View All Stock Evaluations | Evaluation Date: 2026-01-07
How This Company Makes Money
Uber Technologies operates a global platform connecting riders with drivers and consumers with restaurants/merchants. The company generates revenue through commission fees on its mobility (ride-hailing) platform (~57% of revenue), delivery fees from Uber Eats food/grocery delivery (~31% of revenue), and freight brokerage services (~12% of revenue). Uber’s asset-light model means it owns no vehicles but takes a 20-42% cut of every transaction while drivers/couriers earn the remainder.
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary Scorecard
- Company Overview
- Leadership & Board of Directors
- Business Model Visual
- Dividends & Upcoming Events
- Competitor Comparison Summary
- Visual Score Summary
- Key Graham/Buffett/Munger Quotes Applied
- Detailed Analysis
- Red Flag Analysis
- Critic Review Notes
- Source Reliability Summary
- Hyperlink Validation
- All Citations
Executive Summary Scorecard
| Category | Score | Max | % | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. CEO & Management | 20 | 25 | 80% | 🟢 |
| B. Board of Directors | 17 | 20 | 85% | 🟢 |
| C. Incentive Structures | 15 | 20 | 75% | 🟡 |
| D. Regulatory & Political | 16 | 25 | 64% | 🟡 |
| E. Business Quality & Moat | 28 | 35 | 80% | 🟢 |
| F. Financial Strength | 28 | 35 | 80% | 🟢 |
| G. Country & Geopolitical | 13 | 15 | 87% | 🟢 |
| H. Valuation & Margin of Safety | 26 | 35 | 74% | 🟡 |
| Raw Subtotal | 163 | 210 | ||
| I. Red Flag Deductions | -6 | 0 | 2 flags | |
| TOTAL | 157 | 210 | 74.8% | |
| Normalized Score | 74.8% | 100% | ||
| J. Graham Screen | 2/7 | Info | ❌ FAIL |
Munger Verdict: ✅ PASS
Rating Guide: 🟢 = 80%+ | 🟡 = 60-79% | 🔴 = <60% Verdict: ✅ PASS (70%+) | ⚠️ CAUTION (55-69%) | ❌ FAIL (<55%)
Company Overview
- Company: Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Ticker: UBER
- Exchange: NYSE
- Industry: Ground Transportation / Internet Services
- Sector: Technology / Transportation
- Founded: 2009
- Headquarters: San Francisco, California, USA
- Employees: ~31,100 (plus 8.8 million driver partners)
- Market Cap: $173 billion (Jan 2026)
- FY 2024 Revenue: $43.98 billion
Revenue Breakdown by Segment (FY 2024)
| Segment | FY Revenue | % of Total | YoY Growth | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobility (Ride-hailing) | $25.09B | 57.0% | +26.5% | 🟢 |
| Delivery (Uber Eats) | $13.75B | 31.3% | +12.7% | 🟢 |
| Freight | $5.14B | 11.7% | -2.0% | 🟡 |
Geographic Revenue Mix (FY 2024)
| Region | % of Revenue | Trend | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States & Canada | 53.7% | 🟢 | Core market, 75% rideshare share |
| EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) | 28.5% | 🟢 | Fastest growing region (+26.5%) |
| Asia Pacific | 11.5% | 🟢 | Expansion markets |
| Latin America | 6.4% | 🟢 | Growth region |
Leadership & Board of Directors
Executive Leadership
| Role | Name | Notable Background |
|---|---|---|
| CEO | Dara Khosrowshahi | Former Expedia CEO (12 yrs), 98% Glassdoor rating at Expedia |
| CFO | Prashanth Mahendra-Rajah | Former Analog Devices CFO, WABCO CFO |
| CEO, Mobility & Platform | Andrew Macdonald | 10+ years at Uber, operational excellence |
| General Counsel | Tony West | Former U.S. Associate Attorney General |
Board of Directors
| Role | Name | Notable Background |
|---|---|---|
| Chair (Independent) | Ronald Sugar | Former Northrop Grumman CEO, Apple/Chevron director |
| CEO | Dara Khosrowshahi | Uber CEO since 2017 |
| Director | Ursula Burns | First Black female Fortune 500 CEO (Xerox), VEON Chair |
| Director | Revathi Advaithi | CEO of Flex |
| Director | John Thain | Former CIT Group CEO, Merrill Lynch CEO |
Business Model Visual
Dividends & Upcoming Events
Dividend Status
- Current Dividend: None – Uber has never paid a dividend
- Policy: Reinvesting in growth and share buybacks
