Skip to main content
Homepage
Full 18-step deep-dive · ~20–30 min · a member feature.
AGING Analysis Report
Aug 15, 2026
8 days ago · 100% complete
For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page

What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Dave Inc. Class A Common Stock (DAVE) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.

Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Watch · Gem Score -3 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 42 · Value -40 · Sentiment 57 (timing only, not weighted)

Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable reference-name attribute you can cite):

  • profile-header / price-overview — company profile, live quote, market cap
  • extended-analysisthe core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memo
  • future-predictions — our forward price-band predictions
  • market-narrative / ai-findings / gpt-critique — narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)
  • Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers): price-history, income-trend, key-metrics, financials (statement tables), insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.

More for machine readers: site briefing at /llms.txt · any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER · raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds); every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.

Dave Inc. Class A Common Stock

DAVE NASDAQ
Technology · Software - Application
Los Angeles, CA 90019, United States dave.com Updated Aug 15, 10:43am
Price
$334.57
Market Cap
$4.3B
Employees
280
Beta
3.86
Avg Volume
492,591
CEO
Mr. Jason Wilk

Dave Inc. Class A Common Stock represents an ownership stake in Dave Inc., a U.S.-based financial technology company and digital banking platform. The company focuses on serving everyday consumers, particularly those managing tight cash flow, through a mobile-first app that combines small-dollar liquidity, digital banking, and financial wellness tools. Dave Inc. today offers a suite of products including ExtraCash, a short-term cash advance service designed to help members avoid punitive overdraft fees and bridge gaps between paychecks, as well as Dave Banking, a fee-transparent digital checking account provided via a partner bank. The platform also features budgeting tools, income opportunities through its Side Hustle job-finding service, and other cash-flow management capabilities. Operating primarily in the United States and headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Dave Inc. plays a role in the consumer fintech and neobank segment, sitting between traditional banks and high-cost alternative lenders by emphasizing speed, convenience, and clearer pricing on everyday financial services.

Runs with full report Generated: Aug 15, 2026 10:56am
Price Overview
Price at report time
$334.57
as of Aug 15, 11:05am (8d ago)
Change · Aug 15
+0.80 (+0.24%)
Day Range
$330.18 – $347.99
52-Week Range
$152.21 – $458.25
50-Day MA
$358.59
200-Day MA
$250.45
Volume
360,400.00
Right now · live
Log in to get the live feed
Members see the real-time price and the move since this report (over 8d).
Share Structure
Outstanding 12,804,846.00
Float 9,338,944.00
Free Float 72.9%
Normal free float — 72.9% of shares trade freely, ~27.1% held by insiders/institutions
Healthy float typical of established companies. Good liquidity for entering and exiting positions without major price impact.
Small absolute float (9.3M shares) — even with a decent free float %, volume can be thin. Check average daily volume before sizing a position.
Price History (1 Year)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 11:05am (8d ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 11:04am (8d ago)
Revenue
The top line — total sales before any costs or taxes are subtracted. A measure of how much business the company is doing.
Net Income
The bottom line — profit left after subtracting all expenses, interest, and taxes from revenue. Reflects accounting profitability, but includes non-cash items like depreciation, so it isn't the same as cash earned.
Operating Cash Flow
The real cash generated by the day-to-day business — selling products, paying suppliers, collecting from customers. Calculated from net income by adding back non-cash items and adjusting for timing (unpaid bills, unsold inventory). When OCF consistently lags net income, the reported profit may not be converting to real money.
Period Revenue Net Income Net Margin YoY/QoQ
Key Metrics
TD Twelve Data statement HEX SEC filing
Industry comparison last run: Aug 15, 2026 10:55am
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
HEX
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
24.73
Stock Price: $334.57
EPS (Diluted): 13.53
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
HEX
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
13.74
Stock Price: $334.57
Total Equity: $352.73M
Shares: 14,480,703
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
HEX
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
Market Cap: $4.27B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $80.52M
EBITDA: N/A
EBITDA not available
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
HEX
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$4.4B
Market Cap: $4.27B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $80.52M
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
HEX
Gross Profit / Revenue
Gross Profit: N/A
Revenue: $554.18M
Missing from API: Gross Profit
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
HEX
Operating Income / Revenue
Operating Income: N/A
Revenue: $554.18M
Missing from API: Operating Income
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
HEX
Net Income / Revenue
35.3%
Net Income: $195.87M
Revenue: $554.18M
