Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Boyd Group Services Five-Year Goal Announcement Conference Call. Listeners are reminded that certain matters discussed on today's conference call or answers that may be given to questions asked could constitute forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties related to Boyd's future financial or business performance. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements. The risk factors that may affect results are detailed in Boyd's Annual Information Form and other periodic filings and registration statements, and you can access these documents at SEDAR+'s database found at sedarplus.ca. I would like to remind everyone that this conference call is being recorded today, Wednesday, February 26, 2025. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Tim O'Day, Chief Executive Officer of Boyd Group Services, Incorporated. Please go ahead, Mr. O'Day.
Thank you, Operator, and good afternoon, and thank you to those of you joining us on the call this afternoon. On the call with me today is Brian Kaner, our President and COO, and Jeff Murray, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Today, after market closed, we announced our new five-year goal. You can access our news release as well as our updated investor presentation outlining the key highlights of our plan on our website at boydgroup.com. We will be referring to the investor presentation on this webcast throughout the call, and that abbreviated presentation was emailed to analysts a short time ago. On today's call, we'll provide an overview of our plan and our vision for the future. We will be releasing our Q4 and full year 2024 results on 19 March 2025, and therefore will not be discussing these results on the call today.
With my upcoming retirement in May and Brian's appointment as incoming CEO, it was an opportune time to release our next five-year goal. Boyd has a strong history of setting long-term goals. As highlighted in slide four, in 2006, we set a goal to adjust to double our adjusted EBITDA to CAD 20 million, which was achieved in 2011. Fast forward to today, Boyd is nearing the end of achieving its most recent goal to double the size of the business from 2020 to 2025 based on 2019 revenue. Boyd has generated CAD 346 million in adjusted EBITDA in a trailing 12-month period, ending with Q3 of 2024. And this evening, we're announcing a new goal to double our adjusted EBITDA to CAD 700 million by the end of 2029.
Our success has been rooted in the execution of our proven accretive growth strategy within the CAD 50 billion North American collision repair industry. Currently, we're holding the number two market position with only 6% market share, and we're confident that the strong long-term fundamentals of the industry, coupled with the continuation of our proven growth strategy, will support the next phase of our growth and enable us to continue to generate strong returns for our shareholders. I will now pass the call over to Brian to share the details of our new plan.
Thanks, Tim. Thank you all for joining the call today. I'm excited to lead Boyd's next phase of growth and to present our new plan to our stakeholders. I'll begin with the key highlights of our new five-year goal, as highlighted on slide five. Through the end of 2029, we aim to reach CAD 5 billion in revenue and grow our market share through a combination of same-store sales growth and new locations, representing a greater than 10% compound annual growth rate during the planned period. We will augment this growth through enhanced profitability with a goal to double adjusted EBITDA to CAD 700 million based on the Q3 2024 trailing 12-month results. This translates into a 14% adjusted EBITDA margin and a 15% compound annual growth rate.
This goal is supported by the launch of Project 360, our company-wide profitability transformation plan launched in Q4 of 2024, which is projected to generate CAD 100 million in annual recurring cost savings and enhanced margins over the five-year period. Moving to slide six, Boyd's CAD 5 billion revenue target will be achieved by continuing our proven growth strategy, namely the combination of same-store sales growth and new location growth with a focus on securing a number one or number two market position in all markets served. We expect to generate 3%-5% in average annual growth from same-store sales growth and an additional 5%-7% in average annual growth through the addition of new locations.
Beyond same-store sales growth and single-shop expansion, we'll continue to be a strategic buyer of larger multi-location businesses, and if successful, this would be incremental to our revenue growth goals. As highlighted on slide seven, the North American collision industry faced several short-term headwinds in 2024, including a mild winter, rising total loss rates due to lower used car prices, customers deferring claims amid economic uncertainty, and the significant increase in insurance premiums, which resulted in a 9.7% decline in repairable claims volumes in the nine months ended Q3 2024. However, as depicted in slide eight, history has shown that the market, and therefore Boyd's growth, normalizes as these headwinds abate. We believe that the Great Recession provides a useful comparison to the headwinds experienced in 2024. During the Great Recession, customers pulled back, deferring repairs and opting for cash-outs, which negatively impacted our growth in 2009.