- Buyback Program: $7B authorization (Feb 2024), $20B total program
Upcoming Events
| Event | Expected Date |
|---|---|
| Q4 2025 Earnings | February 5, 2026 |
| Annual Shareholder Meeting | May 5, 2026 |
| Waymo Partnership Expansion | Ongoing 2026 |
| Uber One 30M Members Target | H1 2026 |
Competitor Comparison Summary
| Company | Market Cap | TTM Revenue | YoY Growth | P/E | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uber (UBER) | $173B | $49.6B | +18% | 10.6x | Global mobility + delivery |
| Lyft (LYFT) | $6B | $5.5B | +8% | 25x | US rideshare only |
| DoorDash (DASH) | $75B | $10.7B | +24% | 95x | US food delivery leader |
| Grab Holdings (GRAB) | $18B | $2.8B | +17% | N/A | Southeast Asia superapp |
| Instacart (CART) | $11B | $3.3B | +10% | 33x | US grocery delivery |
Visual Score Summary
Key Graham/Buffett/Munger Quotes Applied
“A great business at a fair price is superior to a fair business at a great price.” — Charlie Munger
Uber has transformed from a money-losing disruptor to a profitable market leader with strong network effects. At ~10x P/E, investors are getting a dominant business at a reasonable price.
“In business, I look for economic castles protected by unbreachable moats.” — Warren Buffett
Uber’s two-sided marketplace creates powerful network effects: more drivers mean shorter wait times, which attracts more riders, which attracts more drivers. With 75% US rideshare market share, the moat is substantial but not impregnable (robotaxis pose long-term risk).
“Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.” — Charlie Munger
CEO compensation is 97.5% stock-based, aligning Khosrowshahi with shareholders. However, 424x median employee pay and high stock-based compensation dilution warrant attention.
“All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.” — Charlie Munger
Key risks include: (1) autonomous vehicle disruption from Waymo/Tesla, (2) regulatory challenges with gig worker classification, and (3) FTC lawsuit over Uber One practices.
Detailed Analysis
Section A: CEO & Management (Score: 20/25)
“If you’re looking for a manager, you want someone intelligent, energetic, and moral. But if they don’t have the last one, you don’t want the first two.” — Charlie Munger
A1. Integrity & Honesty (4/5)
Dara Khosrowshahi has significantly improved Uber’s culture since taking over in 2017. He inherited a company in crisis and has been transparent about challenges. One controversy: his 2019 comment comparing the Khashoggi murder to a “mistake” that “can be forgiven” raised concerns about Saudi influence given PIF’s board seat.
- Evidence: Transformed company culture, 62% Glassdoor approval (Comparably)
A2. Track Record – No Scandals (4/5)
Under Khosrowshahi, Uber has avoided major scandals. However, the company faces ongoing sexual assault litigation and the FTC lawsuit over Uber One subscription practices.
- Evidence: No personal scandals; company-level legal issues ongoing (FTC)
A3. Capital Allocation Skills (5/5)
Excellent transformation from cash-burning startup to profitable company. Strategic decisions include: selling underperforming assets (Uber ATG to Aurora), initiating $7B buyback program, achieving investment-grade credit rating, and partnering (rather than competing) with AV companies.
- Evidence: FCF of $6.9B in 2024, $1.2B buybacks executed (Investor Relations)
A4. Transparency & Communication (4/5)
Regular earnings calls with detailed metrics. Suspended disclosure of take rate in Q1 2025 which reduces transparency. Clear communication about AV strategy and competitive positioning.
- Evidence: Quarterly investor presentations, CEO interviews (Stratechery Interview)
A5. Owner-Orientation (3/5)
Khosrowshahi owns ~2.3M shares (~$190M) but this represents only ~0.07% of the company. Initiated shareholder-friendly buyback program but high SBC dilutes existing shareholders.