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
HEX
Net Income / Total Equity
55.5%
Net Income: $195.87M
Total Equity: $352.73M
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
HEX
NOPAT / Invested Capital
Operating Income: N/A
Tax Rate: -16.6%
Equity: $352.73M
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $80.52M
Zero debt — invested capital = equity minus cash (very efficient)
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
HEX
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
3.83
Current Assets: $436.70M
Current Liabilities: $114.00M
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
HEX
Total Debt / Total Equity
0.00
Short-Term Debt: $0.00
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $0.00
Total Equity: $352.73M
Zero debt — this company carries no debt obligations. Strongest possible score.
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
HEX
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$38.27
Revenue: $554.18M
Shares: 14,480,703
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
HEX
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$24.36
Total Equity: $352.73M
Shares: 14,480,703
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
HEX
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$20.01
Operating CF: $290.02M
CapEx: -$317,000
Shares: 14,480,703
CapEx is negative (outflow) — added to OCF to get FCF
Div Yield (Annual income from holding)
TD
Last Annual Dividend / Stock Price
Last Dividend: $0.00
Stock Price: $334.57
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
HEX
Dividends Paid / Net Income
Dividends Paid: N/A
Net Income: $195.87M
Dividends paid not available in cash flow statement
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Aug 15, 2026 10:55am
Compares DAVE against LLM-researched typical ranges for its industry. One research call per industry, cached indefinitely — every stock in the same industry reuses the same baseline.
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 11:04am (8d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue $153.0M $204.8M $259.1M $347.1M $554.2M
Cost of Revenue
Gross Profit
Operating Expenses $199.9M $339.2M $301.3M $312.5M $367.6M
Operating Income -$6.4M
Net Income -$5.3M -$128.9M -$48.5M $57.9M $195.9M
EBITDA -$3.3M
EPS $-4.69 $-11.12 $-4.07 $4.62 $14.65
EPS (Diluted) $-4.69 $-11.12 $-4.07 $4.19 $13.53
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 10:48am (8d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cash & Equivalents $32.0M $22.9M $41.8M $49.7M $80.5M
Total Current Assets $829,593 $308.6M $276.9M $282.3M $436.7M
Total Assets $254.6M $321.5M $294.0M $299.3M $487.4M
Current Liabilities $5.0M $36.4M $25.6M $35.1M $114.0M
Long-Term Debt $35.0M $75.0M $75.0M $75.0M $0
Total Liabilities $30.2M $214.9M $207.0M $116.2M $134.7M
Total Equity $224.4M $106.6M $87.1M $183.1M $352.7M
Retained Earnings -$29.4M -$161.8M -$210.3M -$152.4M $43.4M
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 11:04am (8d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating Cash Flow -$2.1M -$44.9M $33.8M $125.1M $290.0M
Capital Expenditure $-371,000 $-728,000 $-688,000 $-262,000 $-317,000
Free Cash Flow -$2.5M -$45.6M $33.1M $124.9M $289.7M
Acquisitions (net)
Net Debt Issued / (Repaid)
Dividends Paid
Stock Buybacks $0 $-536,000 $0 $0 -$43.7M
Net Change in Cash $79,785
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 11:04am (8d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue Growth +33.9% +26.5% +34.0% +59.7%
Gross Profit Growth
Operating Income Growth
Net Income Growth -2,346.2% +62.4% +219.3% +238.4%
EBITDA Growth
0Company Classification 1Industry Landscape 2Company Momentum 3Forward Projection 4aDCF Valuation 4bEarnings Power Value 4cAnchored PE 4dReverse DCF 4eRevenue-Based DCF 4fAnchored P/S 4gScenario Analysis 4hDividend Discount Model 4iBook Value Analysis 4jInsider Activity 4fCash Flow Quality 4gDebt Maturity Risk 4hMacro Environment 4iSector Intelligence 4jRevenue Confidence 4kSensitivity Analysis 4lSector Demand Cycle 5AI Investigation 5bThesis Evaluation 6Valuation Synthesis
computed not applicable not yet run 12 computed · 6 not applicable · 6 not yet run
Narrative Economics
The story the market is telling about this stock — the intangible X-factor (founder mythology, cult dynamics, TAM-of-imagination) that moves price beyond what cash flows alone explain. After Shiller, Narrative Economics.
No narrative profile yet for DAVE — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-15
The creme is there an opportunity here? Conditional opportunity
Cheap intelligence lands squarely on Dave's loss line and servicing cost, which is why AI position sits at 67 — but the whole thesis rides on distribution economics, not model quality.
The favorable read: an advance business is a prediction problem, and Dave already converts model improvement into cash ($289.7M FCF on $554.2M revenue), so each point of charge-off improvement and each automated support function is close to pure profit. The kill switch is entrant compression at 38 — AI makes the product trivially buildable, and Chime, Cash App and payroll platforms own the direct-deposit relationship Dave must buy. Watch two numbers before consensus does: provision/charge-off per advance cohort, and marketing spend per newly funded member; if the second rises while the first stalls, the AI advantage has been arbitraged away.
67
AI Position
Favorable — cheap intelligence lands directly on the loss line
Dave's core economics are an underwriting decision on thin-file consumers, so cheaper machine intelligence compounds straight into lower default losses and higher approval rates — but the same cheapness arms far better-distributed rivals like Cash App, Chime and Empower to copy the product.
Exposure 64 Confidence 61 50 = neutral
Primary Tailwind

