g., low single digits).

This creates a positive feedback loop for stocks!

However, this is a bad scenario if maintained for too long, which could bring about severe economic strain, and another major drop in the stock market. High inflation would eventually prompt the Fed to increase interest rates, without a robust economy to compensate for that tightening if GDP is contracting.

But this bad scenario may take a few years to materialize.