- Evidence: CEO ownership minimal relative to company size (Simply Wall St)
Section B: Board of Directors (Score: 17/20)
B1. Business Savvy (5/5)
Exceptional board expertise: Ronald Sugar (aerospace/defense CEO), Ursula Burns (first Black female Fortune 500 CEO), John Thain (investment banking), Revathi Advaithi (manufacturing CEO).
- Evidence: Board includes former CEOs of Northrop Grumman, Xerox, CIT Group (Investor Relations)
B2. Personal Financial Stake (4/5)
Saudi PIF representative Turqi Alnowaiser holds 3.48% stake (72.8M shares). Other directors have meaningful ownership through stock compensation.
- Evidence: Significant institutional ownership (85%+ of shares) (GuruFocus)
B3. Independence (4/5)
Majority independent directors. Ronald Sugar serves as independent chairman since 2018. All committee members are independent. Some concern about Saudi PIF’s influence through board representation.
- Evidence: 10 of 11 directors standing for re-election in 2025 (SEC DEF14A)
B4. Shareholder Representation (4/5)
Board meets 9 times annually. One-share-one-vote structure since 2017 (eliminated dual-class). Lead independent director actively engages with shareholders.
- Evidence: Annual board evaluations, active governance (Investor Relations)
Section C: Incentive Structures (Score: 15/20)
“Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.” — Charlie Munger
C1. Compensation Tied to Long-term Performance (4/5)
CEO compensation is 97.5% stock-based with performance RSUs tied to gross bookings, operating income, and AV partnerships. Multi-year vesting periods encourage long-term thinking.
- Evidence: 2024 CEO compensation $39.4M, 63% increase YoY (SEC Filing)
C2. Management Owns Significant Stock (3/5)
CEO owns 2.3M shares but this is only 0.07% of shares outstanding. Management as a whole owns under 1% of the company. Insiders have limited personal stake relative to company size.
- Evidence: Insider ownership under 1% (Simply Wall St)
C3. Incentives Aligned with Shareholders (4/5)
Metrics include gross bookings growth, adjusted EBITDA, and strategic objectives like AV partnerships. $7B buyback authorization demonstrates shareholder focus.
- Evidence: Buyback program initiated 2024 (Bloomberg)
C4. No Perverse Short-term Incentives (4/5)
No evidence of earnings manipulation. Buyback timing appears strategic (ASR when CFO believed stock “undervalued”). High stock-based compensation creates dilution concerns.
- Evidence: $1.5B ASR in January 2025 (Investor Relations)
Section D: Regulatory & Political Environment (Score: 16/25)
D1. Political/Regulatory Moat Quality (3/5)
No regulatory moat; Uber operates in a competitive market. Gig worker model faces ongoing legal challenges. Proposition 22 upheld in California provides some stability.
- Evidence: California Supreme Court upheld Prop 22 in July 2024 (CDF Labor Law)
D2. Government Relationship Sustainability (3/5)
Significant lobbying spend ($2.6M in 2024). History of aggressive regulatory tactics. Better government relations under Khosrowshahi than Kalanick era.
- Evidence: $2.62M federal lobbying in 2024 (OpenSecrets)
D3. No Corruption/Bribery Scandals (3/5)
The 2022 “Uber Files” revealed ethically questionable practices during 2013-2017 expansion under Kalanick. No FCPA violations under current management, but historical issues remain.
- Evidence: Uber Files exposed 124,000 documents of past practices (D4. Antitrust Exposure Assessment (4/5)
No active antitrust investigations despite ~75% US rideshare market share. FTC lawsuit focuses on consumer protection (Uber One) rather than antitrust.
- Evidence: FTC lawsuit over Uber One subscription practices (FTC)
D5. Regulatory Tailwinds vs Headwinds (3/5)
Mixed environment: Prop 22 win is positive, but DOL worker classification rule and FTC lawsuit are headwinds. 21 states joined FTC complaint in December 2025.
- Evidence: 21 states plus DC joined FTC lawsuit (FTC)
Section E: Business Quality & Moat (Score: 28/35)
“The best moats are those that would take decades and billions of dollars to replicate.” — Charlie Munger
E1. Sustainable Competitive Advantage (5/5)
Powerful network effects: 161M monthly users and 8.8M drivers create a flywheel. Uber One (25M members) drives loyalty. Multi-product platform (rides + delivery) increases engagement.