ExtraCash profitability is essentially a loss-rate and approval-rate problem on bank-transaction data; each increment of underwriting accuracy raises advance size and approvals while cutting charge-offs, and that flows to variable profit almost dollar-for-dollar. Support, collections and fraud triage — historically headcount-heavy at consumer fintech scale — are also textbook LLM automation targets.

Primary Pressure

Cheap AI makes a competent small-dollar advance product buildable in months, so the scarce asset shifts entirely to distribution and cost of acquisition — where Cash App Borrow, Chime MyPay and neobank incumbents already sit on tens of millions of primary-deposit relationships Dave must pay to reach.

Critical Hinge

Whether Dave's realized loss rate on ExtraCash keeps falling faster than rivals' while CAC per funded member stays flat; watch the disclosed provision/charge-off ratio against monthly transacting members and marketing spend per new member.

Hard to Reproduce

Years of labeled repayment outcomes tied to observed cash-flow patterns for a population invisible to bureau scores, plus bank sponsorship, licensing posture and regulatory scar tissue — an AI-native can copy the interface but not the outcome labels or the compliance stack.

Forensic fingerprint same 11 factors for every stock · 0 unfavorable · 50 neutral · 100 favorable
Underlying Need Persistence do people still need this at all? 93
Paycheck-gap liquidity demand is macro- and behavior-driven, untouched by cheaper intelligence.
The need — bridging a cash shortfall before payday without a $35 overdraft fee — is a function of income volatility and savings depth, not of software capability. AI cannot make the shortfall disappear.
Overdraft fee revenue at banks · Household liquid savings trends · Monthly transacting member growth
relevance 88 · confidence 85
Solution Persistence will they still solve it this way? 66
A standalone advance app remains viable but faces embedding inside deposit accounts.
The most natural home for an advance is the account that already receives direct deposit; Chime, Cash App and payroll providers can bundle it at near-zero marginal CAC while Dave must buy the relationship.
Direct-deposit attach rate on Dave Banking · Competitor advance products launched · Fee per advance trend
relevance 80 · confidence 60
Intelligence Commoditization does cheap AI power them or copy them? 58
Cheap models power Dave's underwriting but also make an adequate clone cheap to build.
CashAI's edge comes from labeled repayment history, not from model architecture, so falling model costs help Dave's loss line while eroding any pure-technology lead over a well-funded entrant.
Charge-off rate per advance cohort · Approval rate versus loss rate · New EWA entrants with scale funding
relevance 85 · confidence 58
Responsibility Transfer are they paid to take the blame? 58
Dave carries the credit and compliance risk, which deters casual entrants but is not a paid-for shield.
Customers are not outsourcing liability to Dave the way an employer outsources payroll compliance; Dave simply absorbs credit loss and regulatory exposure itself, which raises the entry bar modestly.
CFPB treatment of paycheck advances · Sponsor bank arrangement stability · State licensing developments
relevance 48 · confidence 52
Scarcity Migration do their assets get rarer or more common? 69
Scarcity moves from product build to labeled repayment outcomes and cheap distribution.
When anyone can build the app, the rare assets are the observed default outcomes on non-prime cash-flow patterns and the ability to acquire a funded member below lifetime contribution.
CAC per new member · Repeat advance frequency · Retention by cohort
relevance 82 · confidence 58
Customer DIY Preference will customers just build it themselves? 90
Consumers cannot self-underwrite a cash advance; DIY is not a channel here.
The counterparty is an individual short of cash, not an enterprise deciding whether to insource a function — internalization is structurally impossible.
Employer-provided EWA adoption · Bank-issued small-dollar loan programs
relevance 25 · confidence 78
AI Intermediation Position do AI agents go through them or around them? 52
Dave is the execution layer today, but AI money assistants could make liquidity shoppable.
If a consumer copilot compares advance costs across providers, Dave's habitual-app advantage becomes a price comparison, pressuring the optional-fee and express-fee structure.
Consumer AI assistants routing payments · Fee transparency mandates · Effective take rate per advance
relevance 62 · confidence 48
Data Leverage does their data make AI better? 74
Repayment-labeled transaction histories on thin-file users are the genuine model asset.
Raw bank-transaction access is commoditized via aggregators, but Dave's paired record of who repaid under which cash-flow conditions is not purchasable and improves with volume.
Loss rate improvement per cohort · Advance size expansion without loss creep · Aggregator data access costs
relevance 85 · confidence 57
AI Margin Conversion do the AI savings become profit? 74
Servicing, fraud and collections automation should land in cash given the current cost base.
With 2025 revenue of $554.2M producing $195.9M net income and $289.7M FCF, the operating leverage inflection is already visible; automated support and underwriting savings have a clear path to profit rather than being reinvested against losses.
Opex per transacting member · Provision as share of advance volume · Headcount versus volume growth
relevance 80 · confidence 62
Revenue Unit Durability does the thing they charge for survive? 63
Percentage-of-advance fees plus interchange survive AI but face price competition.
Nothing about cheap intelligence removes the fee-bearing transaction; the threat is competitive undercutting by distribution-rich rivals compressing the fee, not disappearance of the unit.
Revenue per transacting member · Fee structure changes · Interchange contribution mix
relevance 78 · confidence 55
Entrant Compression how easily can newcomers copy them? 38
Cheap build costs plus incumbent distribution make this the sharpest AI-driven risk.
AI collapses engineering cost for a competent advance product; the surviving barriers are sponsor-bank access, loss data and CAC, and large deposit incumbents already clear all three.
Cash App/Chime advance product scaling · Member growth deceleration · Marketing spend per funded member
relevance 88 · confidence 62

AI Lens thesis

Dave is not a software vendor whose seats can shrink; it is a balance-sheet-light lender whose unit economics are a prediction problem. Cheap intelligence attacks the cost side of that prediction — better feature extraction from transaction streams, cheaper fraud and collections handling, automated support — while the underlying need (paycheck-gap liquidity for consumers who overdraft) is macro-driven and essentially AI-proof. The monetized unit, a percentage fee on advances plus interchange, survives cheap software; nothing about an LLM makes a consumer need $200 less. The exposure is therefore asymmetric on the competitive axis rather than the demand axis: the same tooling that improves Dave's model lowers the build cost for every neobank and payroll platform, so the defensible layer becomes proprietary repayment labels, sponsor-bank access, regulatory tolerance and paid-acquisition efficiency — not the app itself. Net: AI is more likely to widen Dave's margin than to remove its reason for existing, with the tail risk sitting in distribution, not technology.

Thesis breaker A sustained rise in charge-offs or provision per advance while approval rates climb would show the AI underwriting edge is thinner than claimed; conversely, a large-distribution incumbent launching a fee-free equivalent that visibly stalls Dave's member growth would break the read from the competitive side.
What the market may be underestimating

Upside Support, collections and fraud costs at consumer-fintech scale are the largest automatable opex block, and Dave's already-inflected FCF ($289.7M in 2025 on $554.2M revenue) means each point of automated servicing cost converts to cash rather than funding growth losses.

Downside Consumer-facing AI assistants and bank-embedded copilots could route liquidity requests to the cheapest available option, turning a habitual-app relationship into a shoppable, price-transparent transaction and compressing the effective fee take rate.

Outcome range spread 52 · unresolved

33Bear case
66Central case
85Bull case
Three headline numbers, deliberately never blended: Position (which way), Exposure (how much it matters at all), Confidence (how sure). The fingerprint asks every stock the same 11 questions so companies a sector label would lump together get told apart. Not an input to GEM/Coal or the Q/V/S lenses.
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-08-17 16:34

The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.

