RMBL - RumbleOn

[LFvalueseeker]

Most of your posts were responding to substantive questions or comments from other posters.  Again, for what it's worth, I don't see how that amounts to the type of pump-and-dump "campaign" of which you've been accused.  So, I again applaud you for substantively engaging with other board members and posting specific responses to specific questions.  Needless to say, your opinions should be, at the very most, a starting point for anyone whose interest has been piqued.

 

RumbleOn may be a terrible investment; I have no idea. But I believe people should be encouraged to post more micro-cap ideas on here and to offer substantive responses to questions, rather than being attacked for doing so or limiting their posts to useless, repetitive minutia about very large and very well followed companies.

 

+1, appreciated.

 

What are your thoughts on the shelf registration + vote on ‘blank cheque’ preferreds? Aren’t you afraid of potentially dilutive securities? Have they discussed the goal of these preferreds in a conference call whatsoever? (sorry for being lazy).

 

Also, the dual class share structure is a bit of a turnoff for me. Thoughts on that? TIA.

 

I encouraged mgmt to file the shelf as I think it is good housekeeping for a variety of reasons.  (I am not taking credit for this but I support the decision)  Blank check prefs and dual class is also protective measures to retain control.  I understand why many investors don't like this.  I would guess after their Vroom experience they want to make the decisions and control the company.  They are the largest shareholders so at this point in time, it seems our interests are aligned. 

 

Shelf - why good housekeeping?  In the microcap market, I am a firm believer that you raise money when you can, not when you need to.  They do not need capital and they have been very open that they will not even consider the shelf anywhere near these levels.  If the stock were to trend higher and they believed they could grow faster with more cash, then a shelf should prove the cheapest cost of capital VS. a messy PIPE transaction.  If a strategic wanted to invest, it's nice to have the flexibility of the shelf.  If an acquisition made sense, the shelf is helpful.  If the stock was $15 and they place 1m shares in good hands, I would support this.  HOWEVER, constantly hitting the shelf like most small companies to delay the inevitable zero from poor execution is not my cup of tea.  With that said, I hope they never use it.  All comes down to the cost per acquisition and can they factor the HGC debt. Only time will tell.

[bobozou]

I'd also agree that CVNA is the closest analog

 

Market Size:  CVNA obviously deals in a much larger market (Used Cars) than RMBL (Used Motorcycles)

Competitive Dynamics:  CVNA has to deal with existing players (CarMax & other used/certified dealers) and new entrants (future peer-to-peer facilitator?  Amazon?)... my uneducated view of motorcycle market is that it's less liquid and less efficient

Sourcing:  CVNA sources primarily from auctions... RMBL is sourcing from individuals (more profitable and less efficient)

End Customer:  CVNA is selling primarily to consumers... if RMBL is selling primarily to dealers right now, then I think there would absolutely be margin-expansion opportunity to go direct-to-consumer

Ancillary Products: Agree w KJP that CVNA will likely make up bulk of pre-tax margin from additional products (financing/warranty)... don't see this being big income stream for RMBL (maybe I'm wrong) / but if RMBL can continue to source from individuals & effectively sell direct-to-consumers, then I'm not really worried about the unit economics

 

FWIW, I think CVNA's valuation seems aggressive, more aggressive than RMBL's (tho CVNA absolutely deserves credit for their execution thus far).  If RMBL is successful (big if), they would essentially dominate used motorcycles - there's probably significantly more value in the stock, if that outcome is realized (no doubt, far from certainty).

 

Honestly though, this management team is not the type that self-proclaimed risk-averse, value-investors would take home to meet the parents  :p

https://www.inc.com/magazine/20030201/25127.html

 

 

[Spekulatius]

I like the idea in general terms, but I am not convinced about the business model. I think the existing venues to transact a bike work better than described. I also doubt that the company really has an advantage in buying without having any boots on the ground to vet the bikes. This is essential, just like with cars, since the condition can vary significantly and I don’t think bikes are simple items either. I also doubt that they can resell bikes at a profit to dealers. if they can, it should show in the numbers. I think ebaymotors is a very viable competitor with scale advantages and a better business model too.