- Evidence: 75% US rideshare market share, 161M MAPCs (Business of Apps)
E2. Pricing Power (4/5)
Take rate increased from 19% to 22% in 2024. Surge pricing demonstrates pricing power. However, competition from Lyft limits ability to raise prices significantly.
- Evidence: Take rate reached 42% in some cases per Columbia study (Columbia Business School)
E3. High Barriers to Entry (4/5)
Two-sided marketplace extremely difficult to replicate. Would require billions to build driver network and brand recognition. However, well-funded competitors (Waymo, Tesla) pose threat.
- Evidence: Network effects protect 75% market share (Seeking Alpha)
E4. Low Threat of Disruption (2/5)
Autonomous vehicles represent existential risk. Waymo expanding without Uber in many markets (Dallas, London, Denver, Miami, DC). Tesla’s robotaxi could disrupt if successful. Management addresses this through AV partnerships.
- Evidence: Waymo targeting 1M rides/week by end of 2026 (Yahoo Finance)
E5. Industry Structure – Favorable (4/5)
Rideshare market is effectively a duopoly (Uber 75%, Lyft 24% in US). Food delivery more competitive (DoorDash 67%, Uber Eats 25%). Consolidation has occurred.
- Evidence: Statista market share data (Statista)
E6. Intellectual Property & Brand Value (4/5)
Strong global brand recognition. “Uber” has become a verb. Proprietary matching algorithms and data. However, limited patents vs technology companies.
- Evidence: Global brand in 70+ countries, 10,000+ cities (Uber)
E7. Earnings Predictability & Recurring Revenue (5/5)
Uber One subscription (25M members, $9.99/month) provides recurring revenue. Platform usage is habitual. 22% trip growth in Q3 2025 shows consistency.
- Evidence: Uber One 70%+ membership growth YoY (Investor Relations)
Section F: Financial Strength & Capital Efficiency (Score: 28/35)
“The ideal business earns very high returns on capital and can reinvest at those high returns.” — Warren Buffett
F1. Conservative Debt Levels (4/5)
Debt/EBITDA of 0.74x is conservative. Total debt of $11.8B with strong cash generation. Net debt/EBITDA of 0.09x.
- Evidence: Debt-to-equity improved from 79% to 40.4% over 5 years (Simply Wall St)
F2. Strong Credit Rating (5/5)
Investment grade: BBB from Fitch (Aug 2024), BBB- from S&P (Aug 2024). Significant improvement from B rating in 2021.
- Evidence: Fitch and S&P upgrades in 2024 (Fitch Ratings)
F3. Adequate Cash Reserves (4/5)
$7.0B unrestricted cash and equivalents. $4.19B receivables. Strong liquidity to weather downturns. Current ratio of 1.42.
- Evidence: Q4 2024 balance sheet (Investor Relations)
F4. No Aggressive Accounting (4/5)
Clean audits with no recent restatements. Heavy reliance on non-GAAP metrics (Adjusted EBITDA) common in tech sector. Some error corrections noted in 10-K but not material.
- Evidence: SEC filings show minor error corrections (SEC EDGAR)
F5. Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) (4/5)
ROIC of 11.55% (TTM Sep 2025), above WACC estimates. Significant improvement from negative ROIC in prior years. 3-year average ROIC of 17.9%.
- Evidence: ROIC in top 10% of industry (GuruFocus)
F6. Free Cash Flow Generation (5/5)
FCF of $6.9B in 2024, 105% increase YoY. FCF for TTM Sep 2025 of $8.66B. FCF conversion of 106% of adjusted EBITDA.
- Evidence: Record free cash flow generation (MacroTrends)
F7. Capital Allocation Track Record (2/5)
Recently initiated buybacks ($7B program) after years of dilution. No dividends. Good strategic decisions on divestitures (ATG to Aurora). High SBC remains a concern.
- Evidence: $1.2B buybacks in 2024, $1.5B ASR in Jan 2025 (Investor Relations)
Section G: Country & Geopolitical Risk (Score: 13/15)
“All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.” — Charlie Munger
G1. Operates in Rule-of-Law Jurisdictions (5/5)
54% of revenue from US/Canada. 28.5% from EMEA (primarily developed Europe). Limited exposure to high-risk jurisdictions.