Growing Dave is compounding well above its category — recent revenue +59.7% YoY vs industry 38.6% and matched-quarter +37.3% with net income +70.7% — but the quarterly trend is decelerating off a rising base, so the shape is durable growth rather than acceleration. conf 7/10
Share gain Category growing · Category (Software - Application / consumer fintech) is in expansion with ~38.8% median recent growth and a 36.4% 3-yr revenue CAGR. Dave's recent YoY of 59.7% sits ~21pp above that, and its matched-quarter +37.3% is roughly at category pace — so it is a share gainer whose excess spread is narrowing as the base scales.
Next 2 quarters
Growing
Origination and member growth carry into the next two prints with credit performance still benign; the beat record (4 of last 5 EPS prints above estimate, +7% to +18%) shows guidance and consensus are being set conservatively relative to actual underwriting outcomes.
↑ above expectations
Year 1
Growing
Full-year top line should hold in the 30s-to-40s percent range: the matched-quarter +37.3% is the better base-rate than the 59.7% headline, and operating leverage plus stable losses keep earnings growth above revenue growth for the year.
≈ inline with expectations
Years 2–3
Growing
Structural earnings power grows — the liquidity need is durable, underwriting data compounds, and the cost base is fixed. But the growth RATE decays toward the category's high-30s and then below as the base scales and regulatory fee structures get tested. Growing, not Accelerating.
↓ below expectations
The creme: each rung's call measured against what's already printed (vs analyst estimates · vs guidance / FY consensus · vs price-implied growth) — expectations in print are already in the price, so only the variant margin can pay. Hover a rung's chip for the margin read.
Growth drivers
76 ExtraCash origination + monetization flywheel — Small-dollar liquidity demand is structurally deep among paycheck-to-paycheck consumers, and Dave's shift to a transparent capped-fee structure raises revenue per advance while origination volume and member count keep climbing. Revenue growth (recent YoY ~59.7%) far outpaces the 38.6% industry rate — a +21pp share gap that is company-specific, not tide-riding.
66 Underwriting-driven unit economics — Loss rates on advances are the single swing factor in this model; improving delinquency performance converts each incremental origination dollar into contribution profit rather than charge-offs. This is what turned net income up +70.7% YoY on +37.3% revenue — earnings growing faster than the top line is the signature of both credit and operating leverage.
53 Operating leverage on a fixed-cost app platform — Marginal cost of serving an additional member on a mobile-only stack is near zero, and industry-wide operating margins are expanding (+3.6pp/3yr). Dave's earnings CAGR outrunning revenue means fixed-cost absorption, not one-off items — this can persist for several more quarters even as revenue growth decays.
39 Category in expansion phase — Sector demand cycle reads expansion with category median growth of 38.8% and a 36.4% 3-yr industry revenue CAGR. Dave grows inside a rising pool, so it does not need to take share to grow — share gain is upside on top of a favorable base rate.
Growth risks
65 Regulatory exposure on cash-advance economics — Fee-based small-dollar advances sit squarely in the crosshairs of consumer-protection scrutiny (fee disclosure, APR characterization, tipping/express-fee models). An adverse rule or settlement that reprices or restructures ExtraCash fees would hit revenue per advance directly — the highest-variance single item in the forecast, and one I cannot size from the brief.
60 Deceleration is already visible — The brief explicitly flags a decelerating quarterly trend: matched-quarter YoY +37.3% versus recent-year 59.7%. Growth off a larger base plus tougher comps means the run-rate is trending toward the category's ~39% rather than sustaining 50%+ — which matters because the price already assumes 50.6%.
53 Credit sensitivity to a stressed consumer — Macro backdrop is flagged as headwinds with the 10y at 4.63%. Dave's member base is the most cash-flow-fragile cohort; a labor-market crack raises charge-offs and forces underwriting tightening, which cuts originations and revenue simultaneously. The model's earnings leverage runs in reverse just as fast.
33 Crowded competitive set — EarnIn, Empower, MoneyLion, Chime and bank-led overdraft-grace products all target the same liquidity gap with low switching costs. Share gains achieved so far are real but not moat-protected; sustained gains require continued underwriting and app-experience edge rather than price.
The world is moving toward embedded, app-native liquidity for consumers the traditional overdraft system taxed. That structural shift is Dave's tailwind and it is not narrative — it shows up as a measurable share gap versus the industry. Two forces cut against it: a rate/macro backdrop that pressures the exact income cohort Dave serves, and a regulatory apparatus that periodically reprices small-dollar credit fees. Neither is currently visible in the trajectory; both are the mechanisms by which this decelerates faster than modelled. Net: business direction is clearly up, with the debate being the rate of decay, not the sign.
Growth position composite +12
ShrinkingStallingHoldingGrowingAccelerating
70Next 2 quarters · Growing
70Year 1 · Growing
70Years 2–3 · Growing
+12Composite (−100…+100)
A research prediction, not advice. Forward-graded: each rung is scored against the prints that follow it. Not an input to the GEM designation — track record first.
Claude Reading
Claude Opus reviews the pipeline's raw data + every prior verdict, then writes an independent take.
No AI findings yet for DAVE — they're generated by the pipeline (ai-findings step) when a report is run on this ticker.
GPT Reading
Independent reading · gpt-5.4 · generated 2026-08-15 11:04:21
Verdict Overvalued at $334.57 — the market is capitalizing peak 2025/1Q26 profitability as durable, while the latest quarter points to a business worth closer to $230-$260 unless margins re-expand quickly.

Dave’s numbers scream “business model inflection,” but they also scream “do not annualize the peak quarter set.” Revenue has stepped up fast: from $259.1M in 2023 to $347.1M in 2024 to $554.2M in 2025, and the quarterly run-rate has kept rising to $170.8M in June 2026. On a trailing four-quarter basis using the last four reported quarters, revenue is about $643.6M, up roughly 42% versus the prior four-quarter period of about $453.1M. That is real growth, not accounting noise. Just as important, this is no longer a debt-laden subscale fintech; the balance sheet has zero debt, $80.5M of cash, and a 3.8x current ratio. The market is right to stop valuing this like a distressed consumer-finance experiment.