[Broeb22]

The only way it makes sense to me to value a Carvana is to extrapolate some level of sales growth (30%) for 10 years (or some similarly long period of time) assume some kind of pre-tax margin akin to CarMax, and consider whether additional equity could be needed that would dilute shareholders over such a long time, and then take all of those to get to an EPS figure in year 10, then discount it back at some relatively high rate given the risk of the investment. Clearly a lot of assumptions to make.

 

While we are on the topic of Carvana, have you seen their cash flow? Highly negative. Why? Because they are buying inventory.

 

How does RMBL expect to be cash flow break-even and not need to increase inventory materially to meet growth targets? I don’t buy that.

[BMC34]

Very interesting discussion, thanks.  If RMBL becomes more successful and/or proves out the market potential, what is stopping KMX from entering the market?  I would imagine it would be easy for them to quickly scale given their name recognition, experience in autos and plenty of capital.  Or maybe an even better question is why isn't KMX doing this already?  Seems like a big potential risk to the story that I don't think has been discussed. 

[LFvalueseeker]

Very interesting discussion, thanks.  If RMBL becomes more successful and/or proves out the market potential, what is stopping KMX from entering the market?  I would imagine it would be easy for them to quickly scale given their name recognition, experience in autos and plenty of capital.  Or maybe an even better question is why isn't KMX doing this already?  Seems like a big potential risk to the story that I don't think has been discussed.

 

There have been lots of discussion on lack of current competition and how a well funded player could drive up marketing costs and create issues for RMBL to gain market share at rapid pace.  KMX, CVNA, HOG, Start ups, etc...Could all build their own mousetrap.  (with enough money and time you could build most things) It will take time and perhaps they are already doing this.  The auction companies, CPRT, Manheim/COX, and KAR could do the same.  It would take some time to do this and I guess it's a question of build or buy? 

[cameronfen]

Very interesting discussion, thanks.  If RMBL becomes more successful and/or proves out the market potential, what is stopping KMX from entering the market?  I would imagine it would be easy for them to quickly scale given their name recognition, experience in autos and plenty of capital.  Or maybe an even better question is why isn't KMX doing this already?  Seems like a big potential risk to the story that I don't think has been discussed.

 

It might be easier for Carmax than some, but also dealers and auction companies could also find it easier to replicate this network, but I will be tough to duplicate the network of buyers and sellers that RMBL becomes.  It's not there yet, but if everyone can get any motorcycle they want from Rumble, and everyone who wants to sell gets the highest prices (because RMBL has the best network of buyers), how do you break in?  That being said the counter argument is that there are 3-4 competitors in the Carmax space so obviously its possible, although they likely started at similar times. 

[Foreign Tuffett]

Has anyone own, or have access to a motorcycle that they could get a purchase offer from RMBL for? Or maybe someone has already done this and would be willing to share the #s? I am very interested in how their offers compare to Kelly Blue Book pricing.

[spartansaver]

Is rumble able to be more selective in bike purchases at a smaller scale which boosts margins? As sales increase, is it required to become less selective in its purchases in order to feed sales? As competition increases will, competitors bid up prices of purchasing bikes?

 

I don't see how management thinks they will reach break even at quarterly sales of $30mm. SG&A in the last quarter was $4.1mm on sales of $8mm. In the last quarter alone, Rumble would have needed $34mm in sales at a 12% gross margin to achieve break-even. So SG&A from here can't go up at all as revenues go up nearly 4x per quarter.

 

Also I think its a mistake to think of this as a marketplace (more buyers = more sellers feedback). These guys are a retailer (buy from one, sell to another).

[LFvalueseeker]

Has anyone own, or have access to a motorcycle that they could get a purchase offer from RMBL for? Or maybe someone has already done this and would be willing to share the #s? I am very interested in how their offers compare to Kelly Blue Book pricing.

 

Here is how their system works in an oversimplified way.  The user submits the required details and their technology/algorithm automates a process to pull data from multiple pricing sources along with a soft credit pull.  This data is combined to spit out a "buy it now" price.  That price is quickly confirmed or slightly altered by a human.  This human can handle dozens of these per minute.  I don't know how it compares to KBB pricing but you could infer that the offer is within the margin of safety for the bike to be sold at auction still producing a positive GP. If the data suggests that the bike will sell at auction for $10,000 then RMBL may bid $8-$9,000. The technology handles the science part but the system is constantly learning and the human makes the final call.  They will sometimes bid low because of recent auction/dealer/trends as they don't really want the bike.  They will bid more competitively for models that they see positive recent trends and it could be a shiny toy to start the auction lineup or get in front of a dealer.  Basically the margins vary depending on the desirability of the make/model/year.

