Uber Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: UBER), the mobility and delivery platform, closed at $69.29 on October 14, 2026. On October 11, contrarian investor Z (@ZeeContrarian1) restated a simple long thesis: David Tepper and Bill Ackman sized large Uber stakes after homework that implies limited Autonomous Vehicle disruption, and he can still buy at a 10-20% discount to what they paid. The call is a follow-the-allocation lean with an AV underweight, unusual among mega-cap takes because it admits the copy-the-greats method has not worked well for him so far.
This is journalism and commentary, not investment advice. We hold no position unless stated.
Key facts
- Ticker and exchange: Uber Technologies, Inc., UBER, NYSE.
- Situation type: Mega-cap mobility long framed as a discounted follow of large hedge-fund stakes amid AV fear.
- The call: Z longs UBER because Tepper (Appaloosa) and Ackman (Pershing Square) sized large allocations after research that AV disruption is limited; he cites a 10-20% discount to their cost basis.
- Position context: Z has said he is roughly flat or on a small loss, added after UBER broke back above $70, and earlier stopped out of half the position.
- Price: UBER closed at $69.29 on October 14, 2026 (as of that close).
- Portfolio weight (Z disclosure): On October 9, 2026, Z listed UBER at about 37% of his top holdings snapshot.
- Main risk: Robotaxi networks bypass Uber's demand aggregation, or capital allocation into international and new businesses destroys free cash flow.
Is UBER a good bet right now?
Z's edge claim is not a proprietary robotaxi model. It is process outsourcing: if two large, researched allocators underwrote limited AV disruption at higher prices, a discount to that cost basis is his margin of safety. He is unusually candid that the method "hasn't worked particularly well for me so far," which is part of the journalism, not a redacted footnote.
The other side is also process-based. Stoic Point Capital questions why Uber keeps doing large international or new-business deals while having exited the autonomous unit that now looks like an existential risk. That is a capital-allocation critique, not a denial that rideshare demand exists.
Why are investors still debating Uber and robotaxis?
- AV narrative. Bears treat Waymo and OEM robotaxi apps as substitutes for Uber's take rate.
- Aggregator counter. Bulls say demand density and multi-supplier routing keep Uber valuable even if someone else builds the car.
- Famous holders. Public discussion of Ackman and Tepper stakes turns Uber into a "who is smarter" debate as much as an operating debate.
- Capital allocation. Critics ask whether overseas and adjacent deals unlock efficiencies or just recycle cash that could return to shareholders.
Who's making this call and why?
Z (@ZeeContrarian1) posts special-situation and concentrated portfolio ideas. On October 11, 2026, he wrote that his Uber thesis is "relatively simple," that Tepper and Ackman "have done their homework," that he assumes they concluded Uber is "unlikely to be significantly disrupted by autonomous vehicles and AI," and that he can buy "at a 10-20% discount to what they paid."
Track record. In our tracking, Z is 12-11 (a .522 win rate) on 23 calls scored at 180 days against the S&P 500, with average excess of about +3.7 percentage points, ranking mid-table on the career board. See the scoreboard.
Other voices:
- Lorenzo Couget (@LorenzoBolsa) compared Uber AV fear to Google AI fear in 2024 and argued the market may be pricing the wrong disruption outcome.
- Z's own October 9 holdings post showed UBER still a top weight even after earlier stop-loss trimming on half the position.
Who disagrees?
- Stoic Point (@stoic_point) wrote that Uber's capital allocation "seems like kind of a head scratcher," asking what efficiencies large international or new-business deals unlock while the firm earlier shed the autonomous business that now looks existential.
- OEM-bypass skeptics. Some investors argue that if an OEM can build an AV, building an app is easy and sharing economics with a middleman is hard, so aggregator take rates compress.
- Z's own caveat. He states the follow-the-greats approach has not worked well for him yet on this name, which is an internal disagreement with the method even while he holds the stock.
What are the key facts to verify?
- Pershing Square and Appaloosa public portfolio disclosures and commentary on Uber cost basis and thesis.
- Uber's latest mobility and delivery growth, free-cash-flow, and capital-return disclosures.
- Public AV partnership terms (who supplies cars, who owns demand, who takes the customer relationship).
- Stoic Point's capital-allocation questions against Uber's disclosed deal pipeline and buyback/dividend capacity.
What would prove it right or wrong?
Signals the Tepper/Ackman-discount thesis is working:
- Uber keeps growing mobility and delivery cash flow while AV partnerships route through its app rather than around it.
- The stock closes the discount to documented large-holder cost bases without a fundamental break.
- Capital returns rise without a collapse in take rates.
Signals the thesis is failing:
- Robotaxi apps take share without Uber aggregation in key cities.
- Large international or new-business deals dilute returns while AV competition intensifies.
- Z's own stop-loss history repeats with a full exit after another failed breakout.
This is journalism and commentary, not investment advice. We hold no position unless stated.