What stands out to me, though, is the shape of profitability. Quarterly net margins swung from 0.5% in 3Q24 to 16.7%, then 26.7%, then 6.9%, then an absurd 61.1% in 3Q25, 40.3% in 4Q25, 36.6% in 1Q26, before crashing back to 3.9% in 2Q26. That is not the profile of a clean, mature software compounder, and it does not support paying a software-like premium without adjustment. Full-year 2025 net income of $195.9M on $554.2M of revenue implies a 35.3% margin; trailing net income from the last four quarters is about $222.6M on $643.6M of revenue, still around 34.6%. But that TTM figure is flattered by the extraordinary 2H25 and 1Q26 prints. The latest quarter is the key tell: revenue still grew nearly 30% year over year from $131.8M to $170.8M, yet net income fell from $9.0M to $6.7M and margin compressed from 6.9% to 3.9%. If the business can grow 30% while earning only mid-single-digit margins in a more normalized quarter, then the stock at $334.57 is being valued on peak economics, not normalized economics.

The cash flow deserves the most skepticism. 2025 operating cash flow was $290.0M against net income of $195.9M, and free cash flow was essentially the same because capex was only $317K. For a software business that might look pristine; for a fintech serving cash-constrained consumers, it may simply mean working capital and advance timing were unusually favorable. With no gross profit or operating expense detail here, and with quarterly earnings volatility this high, I am unwilling to treat the 2025 52% FCF margin as durable. On current valuation, the stock trades around 6.6x trailing revenue if I use the $4.27B market cap against the roughly $643.6M TTM revenue, and roughly 19x trailing earnings if I use the $222.6M TTM net income. Those multiples are not insane if Dave has genuinely become a 30% grower with sustainably 25%+ margins. My problem is the latest quarter argues the opposite: growth remains strong, but normalized margin may be closer to high single digits than mid-30s. On that earnings base, the stock is expensive.

The best counterargument is obvious and strong: even after the margin collapse in the latest quarter, the company is still profitable, still growing fast, still unlevered, and still comping against much smaller revenue levels. A bull can say the weird margin pattern reflects accounting or episodic loss provisioning noise rather than deterioration in unit economics, and that the true story is scale: quarterly revenue has risen from $92.5M to $170.8M in seven quarters, a near-doubling. If Dave can land around $700M-plus revenue over the next year and settle at even a 15%-20% net margin, then today’s market cap implies a forward P/E that could compress quickly. I also take seriously that annual net income moved from a $48.5M loss in 2023 to a $57.9M profit in 2024 to $195.9M in 2025; plenty of investors will look at that and conclude the company has solved the model. I weigh it differently because businesses that truly “solve” the model usually do not see margin swing from 36.6% to 3.9% in one quarter while revenue keeps climbing.

What would change my mind is evidence that 2Q26 was a one-off and not the start of normalization. Specifically, I would want to see the next two quarters hold revenue above $175M while net margin rebounds and stays above 15% without another outlier spike, or annual operating cash flow remain comfortably above net income without unusual working-capital benefits. If management can show that TTM revenue can approach $700M and TTM net income can stay above $150M even after the 2025-26 peaks roll off, then $334 starts to look supportable. If instead margins remain sub-10% while growth decelerates into the 20s, fair value is meaningfully lower because the market is still paying for a fintech miracle that the latest quarter did not confirm.

Grok Reading
Independent reading · grok-4.5 · generated 2026-08-15 11:04:58
Verdict Overvalued at $335 — pricing peak 2025 margins/FCF as permanent while Q2'26 3.9% NI margin and insider selling signal mean-reversion risk

The numbers tell a story of a genuine inflection that is already fraying at the edges. Dave scaled revenue from $153M in 2021 to $554M in 2025, flipped from a $48.5M loss in 2023 to $196M of net income, and converted almost every dollar of that into free cash flow—$290M operating cash and $290M FCF on negligible capex. Trailing twelve-month revenue now sits near $644M with TTM net income still above $220M even after the latest print, which is why a $4.27B market cap and a 25x P/E look superficially reasonable. What stands out, however, is the violent margin path: net margin peaked at 61% in Q3 2025, held in the mid-to-high 30s through Q1 2026, then collapsed to 3.9% on $170.8M of revenue in the June 2026 quarter. That is not mature-earner stability; it is either credit-loss normalization, promotional intensity, or one-time noise that the market has not yet discounted. Revenue growth itself is decelerating—from nearly 60% year-over-year in early 2025 toward the low-to-mid 30s in the most recent quarter—while the balance sheet remains pristine ($0 debt, $80M cash, 3.8 current ratio). The combination of still-elevated multiples (8.7x sales, 13.7x book, 55% trailing ROE that is already being diluted by the margin drop) and a cluster of insider sales in early June 2026 makes the current $335 price look like it is capitalizing the peak year rather than the emerging run-rate.

The quantitative labels conflict with the tape. Calling this a “mature earner” at 0.65 confidence ignores that four of the last eight quarters still show single-digit or sub-1% net margins and that earnings power is swinging by tens of millions quarter to quarter. The pre-flight description of a pre-profit platform that just escaped the fintech graveyard is closer to reality: this remains a unit-economics-at-scale cash-advance and banking story whose 35% annual net margin and 52% FCF conversion in 2025 are being treated by the market as the new baseline. At roughly 8x forward revenue and mid-20s earnings if margins re-expand, the stock embeds continued 30%+ growth and a durable mid-30s profit pool. The latest quarter directly challenges that embedding.

The strongest counter-argument is straightforward and quantitative. Even after the margin air-pocket, TTM earnings still support a mid-20s P/E, revenue is still compounding above 30%, the company generates nearly $300M of unlevered free cash with zero debt, and the underbanked addressable market remains large enough to justify multi-year member and ARPU expansion. A bull can fairly say one soft quarter does not invalidate the operating-leverage story, that FCF quality is excellent, and that 25x earnings for 40% historical revenue CAGR is not egregious for a scaled software-like financial platform. I weigh that evidence lower because the margin volatility is too large to dismiss as noise, insider selling is clustered and one-directional, and competitive capital continues to chase the identical customer with near-zero switching costs; the 2025 print increasingly looks like a credit-cycle high rather than a permanent reset of unit economics.