 

A great question that was asked earlier in the forum was, "how many lazy bike owners are there?" A direct quote from management, "we have even begun to scratch the surface."  As KD pointed in his blog - we are literally dealing with professional car salesmen. 

[LFvalueseeker]

Is rumble able to be more selective in bike purchases at a smaller scale which boosts margins? As sales increase, is it required to become less selective in its purchases in order to feed sales? As competition increases will, competitors bid up prices of purchasing bikes?

 

I don't see how management thinks they will reach break even at quarterly sales of $30mm. SG&A in the last quarter was $4.1mm on sales of $8mm. In the last quarter alone, Rumble would have needed $34mm in sales at a 12% gross margin to achieve break-even. So SG&A from here can't go up at all as revenues go up nearly 4x per quarter.

 

Also I think its a mistake to think of this as a marketplace (more buyers = more sellers feedback). These guys are a retailer (buy from one, sell to another).

 

From my conversations, I don't get the sense that they are highly selective.  With that said, they want bikes that they know they can shift quickly. Well funded competition will drive acquisition costs higher, there is no doubt about this.  First mover advantage can't be understated, it's just a question of how long the head start is?  They are currently spending sub $200 in marketing costs to acquire a bike.  The used car companies are paying $1,250-$2,000 according to mgmt.  Each day that goes buy they are able to capture more and more profiles and I believe this data will prove to be valuable.  So the next guy in the space will have to spend more money to find the same audience.  Some competition is good IMO, it will validate the business model.  Too much, too quickly could be disastrous. 

 

Mgmt has stated on multiple conference calls that G&A will be stable.  So the profit of each bike sold after the breakeven point drops to the bottom line. I removed  the "S" because I am lumping that into digital marketing costs to acquire the bike.

[cameronfen]

Is rumble able to be more selective in bike purchases at a smaller scale which boosts margins? As sales increase, is it required to become less selective in its purchases in order to feed sales? As competition increases will, competitors bid up prices of purchasing bikes?

 

I don't see how management thinks they will reach break even at quarterly sales of $30mm. SG&A in the last quarter was $4.1mm on sales of $8mm. In the last quarter alone, Rumble would have needed $34mm in sales at a 12% gross margin to achieve break-even. So SG&A from here can't go up at all as revenues go up nearly 4x per quarter.

 

Also I think its a mistake to think of this as a marketplace (more buyers = more sellers feedback). These guys are a retailer (buy from one, sell to another).

 

I can't believe G&A will stay stable although management has said that gross profit will go up (although 12% is above where it is at currently).  I don't know if I buy the retailer bit.  The money is made by buying from consumers and then reselling to consumers.  With a retailer, the wholesaler likely has pricing power and there really is no benefit of having a network on the buy side.  I think the closer comparison is craigslist, where they literally have put no effort into maintaining the website for 15 years and yet basically no one is replacing them.  Clearly they act more middlemanish than craigslist, which is only a platform while RMBL is like a broker, however the network effects of this marketplace on both ends leads to synergies, but even in the world of brokers, network effect benefits are huge.  Look at online stockbrokers or big insurance brokers etc.  Obviously smart people can look at the same company and come to different conclusions. 

[LFvalueseeker]

Is rumble able to be more selective in bike purchases at a smaller scale which boosts margins? As sales increase, is it required to become less selective in its purchases in order to feed sales? As competition increases will, competitors bid up prices of purchasing bikes?

 

I don't see how management thinks they will reach break even at quarterly sales of $30mm. SG&A in the last quarter was $4.1mm on sales of $8mm. In the last quarter alone, Rumble would have needed $34mm in sales at a 12% gross margin to achieve break-even. So SG&A from here can't go up at all as revenues go up nearly 4x per quarter.

 

Also I think its a mistake to think of this as a marketplace (more buyers = more sellers feedback). These guys are a retailer (buy from one, sell to another).