- Evidence: Geographic revenue breakdown (Statista)
G2. Limited Geopolitical Exposure (4/5)
Exited China (sold to Didi), Russia. No significant exposure to geopolitically sensitive regions. Saudi PIF board representation creates some sensitivity.
- Evidence: Geographic diversification across developed markets (Investor Relations)
G3. Supply Chain Diversification (4/5)
Asset-light model means minimal physical supply chain risk. Platform business with local drivers. Technology infrastructure uses standard cloud providers.
- Evidence: No vehicle ownership, driver network is locally sourced
Section H: Valuation & Margin of Safety (Score: 26/35)
“Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” — Warren Buffett
H1. P/E vs Historical Average (5/5)
P/E of 10.6x is near all-time lows. This compares to peak P/E of 111x in March 2024 when EPS was just $0.69. Significant compression as earnings normalized.
- Evidence: P/E ratio history (MacroTrends)
H2. P/FCF (Price to Free Cash Flow) (5/5)
EV/FCF of 19.7x is attractive for a high-growth company. P/FCF has declined significantly as FCF expanded from negative to $8.66B TTM.
- Evidence: FCF per share of $4.07 TTM (Alpha Spread)
H3. EV/EBITDA vs Sector (4/5)
EV/EBITDA of 32x higher than traditional transportation but reasonable vs tech sector. Compares favorably to DoorDash (~95x P/E).
- Evidence: EV/EBITDA from financial data (Stock Analysis)
H4. PEG Ratio (Growth-Adjusted) (4/5)
With ~18% revenue growth and P/E of 10.6x, PEG ratio is very attractive (<1.0). Earnings growth significantly exceeds P/E multiple.
- Evidence: 18% revenue growth, 422% earnings growth in 2024 (Investor Relations)
H5. P/B Ratio – Graham's Value Test (1/5)
P/B of 8.6x far exceeds Graham’s 1.5x threshold. Typical for asset-light technology platforms but fails Graham’s strict value criteria.
- Evidence: P/B ratio significantly above Graham’s threshold (Companies Market Cap)
H6. Graham Number vs Current Price (2/5)
Graham Number calculation: √(22.5 × $7.80 EPS × $7.41 BVPS) = √1,293 = $35.96. Current price of ~$83 is 230% of Graham Number.
- Evidence: Calculated from EPS and BVPS data (Yahoo Finance)
H7. Margin of Safety Assessment (5/5)
At 10.6x P/E for a dominant platform with 18% growth and strong FCF, there appears to be margin of safety. 32 analysts rate “Strong Buy” with average target of $109 (27% upside).
- Evidence: Analyst consensus (TipRanks)
Section J: Benjamin Graham Defensive Investor Screen
# Criterion Threshold Current Value Pass/Fail 1 Adequate Size Market Cap > $2B $173B ✅ 2 Strong Financial Condition Current Ratio ≥ 2.0 1.42 ❌ 3 Earnings Stability Positive EPS for 10 consecutive years 2/10 years ❌ 4 Dividend Record Uninterrupted dividends 20+ years 0 years ❌ 5 Earnings Growth EPS growth ≥ 33% over 10 years N/A (recent profitability) ❌ 6 Moderate P/E Ratio P/E ≤ 15 10.6 ✅ 7 Moderate P/B Ratio P/B ≤ 1.5 OR (P/E × P/B) ≤ 22.5 P/B 8.6; P/E×P/B = 91 ❌ TOTAL 7 to pass 2/7 FAIL Graham Number AnalysisEPS (TTM)$7.80Book Value/Share$7.41Graham Number = √(22.5 × 7.80 × 7.41) = $35.96Current Price$82.86Premium to Graham230%TRADING 130% ABOVE GRAHAM NUMBERHigh-growth tech platforms rarely meet Graham’s strict criteria designed for stable, dividend-paying companies.NCAV AnalysisCurrent Assets$14.0BTotal Liabilities($34.2B)NCAV = $14.0B – $34.2B = ($20.2B)NCAV per ShareNegativeNOT A NET-NETAsset-light platforms typically have negative NCAV. Graham’s net-net approach is not applicable here.Graham Screen Summary: Uber passes only 2 of 7 Graham criteria. This is expected for a high-growth technology platform. Graham’s criteria were designed for stable, mature, dividend-paying companies – not disruptive tech platforms. The Munger approach (quality at fair price) is more appropriate for evaluating Uber.