I would reverse to a constructive stance if the next two quarters restore net margins above 25% while revenue growth holds above 25% year-over-year, or if management demonstrates that the Q2 2026 collapse was purely non-recurring and loss rates have re-stabilized. Sustained margin compression below 15% or sequential revenue deceleration into the teens would confirm the overvaluation case.

Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Each AI above independently stated a direction (undervalued, fairly valued, or overvalued) and how strongly it believes it (conviction, 0–5). We combine those into a Bull-Bear Index on a 0–10 scale: 5 is neutral, 10 is maximum bullish (undervalued at full conviction), 0 is maximum bearish. We compute the score ourselves with the same arithmetic for every seat — the models never grade their own bullishness — so the three are directly comparable. Δ shows how far each seat sits from the panel average of 1.5; a large Δ marks the dissenting voice, usually the one worth reading.
GPT gpt-5.4 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -0.5 vs panel · self: 3.0
Grok grok-4.5 2.0
overvalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +0.5 vs panel · self: 3.0
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Separate reads — Company Quality (is it a great business?), Valuation (is it mispriced?), and General Sentiment (how macro + narrative are pushing it), plus AI Impact (how the AI wave reshapes it), kept deliberately apart · 2026-08-15 11:12:47
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality - wait for a dip 6/10
Dave is a genuine post-SPAC cash machine now priced for the turnaround to hold through a full credit cycle - fair, not cheap.
The cruxWhether the 2025 cash-generative print survives a real consumer credit cycle and Q2's margin dip was noise, not the start of mean reversion.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from DAVE's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwaySelf-Funding
DilutionHeavy Dilution
Earnings QualityHigh Earnings Quality
The four lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
+42
Strong
edge √Σ 126 · risk √Σ 82 · conf 7/10

The operating trajectory is remarkable: revenue compounded from $153M in 2021 to $554M in 2025 (roughly 38% CAGR), while net income swung from -$129M in 2022 to +$196M in 2025 and FCF from -$46M to +$290M. Altman Z at 21 and accruals at -19% of assets suggest reported earnings are backed by cash, and OCF/NI of 0.74x is acceptable given the balance-sheet mechanics of a consumer-credit fintech. The business is self-funding with $80.5M cash and $290M annual FCF, so survival is not a question. The blemishes are structural rather than existential. Diluted share count grew from 4.3M to 14.5M (a 35.7% CAGR), which is severe per-share dilution even accounting for the de-SPAC baseline; SBC as a share of revenue is only 1.4%, so most of the increase is legacy issuance and equity capital rather than ongoing comp burn - a distinction that materially softens the concern but doesn't erase it. Insider tape shows 32 sales and zero open-market buys over 12 months, including CEO Wilk trimming ~$2.4M in a single day, which is a behavioural yellow flag even if legally routine. On durability, gross margin isn't reported in the module (shows 0), so unit economics of the ExtraCash product need filing-level verification. The pattern of rising revenue with expanding operating leverage and cash conversion is consistent with a scaling, structurally profitable platform rather than a subsidy-fuelled growth story.

Strengths 3
m82
Cash generation inflection
FCF went from -$46M (2022) to +$290M (2025); the business now self-funds and Altman Z of 21 signals no solvency risk.
m78
Operating leverage is real
Revenue up 3.6x from 2021 to 2025 while net income swung to +$196M - margins are expanding, not just volumes.
m55
Clean mechanical earnings quality
Accruals at -19% of assets and Z-score 21 indicate reported profits are cash-backed with no forensic red flags.
Concerns 3
m62
Historic share count explosion
Diluted shares tripled from 4.3M (2021) to 14.5M (2025), a 35.7% CAGR that has diluted per-share value, though recent-year growth is much slower (13.8M to 14.5M).
m40
Uniformly one-sided insider tape
32 sells and 0 buys in 12 months, including CEO Wilk selling ~$2.4M in one day; not distress-level but no insider is voting with cash on the other side.
m35
Credit-risk business model opacity
As a cash-advance lender, reported earnings quality depends on loss provisioning assumptions that mechanical screens do not fully capture; needs filing-level review.
This looks like a genuine post-SPAC turnaround where the operating business finally works: the 2025 numbers are not a fluke of accruals, they are cash. I would grade the business Strong, not Fortress, because the equity base was built by heavy dilution and every insider with a keyboard is selling into the print. The credit-risk nature of the product means I want to see loss-reserve behaviour before I upgrade further, but on the evidence in front of me this is a healthy, self-funding, scaling business with real earnings quality.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • ExtraCash loan loss provisioning methodology and charge-off trends in the 10-K
  • Segment / product-level unit economics and true gross margin (module shows 0)
  • Whether recent share-count growth is stabilising (13.8M to 14.5M suggests yes) or if more issuance/warrants overhang remains
  • Customer concentration and regulatory exposure (CFPB, state lending laws) for the cash-advance product
  • Nature of the large 2022 net loss (-$129M) - one-time SPAC/warrant marks vs operating
Valuation / Mispricing
-40
Fairly Valued
edge √Σ 35 · risk √Σ 77 · conf 5/10
Price $334.57 vs a deserved band roughly $260-360; effectively inside fair range, no meaningful margin of safety. attractive below $240.00

Without a handed-in composite fair value, I have to back into this from scratch. Dave carries a $4.27B market cap at $334.57. For a subprime-adjacent cash-advance fintech that has just flipped to genuine cash generation, a Strong (not Fortress) quality read supports a full but not heroic multiple - somewhere in the 18-25x forward earnings / 4-6x revenue zone once you haircut for dilution and credit-cycle risk. That band brackets today's price rather than sitting well below it.