However, as these headwinds eased, growth returned to the industry, enabling Boyd to experience a rebound in same-store sales growth. While it is still too early to determine if claims volumes have bottomed, we remain confident in the industry's long-term outlook. In addition, several long-term structural shifts are positively impacting the industry. The increasing complexity of vehicles and the growing need for scanning and calibration services have contributed to a 40% rise in the average cost of repair over the past five years, which has been a benefit to larger players like us. As a result, in our five-year growth assumptions, we've assumed a return to historical macro environment, enabling us to achieve three to five-year average annual same-store sales growth over the five years.
As you can see on slide nine, this assumption is in line with our ten-year average same-store sales growth of 5.4% and supported by our end market, which increasingly favors larger players like Boyd. The same-store sales growth will be complemented by continued new shop expansion through single-shop acquisitions, new brownfield and greenfield startups, and small multi-location acquisitions. As we've discussed previously, we expect an increasing number of our single-shop growth will come from brownfield and greenfield units. These facilities allow us to build a facility that meets the long-term needs of the business with a dedicated space for glass, calibration, and collision all under one roof. These strategically placed facilities support our other collision facilities, enable us to gain market share, densify our markets, and achieve our goal of securing a one or two position in all markets we serve.
The increased focus on brownfield and greenfield locations does result in short-term margin headwinds, as shown on slide 10. The additional costs incurred to the facility opening, in addition to the initial months while sales ramp, lead to modest startup losses. However, these facilities generally reach positive adjusted EBITDA by the end of the first year and achieve target maturity by the end of year three. Although this is less favorable when compared to single-shop acquisitions, we reach target maturity by the end of year two. brownfield and greenfield locations ultimately deliver higher returns on invested capital post-maturity. Additionally, they offer Boyd a stronger platform for achieving leverage as we scale the business. While our pace of single-shop growth has slowed in 2024, as we focused on the short-term headwinds in our market, we have a robust pipeline of opportunities to add new locations in our markets.
We anticipate new single-shop expansion will contribute an incremental 5%-7% annual average growth over the planned period. As we turn to profitability, we have announced our goal, as highlighted on slide 11, to double our adjusted EBITDA to CAD 700 million and bring our margins to 14% over the next five years, with an additional upside potential over the long term. To support this goal, we're launching Project 360, a company-wide plan to drive adjusted EBITDA margin improvements. This initiative, launched in Q4 of 2024 in partnership with a leading global consulting firm, will drive enhanced profitability and returns as we scale our business and densify our markets. Project 360's key areas of focus include optimizing our store operating model for increased profitability as volume grows, optimizing parts and indirect procurement, leveraging technology, and designing a fit-for-purpose support organization to support our expansion.
These efforts are projected to generate CAD 100 million in recurring adjusted EBITDA margin enhancement, and as a result, we are confident in our ability to achieve our goal of doubling our adjusted EBITDA. Upfront investments and transition costs will be incurred to achieve these benefits, with costs estimated to be CAD 20 million to 23 million over the coming quarters. These costs will be tracked and reported upon in the coming quarters. I will now pass the call over to Jeff to provide an overview of our ability to fund our growth as well as our capital allocation strategy.
Thanks, Brian. As evidenced on slide twelve, we are well positioned to fund our new goal thanks to our prudent financial management, solid balance sheet, and strong free cash flow generation. Through our goal period, we are targeting a net debt-to-adjusted EBITDA ratio on a pre-IFRS basis of between two and two and a half times. The combination of our expected cash flow generation and existing revolver, including the accordion, provides us with an estimated CAD 1.5 billion in cash available to invest in the growth of the business over the next five years. We believe that this liquidity is sufficient to execute on the current five-year growth targets.
If we were to be successful in completing a larger multi-location acquisition, we have access to both debt and equity markets and would be comfortable bringing our leverage level above the two and two and a half times target ratio for a period of time. Alongside today's announcement, there are no major changes to our capital allocation strategy, which we have outlined on slide 13. With significant growth potential ahead, driven by organic investments to gain market share and the expansion of our shop network, we will continue to allocate a substantial portion of our capital towards growing the business, capitalizing on opportunities with the highest returns. Additionally, we will continue investing approximately 1.6%-1.8% of annual revenue in maintenance capital expenditures and will grow our dividend modestly each year, providing a consistent return of capital to shareholders. I will now pass the call back to Brian.
Thanks, Jeff. We're all excited to embark on this next phase of growth as we continue to execute on our proven strategy to drive our growth while at the same time focus on becoming one of the most profitable players in the North American collision industry. Thank you for listening on today's call, and I'd like to open the call to questions. Operator?