 

I can't believe G&A will stay stable although management has said that gross profit will go up (although 12% is above where it is at currently).  I don't know if I buy the retailer bit.  The money is made by buying from consumers and then reselling to consumers.  With a retailer, the wholesaler likely has pricing power and there really is no benefit of having a network on the buy side.  I think the closer comparison is craigslist, where they literally have put no effort into maintaining the website for 15 years and yet basically no one is replacing them.  Clearly they act more middlemanish than craigslist, which is only a platform while RMBL is like a broker, however the network effects of this marketplace on both ends leads to synergies, but even in the world of brokers, network effect benefits are huge.  Look at online stockbrokers or big insurance brokers etc.  Obviously smart people can look at the same company and come to different conclusions.

 

90% of last quarters sales were to dealers and auctions.  Consumers buying bikes represented 10%.  They are projecting that GP will go up as the mix shifts and consumers become a larger slice of the distribution pie.  From the way I understand it, the G&A will remain stable as the infrastructure and head count is in place to handle substantially more volume.  To me, the most important number is the cost to acquire a bike.  If that starts to move higher it will be due to competition or realization of a smaller market, both bad scenarios. 

 

They have 8.4% GP margins selling 90% to dealer and auctions.  That is what is intriguing to me. 

[KJP]

 

 

Clearly they act more middlemanish than craigslist, which is only a platform while RMBL is like a broker, however the network effects of this marketplace on both ends leads to synergies,

 

Unless you'd call Walmart a "broker" between manufacturers and consumers, I don't think RumbleOn is a broker.  They are buying goods at price A, have distribution costs of B, and sell for C, and hope that C > A + B.  That's the equation of a retailer.

 

Craigslist acts as a platform connecting buyers and sellers who transact directly with each other.  Sellers want to be there because that's where the buyers are.  Demand will draw supply, just as advertisers go to Facebook because that's where the eyeballs are.  The same goes for any other platform facilitating a two-sided network.

 

But the retail sellers here aren't using RumbleOn's website as a platform to sell directly to retail buyers.  The retail sellers are selling to RumbleOn.  So, how are there network effects on both sides?  Said another way, why does the ability of a seller to sell his bike to RumbleOn grow more valuable as the number of buyers looking at RumbleOn's website increases?  Is the theory that RumbleOn will ultimately pay sellers more for sellers' bikes as its network of buyers increases?  That seems contrary to the investment case, which is that RumbleOn won't have to do that.

 

 

[spartansaver]

I'm not sure these guys benefit from a network effect like a typical marketplace does. A marketplace adds more value to the seller by having a larger audience seeing the product. In Rumble's case, the seller never see the marketplace, so they don't care as much about how large the buying side is, simply that they get the best price. A seller on a marketplace gets more of a feeling that they are getting at the best sales price for their product as they see all the bids (benefit from more buyers).

 

[spartansaver]

Ditto what KJP said

[cameronfen]

 

 

Clearly they act more middlemanish than craigslist, which is only a platform while RMBL is like a broker, however the network effects of this marketplace on both ends leads to synergies,

 

Unless you'd call Walmart a "broker" between manufacturers and consumers, I don't think RumbleOn is a broker.  They are buying goods at price A, have distribution costs of B, and sell for C, and hope that C > A + B.  That's the equation of a retailer.

 

Craigslist acts as a platform connecting buyers and sellers who transact directly with each other.  Sellers want to be there because that's where the buyers are.  Demand will draw supply, just as advertisers go to Facebook because that's where the eyeballs are.  The same goes for any other platform facilitating a two-sided network.

 

But the retail sellers here aren't using RumbleOn's website as a platform to sell directly to retail buyers.  The retail sellers are selling to RumbleOn.  So, how are there network effects on both sides?  Said another way, why does the ability of a seller to sell his bike to RumbleOn grow more valuable as the number of buyers looking at RumbleOn's website increases?  Is the theory that RumbleOn will ultimately pay sellers more for sellers' bikes as its network of buyers increases?  That seems contrary to the investment case, which is that RumbleOn won't have to do that.

 

If you don't like the craiglist analogy look at a stock broker.  You buy from someone you hold for a short time and then sell to someone else.  Network effects matter a lot for stock brokers.  If you have more high quality buyers of motorcycles, you can a.) offer higher prices to buyers as you have less need to sell to a auction or dealer, b.) take higher profits (for the same reasons), c.) have a more liquid market which can reduce costs like transportation (c.) might be minor).  I don't know if Rumbleon **will** have to pay more as they have more buyers, but they certainly **can** pay more as you have more retail buyers willing to buy your product.  Said another way, selling to dealers is an example of a market failure.  There is a buyer somewhere to buy every bike sold on RumbleOn (assume the dealer wouldn't buy if they don't think they would find a seller), but the reason RMBL has to sell to dealers and auctions is because their own network isn't big enough to find these buyers.  Thus, they have to pay a premium to **use** someone else's network, which cuts into profits. 