Cheap signals 1
m35
High earnings quality supports the multiple
Reported profits are backed by cash, not accruals, which justifies paying a full multiple rather than a distressed one and keeps the deserved value from collapsing.
Rich / priced-in 3
m55
Priced for the turnaround being permanent
$4.27B cap on a subprime cash-advance lender assumes the 2025 cash-generative print extends through a credit cycle. That is a reasonable base case but leaves no cushion if loss rates normalize.
m45
Dilution and insider selling erode deserved per-share value
Heavy share issuance built the equity base and insiders are selling into the rally - both argue for a lower multiple than a comparable non-diluting fintech would earn.
m30
Credit-cycle risk not yet tested at this scale
Loss-reserve behaviour through a real consumer-credit downturn is unproven; the market is extrapolating benign conditions into deserved value.
I like the business more than the price. At $334 I am paying a full fintech multiple for a lender that has been cash-generative for barely a cycle-quarter, while insiders hand me their stock. That is not a setup where I have edge. I would want this closer to $240 (roughly a 25-30% pullback, or a credit scare that does not break the model) before the risk-reward tilts my way. Today it is fair - no action.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Forward revenue and EPS guidance vs the multiple embedded at $334
  • Loss provision trends and 28-day delinquency by cohort
  • Fully diluted share count including RSU/option overhang
  • Any change in ExtraCash advance size limits or take-rate
  • Insider Form 4 pace over next two quarters
General Sentiment
+57
Tailwind
tail √Σ 110 · head √Σ 45 · conf 7/10

The tape is calm and modestly risk-on (VIX 14, S&P near highs), which is the exact environment where a 3.86-beta, story-driven fintech like DAVE gets rewarded rather than punished. With no market-wide narrative crisis to fight, high-beta small/mid-cap software has room to run, and DAVE's tape shows it: 60% recent gains outpacing an already strong 46% long-term CAGR, and +54pp of 3-year relative strength. Momentum begets momentum in this regime. The freshest catalyst reinforces the push. Q2 print delivered 30% revenue growth with member acquisition reaccelerating and ARPU expanding - exactly the fact-pattern that keeps a growth-fintech narrative alive and gives longs something to point at. Absent visible analyst downgrades or a sector rotation, the narrative pressure is one-directional right now. The one real counterweight is macro: 10y at 4.63% and a market PE of 26 create latent duration risk for high-multiple names, and a 3.86-beta stock is the first thing sold in any risk-off flinch. So the tailwind is real but fragile - it is riding the tape, not defending against it.

Tailwinds 3
m62
Risk-on tape amplified by 3.86 beta
A calm, mildly risk-on regime (VIX 14, S&P near highs) is a disproportionate positive for a 3.86-beta name. The market breeze becomes a gust at DAVE's back, and high-beta fintech is exactly the cohort that gets bid in this setup.
m70
Q2 print reinforces the growth story
30% revenue growth with reaccelerating member adds and ARPU expansion is the cleanest possible narrative-confirming print. It hands longs a fresh talking point and starves shorts of a thesis break in the near term.
m58
Momentum feedback loop
Recent 60% vs long-term 46% CAGR and +54pp 3-year relative strength show the tape is already rewarding this name. In a benign regime, that momentum tends to self-reinforce via trend-followers and retail flows.
Headwinds 2
m38
Rate/multiple latent risk
10y at 4.63% and market PE 26 mean any duration wobble hits high-multiple growth first. DAVE's beta cuts both ways - the same 3.86 that helps in risk-on turns brutal on any risk-off flinch.
m25
Thin narrative moat
No established market-narrative on file means the story is carried almost entirely by the print. One soft quarter or a fintech-sector scare (regulation, credit) and there is no cult coefficient to cushion the drawdown.
Net tailwind, and a real one. A benign tape plus a narrative-confirming Q2 print is landing on a 3.86-beta momentum name - that combination pushes UP harder than it would on almost any other stock in the market. But this is regime-dependent tailwind, not narrative-fortress tailwind: there is no cult story here, just a good print and a friendly tape. If the VIX ticks up or rates jolt higher, the same beta that is helping today will hurt fastest. For now, the wind is at its back.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Analyst target revisions post-Q2 - are sell-side numbers being marked up to match the reaccelerating growth?
  • Any signs of fintech/consumer-credit sector rotation or regulatory headlines that could bruise the cohort
  • VIX behavior and 10y direction - a spike above 18 or yields toward 5% would flip the beta from friend to foe
  • Insider selling or secondary-offering chatter after the strong run
The market-wide tape + this name's exposure to it (beta / sector / narrative durability). Context on the non-fundamental pressure — not a call on the business or the price. processId: detail-general-sentiment
AI Impact
+32
Favorable — cheap intelligence lands directly on the loss line
opp √Σ 106 · thr √Σ 21 · conf 6/10

Dave is not a software vendor whose seats can shrink; it is a balance-sheet-light lender whose unit economics are a prediction problem. Cheap intelligence attacks the cost side of that prediction — better feature extraction from transaction streams, cheaper fraud and collections handling, automated support — while the underlying need (paycheck-gap liquidity for consumers who overdraft) is macro-driven and essentially AI-proof. The monetized unit, a percentage fee on advances plus interchange, survives cheap software; nothing about an LLM makes a consumer need $200 less. The exposure is therefore asymmetric on the competitive axis rather than the demand axis: the same tooling that improves Dave's model lowers the build cost for every neobank and payroll platform, so the defensible layer becomes proprietary repayment labels, sponsor-bank access, regulatory tolerance and paid-acquisition efficiency — not the app itself. Net: AI is more likely to widen Dave's margin than to remove its reason for existing, with the tail risk sitting in distribution, not technology.

