Ernie Garcia
Analyst · Wells Fargo. Please go ahead
Sure. So I think, at this point it would 3.3% EBITDA margin loss for the entire business, obviously showing a lot of leverage. And I think we're going to keep our EBITDA level disclosures at that level instead of diving into the market level. But you can go look at that chart. And, the way it works is not all that complicated. Generally speaking the GPU is roughly shared across markets, so if we have gains, in any given market, that's on average going to flow through to all the markets. And then as we get bigger and lever corporate costs more that generally benefits to markets and the -- as we continue to level marketing that tends to benefit the market. So, I think, when we look at it across the market, there's really, really good stories there. And we think the path to profitability is clear than it's ever been. I think, even kind of stepping back and saying, why did we set this $3,000 goal to begin with when we first came public, in early 2017? I mean there are two reasons why we set that goal. One is, we thought through a carefully we kind of felt, we understood all the levers of the business where we could go and get money. And we felt it $3,000 with a level that made sense, and it was achievable given the business that we had built. But two and really importantly, we thought the $3,000 was a very significant level in terms of being a number where you could build a sustainable and very profitable business. And we continue to believe that today. So I think there's a lot of ways to look at our financials today. I'll call up three, one, just to look at the momentum in progress that we've got. Mark talked about levering nearly 20 points over the last three years and being a 3.3% EBITDA margin loss today. That suggested that there's a lot of room that we're very, very excited about. Another approach is just like we approached $3,000 GPU target, we can do a bottoms up analysis, and that basically is our long-term financial model. We went through that very carefully, look at all the expense items of all the areas we thought that we could add additional GPU. And we put that together, and I hope at least it from an objective perspective, you could go through and do a similar bottoms up analysis and arrive at similar places as we have in our long-term model. And I think third and interestingly, is do a relative comparison to dealerships out there. If you go look at any given dealership, any public with some of them, this comparison will be very easy with some, it's hard because you need to get there SG&A for retail unit and kind of massage out service offs. But if you go look at that, most dealerships are spending around $2300 in SG&A, per car they sell. In the quarter, we spent $4100 on SG&A per car we sell. So, per car we sold, excuse me. That gap is paying for 95% unit growth, and 108% revenue growth, and we're still significantly subscale. But even at that level, our losses, if you take our EBITDA loss in the quarter and divide by sales, they are about $750 per car. If you basically assume the long run, we can get to a cost structure looks similar to dealerships, there's an $1800 benefit there. And, now you're suddenly $1,000 positive, which is about 5% EBITDA margin. And obviously, we believe in the long run our cost structure looks a lot different than dealerships. And it is much better than most dealerships. In addition, we still think there's a lot of room in GPU. So we're looking at that and feeling very, very good. And we think just given the clarity of the story now, we're going to stick with speaking about it at a company level.