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question-and-answer session. Should you have a question, please press star followed by the number one on your touch-tone phone. You will hear a prompt that your hand has been raised. Should you wish to decline from the polling process, please press star followed by the number two. If you are using a speakerphone, please lift the handset before pressing any keys. One moment, please, for your first question. Your first question comes from the line of Krista Friesen from CIBC. Your line is now open.
Hi. Thanks for taking the question. I'm just wondering, it feels like a bit of a departure from previous messaging around looking at the multi-shop acquisitions. Can you walk through what the thought process was there and maybe what you're seeing in the market at this point in time for MSO opportunities?
Yeah. I don't know that I would suggest it's a departure. I think we've always said that we would look at any large MSO that came on the market. If the economics were right, we would be in a position to move forward. I don't know that there's anything that's meaningfully changed in the marketplace today. Obviously, as we've talked previously, many of those have traded in the recent 18 months, but there's a few still out there that if they came to market, we would be willing to take a look and obviously would only do something if the economics made sense.
Okay. Thank you. And then—
What's probably important about it is that the plan that we've laid out doesn't require us to acquire a large multi-shop operator to achieve the plan. If we're successful with that, it would be incremental to what we've laid out.
Right. Okay. That makes sense. And then maybe just on the labor front, obviously, labor hasn't been as much of a challenge this past year just given where demand has been. But as you're looking out the next several years and there's a focus on increasing your calibration offering, how do you feel about your level of labor to handle that?
Yeah. I mean, I would say in the bigger investor deck that we put out on our website, we actually talk about the growth in our calibration business, and you can see we've grown that workforce from 98 associates to 225 associates over the last year, so more than doubling the size of that business. In addition to that, on the collision side, as you know, part of the actions we took when capacity was not as needed was we took some actions to take the TDP program down. I think we're in a position now where we would see our ability to start investing in the TDP program again and would expect that to be part of the catalyst that allows us to get to the capacity, and then the rest of it is continuing to hire as usual.
Okay. Great. I'll jump back in the queue. Thank you.
Thanks.
Thanks, Krista.
Your next question comes from the line of Cheryl Zhang from TD Securities. Your line is now open.
Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. Thanks so much for taking our questions. Calling from Derek. I'm curious how she would be thinking about the ramp in revenue. Would it be more front-end or back-end weighted? And curious what you have taken into account with respect to the challenging macro environment considering the high insurance premium.
Yeah. I mean, we're certainly not planning to back-end load the plan. I mean, I think if you look at our growth historically, we've had relatively consistent (take the COVID period out of the equation) we've had relatively consistent same-store sales growth of 3%-5%. Some years a little bit higher, some years a little bit lower, and we've augmented that with 5% or so, 5%-10% growth in new units. I think we'd expect that to be similar, although, as you said, and I said in my prepared comments, we're not sure that the market has hit the bottom on repairable claims yet, and so we might be a little bit more cautious this year just as we come out of that recovery.
Yeah. Brian, you might just comment on the greenfield development is a little bit more, obviously, it's got a longer lead time, but more predictable. And we'll provide some stability to the unit growth, whereas acquisitions tend to be a little bit more lumpy.
Yeah, and we've said publicly that we expect half of our growth to come from brownfield, greenfield. And part of that is it does give us the, if we were shooting for 80-100 units a year, that gives us at least half of that that is very well planned and very predictable. So, I think the greenfield strategy also does allow us to take some of the just the lumpiness out of our acquisition strategy, our new unit strategy.
Okay. That's very helpful. And one more before I yield: curious how should we think about the cadence in realizing the CAD 100 million cost savings and what will be the cadence of that CAD 20 million-CAD 23 million upfront cost as well? Thank you.
Yeah. I would say that we expect roughly 70% of the savings to be in our run rate by the end of the second year. And I would suggest that you can think about the cost to achieve very similar to that.
Great. Thank you.
Your next question comes from the line of Steve Hansen from Raymond James. Your line is now open.
Hi, Steve.
Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for the time. Brian, question for you just on sort of it's mirroring two of the concepts you talked about. You talked about the fact that repairable claims might not have bottomed just yet, but then at the same time, you're still hoping for a same-store sales growth. I mean, the margin targets and all these things are going to be somewhat dependent, I presume, on getting volume back in the shops. Have you seen any indication that things are starting to get better or less worse as you sort of look out on what you're seeing out there today?