AI opportunities 7
m76
Underlying Need Persistence
Paycheck-gap liquidity demand is macro- and behavior-driven, untouched by cheaper intelligence.
m26
Solution Persistence
A standalone advance app remains viable but faces embedding inside deposit accounts.
m31
Scarcity Migration
Scarcity moves from product build to labeled repayment outcomes and cheap distribution.
m20
Customer DIY Preference
Consumers cannot self-underwrite a cash advance; DIY is not a channel here.
m41
Data Leverage
Repayment-labeled transaction histories on thin-file users are the genuine model asset.
m38
AI Margin Conversion
Servicing, fraud and collections automation should land in cash given the current cost base.
m20
Revenue Unit Durability
Percentage-of-advance fees plus interchange survive AI but face price competition.
AI threats 1
m21
Entrant Compression
Cheap build costs plus incumbent distribution make this the sharpest AI-driven risk.
Cheap intelligence lands squarely on Dave's loss line and servicing cost, which is why AI position sits at 67 — but the whole thesis rides on distribution economics, not model quality. The favorable read: an advance business is a prediction problem, and Dave already converts model improvement into cash ($289.7M FCF on $554.2M revenue), so each point of charge-off improvement and each automated support function is close to pure profit. The kill switch is entrant compression at 38 — AI makes the product trivially buildable, and Chime, Cash App and payroll platforms own the direct-deposit relationship Dave must buy. Watch two numbers before consensus does: provision/charge-off per advance cohort, and marketing spend per newly funded member; if the second rises while the first stalls, the AI advantage has been arbitraged away.
Verify before trusting this (8)
  • Overdraft fee revenue at banks
  • Household liquid savings trends
  • Monthly transacting member growth
  • Cash App/Chime advance product scaling
  • Member growth deceleration
  • Marketing spend per funded member
  • Charge-off rate per advance cohort
  • Approval rate versus loss rate
The structural effect of the AI wave on this specific business over the next ~5 years — demand, cost leverage, moat, barriers to entry, position in the AI stack. The reality beneath the AI story, not the story's market pressure (General Sentiment owns that) — and not a call on the business today or the price.
Growth Outlook
+12
Growing
edge √Σ 120 · risk √Σ 108 · conf 7/10

The world is moving toward embedded, app-native liquidity for consumers the traditional overdraft system taxed. That structural shift is Dave's tailwind and it is not narrative — it shows up as a measurable share gap versus the industry. Two forces cut against it: a rate/macro backdrop that pressures the exact income cohort Dave serves, and a regulatory apparatus that periodically reprices small-dollar credit fees. Neither is currently visible in the trajectory; both are the mechanisms by which this decelerates faster than modelled. Net: business direction is clearly up, with the debate being the rate of decay, not the sign.

Growth drivers 4
m76
ExtraCash origination + monetization flywheel
Small-dollar liquidity demand is structurally deep among paycheck-to-paycheck consumers, and Dave's shift to a transparent capped-fee structure raises revenue per advance while origination volume and member count keep climbing. Revenue growth (recent YoY ~59.7%) far outpaces the 38.6% industry rate — a +21pp share gap that is company-specific, not tide-riding.
m66
Underwriting-driven unit economics
Loss rates on advances are the single swing factor in this model; improving delinquency performance converts each incremental origination dollar into contribution profit rather than charge-offs. This is what turned net income up +70.7% YoY on +37.3% revenue — earnings growing faster than the top line is the signature of both credit and operating leverage.
m53
Operating leverage on a fixed-cost app platform
Marginal cost of serving an additional member on a mobile-only stack is near zero, and industry-wide operating margins are expanding (+3.6pp/3yr). Dave's earnings CAGR outrunning revenue means fixed-cost absorption, not one-off items — this can persist for several more quarters even as revenue growth decays.
m39
Category in expansion phase
Sector demand cycle reads expansion with category median growth of 38.8% and a 36.4% 3-yr industry revenue CAGR. Dave grows inside a rising pool, so it does not need to take share to grow — share gain is upside on top of a favorable base rate.
Growth risks 4
m65
Regulatory exposure on cash-advance economics
Fee-based small-dollar advances sit squarely in the crosshairs of consumer-protection scrutiny (fee disclosure, APR characterization, tipping/express-fee models). An adverse rule or settlement that reprices or restructures ExtraCash fees would hit revenue per advance directly — the highest-variance single item in the forecast, and one I cannot size from the brief.
m60
Deceleration is already visible
The brief explicitly flags a decelerating quarterly trend: matched-quarter YoY +37.3% versus recent-year 59.7%. Growth off a larger base plus tougher comps means the run-rate is trending toward the category's ~39% rather than sustaining 50%+ — which matters because the price already assumes 50.6%.
m53
Credit sensitivity to a stressed consumer
Macro backdrop is flagged as headwinds with the 10y at 4.63%. Dave's member base is the most cash-flow-fragile cohort; a labor-market crack raises charge-offs and forces underwriting tightening, which cuts originations and revenue simultaneously. The model's earnings leverage runs in reverse just as fast.
m33
Crowded competitive set
EarnIn, Empower, MoneyLion, Chime and bank-led overdraft-grace products all target the same liquidity gap with low switching costs. Share gains achieved so far are real but not moat-protected; sustained gains require continued underwriting and app-experience edge rather than price.
vs expectations: ~6m above · 1y inline · 2-3y below
The forward growth verdict — is the business itself likely to grow (next 2 quarters / year 1 / years 2–3), judged against its category and against printed expectations. The full horizon ladder + creme renders on the Growth Outlook card above. Not a call on the price (Valuation owns that) or the tape (Sentiment owns that).
Please log in to view trade setups
The Augustus trade-setup read is a members feature.
Log in
Lenses kept deliberately separate — Company Quality (price-agnostic), Valuation (price-conditional), General Sentiment (non-fundamental macro/narrative pressure), AI Impact (structural ~5yr AI exposure), and Growth Outlook (the forward growth verdict). The scores are not blended. Filing-level items (convertibles, lock-ups, customer concentration) are v2 — see each lens's "verify."
Price Prediction
Unavailable View weakness chain →

Prediction unavailable. valuation-synthesis has no result for DAVE — the prediction needs its fair-value anchors.

Community AI Feedback
No community reviews yet for DAVE. Be the first — hit How to Contribute, have any AI review this page, and paste its take back here.
My Notes personal — only you see this
v1.1.562 · 9b2927c4 · 2026-08-22 16:52:06