Red Flag Analysis
Governance Red Flags (Deduction: -6)
Red Flag Present? Deduction Evidence Unrealistic promises to investors N 0 Guidance generally met Excessive CEO compensation (>100x median employee) Y -5 424x median employee pay Related-party transactions N 0 Saudi PIF arm’s length Accounting restatements (last 5 years) N 0 Minor error corrections only High CFO/auditor turnover N 0 Stable CFO since Nov 2023 Reluctance on tough questions N 0 Transparent on AV, regulation Corruption/bribery allegations (FCPA) N 0 Historical Uber Files pre-2017 Governance Subtotal -5 Financial Red Flags (Deduction: 0)
Red Flag Present? Deduction Evidence High leverage (Debt/EBITDA > 4x) N 0 0.74x ROIC below cost of capital (5yr avg) N 0 ROIC ~12%, above WACC Declining FCF (3 consecutive years) N 0 FCF growing rapidly Net share issuance >2% annually N 0 Buybacks offsetting SBC Gross margin declining >500bps (5yr) N 0 Margins improving Financial Subtotal 0 Business Risk Red Flags (Deduction: 0)
Red Flag Present? Deduction Evidence Customer/supplier concentration >25% N 0 Diversified user base Single-country exposure >50% revenue N 0 US/Canada 54%, diversified Revenue decline in 3+ of last 10 years N 0 Revenue growing consistently Unstable government subsidy dependence N 0 No subsidy reliance Business Risk Subtotal 0 Valuation Red Flags (Deduction: -1)
Red Flag Present? Deduction Evidence Stock at >2x 5-year average P/E N 0 P/E of 10.6x, below historical P/FCF > 40 (or negative FCF) N 0 P/FCF ~20x Trading >30% above fair value estimate Partial -1 Bill Ackman says “undervalued” Valuation Subtotal -1 Red Flag Summary
Category Deduction Max Governance -5 -35 Financial 0 -21 Business Risk 0 -14 Valuation -1 -13 TOTAL DEDUCTION -6 -83
Critic Review Notes
Score Adjustments
- Section A (CEO): Initially scored 22/25, reduced to 20/25 due to CEO pay ratio of 424x and Khashoggi comment controversy
- Section C (Incentives): Reduced from 18/20 to 15/20 due to minimal insider ownership (<1%) despite stock-based compensation
- Section E (Moat): Disruption threat scored 2/5 (vs potential 3/5) due to accelerating Waymo expansion
Gaps & Limitations
- Uber stopped disclosing global take rate in Q1 2025, reducing transparency
- Sexual assault litigation outcomes uncertain
- AV timeline and competitive dynamics remain highly uncertain
- Long-term impact of FTC lawsuit unclear
Source Reliability Summary
- Total Sources Used: 45+
- HIGH Reliability: 35 (78%) – SEC filings, company investor relations, major news outlets
- MEDIUM Reliability (corroborated): 10 (22%) – Industry analysis, financial databases
- Sources Removed (LOW): 0
Hyperlink Validation
- Total hyperlinks: 50+
- Links tested: All major links
- Links verified working: 50+
- Links replaced (broken): 0
- Links removed (no alternative): 0
All Citations
- Uber Q4 2024 Earnings – Investor Relations, Feb 2025
- Uber Revenue Statistics – Business of Apps, 2025
- Dara Khosrowshahi Wikipedia – Biography
- Uber Governance – Investor Relations
- FTC Uber Lawsuit – Federal Trade Commission, 2025
- Uber Credit Rating – Fitch – Aug 2024
- California Prop 22 Upheld – July 2024
- Uber Market Share Statistics – Statista
- Waymo 2026 Expansion – Yahoo Finance
- Uber CEO Compensation – MarketScreener, 2025
- Uber Ownership Structure – Simply Wall St
- Uber Free Cash Flow – MacroTrends
- Uber ROIC – GuruFocus
- Ronald Sugar Biography – Wikipedia
- Ursula Burns Biography – Wikipedia
- Uber Analyst Ratings – TipRanks
- Uber OpenSecrets Lobbying – OpenSecrets
- Uber Employee Count – MacroTrends
- Uber P/E Ratio History – MacroTrends
Leave a Reply