[cameronfen]

I'm not sure these guys benefit from a network effect like a typical marketplace does. A marketplace adds more value to the seller by having a larger audience seeing the product. In Rumble's case, the seller never see the marketplace, so they don't care as much about how large the buying side is, simply that they get the best price. A seller on a marketplace gets more of a feeling that they are getting at the best sales price for their product as they see all the bids (benefit from more buyers).

 

The seller might not see the buying market place but RMBL does.  Thus RMBL captures the advantages of a larger marketplace and can choose to pass on these advantages to the seller (or book higher profits).  Obviously this is more delicate and more muted than a direct market place.  I don't think the main benefit of having a 2-sided market is seeing that you are getting the best deal, rather it is the effect that produces the feeling ie that anything you put on the market will fetch the best price and anything you buy has a large selection where you can pick the cheapest/best match.  I think those things still carry over, its just it can't really evolve spontaneously like it does on amazon, but RMBL will have to be deliberate in figuring out how to best make that effect flow between buyers in sellers.  Again reasonable people may disagree. 

[cameronfen]

 

 

Clearly they act more middlemanish than craigslist, which is only a platform while RMBL is like a broker, however the network effects of this marketplace on both ends leads to synergies,

 

Unless you'd call Walmart a "broker" between manufacturers and consumers, I don't think RumbleOn is a broker.  They are buying goods at price A, have distribution costs of B, and sell for C, and hope that C > A + B.  That's the equation of a retailer.

 

Craigslist acts as a platform connecting buyers and sellers who transact directly with each other.  Sellers want to be there because that's where the buyers are.  Demand will draw supply, just as advertisers go to Facebook because that's where the eyeballs are.  The same goes for any other platform facilitating a two-sided network.

 

But the retail sellers here aren't using RumbleOn's website as a platform to sell directly to retail buyers.  The retail sellers are selling to RumbleOn.  So, how are there network effects on both sides?  Said another way, why does the ability of a seller to sell his bike to RumbleOn grow more valuable as the number of buyers looking at RumbleOn's website increases?  Is the theory that RumbleOn will ultimately pay sellers more for sellers' bikes as its network of buyers increases?  That seems contrary to the investment case, which is that RumbleOn won't have to do that.

 

If you don't like the craiglist analogy look at a stock broker.  You buy from someone you hold for a short time and then sell to someone else.  Network effects matter a lot for stock brokers.  If you have more high quality buyers of motorcycles, you can a.) offer higher prices to buyers as you have less need to sell to a auction or dealer, b.) take higher profits (for the same reasons), c.) have a more liquid market which can reduce costs like transportation (c.) might be minor).  I don't know if Rumbleon **will** have to pay more as they have more buyers, but they certainly **can** pay more as you have more retail buyers willing to buy your product.  Said another way, selling to dealers is an example of a market failure.  There is a buyer somewhere to buy every bike sold on RumbleOn (assume the dealer wouldn't buy if they don't think they would find a seller), but the reason RMBL has to sell to dealers and auctions is because their own network isn't big enough to find these buyers.  Thus, they have to pay a premium to **use** someone else's network, which cuts into profits.

 

You're focusing on the benefits to RumbleOn from having a lot of buyers.  I was talking about the benefits to the people who sell bikes to RumbleOn.  I think we agree that to the extent there's a  benefit to the sellers it's indirect and contingent. 

 

 

 

The more sellers you have, the more bikes hit your hurdle purchase price.  Now I couldn't find where management said LFinvestors comments about inventory staying the same same regardless of the amount of revenue, I don't believe it's possible, especially if number of motorcycles increases like 10x.  However, if more bikes pass your hurdle, you have a larger selection of bikes for buyers at any one time (assuming days in inventory is the same).  This attracts more buyers into your market.  Even if days in inventory drops enough to compensate for 10x motorcycle increase (for example not trying to pump the stock), you come back the next day and you have hundreds of new motorcycles to choose from.  Now this is not as good a deal as amazon, but I think the two sided nature of it still holds.  I actually think Walmart is a good example of a moat from a two sided network FWIW. 

