UBA
Investo's verdict, shared with you
No fair value published
The derivation ran and was refused by our own plausibility checks. We publish no number rather than a plausible-looking one.
Why · 2 checks
Our valuation methods disagree
The earnings-based and book-based readings of this company differ by more than 2.5×. That spread is real information, but averaging it would manufacture a number no method actually produced.
A per-share input was repaired or refused
One of the per-share figures behind this valuation did not agree with the audited totals it should reconcile to, so it was recomputed from those totals or rejected outright.
What we would need
- Earnings and book value drawn from the same set of accounts, so the two legs can be reconciled.
- A per-share figure in the source data that reconciles to the reported totals.
Show what the engine computed
Method spread · 3.25× between the highest and lowest valuation leg.
Methods disagree · The valuation legs disagree by 3.25x (Blended P/E band ₦51.93 vs Blended P/B band ₦126.84 vs Justified P/B ₦39.01). No point estimate is defensible until the inputs are reconciled.
Input repaired · vendor EPS ₦19.99 is 2.18x our filing-derived ₦9.16 — one of the two earnings bases is wrong; the P/E leg is unreliable until resolved
Input quality · vendor EPS ₦19.99 is 2.18x our filing-derived ₦9.16 — one of the two earnings bases is wrong; the P/E leg is unreliable until resolved
Vendor cross-check · vendor eps 19.99 REJECTED — it neither reproduces the traded price via the vendor's own pe_ratio 5.77 nor agrees with our filing-derived EPS 9.16. Treat vendor EPS as unreliable for this name.
UBA trades at 0.47x book (₦97.54 BVPS) versus a peer median P/B of 1.30x, offering a stark valuation discount that the committee's Value factor flags as positive; however, a filing-derived ROE of onl…
Source: NGX live market data · Investo intelligence. Educational only — not financial advice.