[cameronfen]

I also should clarify, I don't think this moat is in place yet.  Only if RMBL is left alone for a few years it could develop. 

[LFvalueseeker]

BBB link for reviews.  Helpful to track and see good things and potential problems from real world customers.

 

https://www.bbb.org/charlotte/business-reviews/motorcycle-dealers/rumbleon-in-charlotte-nc-577102/reviews-and-complaints

 

[CleverLongboat]

Not sure if this came up already but it seems there are at least a few competitors.

Right now it seems like Cycletrader.com is the dominant site for trading cycles. Rumbleon is a distant second and chopperexchange.com an even more distant third. Cycletrader.com seems to be sipping everyone elses milkshake.

 

[Pelagic]

Not sure if this came up already but it seems there are at least a few competitors.

Right now it seems like Cycletrader.com is the dominant site for trading cycles. Rumbleon is a distant second and chopperexchange.com an even more distant third. Cycletrader.com seems to be sipping everyone elses milkshake.

 

To me cycletrader.com has a different business model in that they are solely providing the online platform for users to buy and sell motorcycles. RMBL is taking on the risk of buying bikes themselves with the idea that they are able to provide liquidity to sellers in exchange for buying motorcycles at a discount. One is purely an online platform whereas the other is more like an online motorcycle dealer.

 

Cycletrader's parent company, Trader Interactive owns a portfolio of similar p2p and b2b sites, each focused on a specific market - motorcycles, pwcs, airplanes, etc.

[LFvalueseeker]

I wanted to provide an update on my thoughts on Rumbleon after some recent observations and ahead of Q2 numbers. 

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: RMBL is my largest single position with a cost basis of ~$4.50 across multiple accounts.  I am very bullish on the company and their business model.  I am not here to pump or promote this stock or any others.  I came across this forum through an alert and joined the conversation.  This is a microcap and very risky.  Please do your own due diligence. 

 

Channel checks confirm that the company remains in hyper growth mode with all metrics pointing up and to the right. 

 

1.  Revenue: I expect Q2 revenues of $17.5 million.  Q3 is modeled out at $30-$35 million and Q4 at $45-$60 million. I will tighten up the ranges when they report Q2 in a few weeks.  This is based on a variety of factors but most important is their cash offer projections in their recent presentation. 

 

2.  Full year 2018 revenue of $110-$120 million.

 

3.  Inventory:  Inventory continues to build at a healthy rate.  Q2 averaged around 600-700 bikes in inventory and Q3 is starting to see 1000+.

 

4.  Awareness:  They are still at the beginning stages of building brand name recognition but traction is apparent.  BBB ratings are at 5 stars and continue to come in favorably.  A recent video advert showed 823,000 views.  I am receiving more google alerts from motorcycle forums discussing Rumbleon and their experience.  The conversation under the digital adverts is shifting from angry to receptive.  i.e. Motorcycle owners are starting to understand that there is a price for liquidity and seamless transactions.  I'm surprised to see this shift happen so quickly but it's largely do to their digital team engaging with commenters.

 

5.  Peer Group:  tough nut to crack as CVNA is the only company that is a good comp in the public markets.  CVNA trades at ~4X 2018 revenue projections and loses significant money as they scale.  I believe RMBL business model is superior with a clear path to profitability.  RMBL trading at .8X 2018 rev projections.  Yes, the used car market is 100X bigger then bikes but will substantially more competition.  It's above my pay grade to deep dive into how strong this comp comparison truly is.  Treat it as a single data point.

 

6.  In an effort to build the moat, the team is contemplating introducing a listing option for those potential customers that do not accept the cash offer.  Little details beyond that but it's an interesting way to keep them in the funnel.

 

7.  Risks that can be evaluated after Q2 numbers include cost to acquire each bike, conversion rate, average turnover, distribution mix, average selling price and cash position.

 

[landstander]

Thanks for the update LFvalueseeker.

 

My revenue estimates are a little lower, but in the same ballpark.

 

I also think it's positive that their web listed inventory has increased to 1000+. I'm interested to see if the data point provides guidance on their sales and more specifically their consumer sales (not dealer/auction).

 

Still holding.