Yeah. Look, I think as we said earlier, we'll provide commentary around what we're seeing in the current environment as well as what we saw in the Q4 when we announced on or when we announced earnings on March 19th. What I will tell you is what we did with the cost transformation plan is built it on a—we built it on a steady volume. So, what we weren't doing was building reliance on growth into that equation.
So, whereas, again, we haven't spoke publicly about where the market's at. You did see throughout our Q4 release, you saw a little bit of softening or easing of the declines in the Q4. So that can give you some indication of what you're likely to hear from us as well. But certainly, are not reliant on growth to get back to the rate that we were, the targeted rate that we're expecting.
Okay. That's helpful. And if I just want to drill down on the greenfield strategy a little bit, I mean, how much of the plan have you got in place thus far? Just trying to get a sense for where you're at from a stage of development standpoint, how much of the pipeline has been filled thus far, location selected. I think as well as in the— Yeah. Go ahead.
No. I was going to, I would expect that as we get to the back half of this year, you're going to start to see, we're definitely going to start seeing the fruit of that acquisition of that greenfield strategy. We started this the middle part of last year or the kind of early last year. So, we expect that we'll start seeing a more steady flow of greenfields into our new units by towards the end of this year, and then it'll be pretty constant.
Okay. Great. I'll jump back into queue at 10:00 P.M. now. Thanks.
Thanks.
Your next question comes from the line of Daryl Young from Stifel. Your line is now open.
Daryl.
Hey. Good afternoon, everyone. Just with respect to the margin profile and the 14%, I know you've left the door open beyond 2029 to go over that, but I guess it's a little bit lighter than I might have expected just given the success of the scanning and calibration ramp-up. Is it mostly the greenfield, brownfield mix that's causing some of the drag, or is there any kind of color you can give on the margin profile and maybe not being a little higher?
Sure. Hi, Daryl. Yeah. Jeff speaking here. So, yeah, I think that really the reality is that our cost structure is still a bit of a headwind, and inflation does take a bit of time to work through. So, there is going to be progress that we're going to make by taking some cost out and getting some efficiencies and getting some margin benefit from things like calibration. But there still is going to be cost inflation that we're going to have to work through as well as we invest in the business and continue to grow. So, I think when you factor in all those balancing out, I think getting to a 14% on a CAD 700 million EBITDA number is really quite an accomplishment, and we think is going to be a pretty good result.
Yeah. The only other thing I would add to that is I think, Daryl, you know this. I mean, part of, and again, we've shown it in the larger presentation that's out there. We're at about 40% penetration on calibration as we sit here today. So, some of that, half of that is already in our results, and that's yielding an 11.3% on a quarter-to-date or a year-to-date basis and 11.3% margin. So, there is still some left to go, but it's not as big of a tailwind as it's been historically.
Gotcha. And then just in terms of you mentioned you'd call out the CAD 20 million-25 million of costs going forward as they're incurred. Are you anticipating margins will actually go lower before they go higher, and then you'd need to add back those costs to get to the normalized run rate, or how should we think about the next few quarters?
No. I do not expect margins to go lower.
Got it. Okay. I'll jump back to you.
We're going to be basically calling out what those amounts are so that you can essentially look at what the business is doing ex those costs versus with those costs. So, I think there'll be good clarity around the cost as well as what the actual business is doing.
Okay. Perfect. Thanks.
Your next question comes from the line of Gary Ho from Desjardins Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
Hi, Gary.
Hi. Thanks for your time. So, Brian, Tim, I think you mentioned greater focus on greenfield, brownfield. Can you share what your team has done to scope out these regional opportunities, maybe a bit more color on that, and have you or will you be building out your team to execute on this strategy?
Yeah. I mean, we've gone through a pretty intense market planning exercise over the last couple of quarters. And one of the focuses of that planning exercise is to identify areas that we want to densify in. So, I would say that we've got a pretty good handle on where we want to grow. And we aren't relying on an internal team for that development. We're actually relying on an external team and developer relationships who have very localized relationships with municipalities to help us more quickly get stores in the ground.
It's just, from my perspective, we're not a construction company. So, we're much better off to partner with people who do this every single day. That's going to help, one, the quality of the assets we put in the ground, and two, it's going to help the speed at which we make that happen and keep our cost down along that path.
Okay. And then maybe just to follow on, maybe for Jeff, just given the greater importance of greenfield, brownfield, any thoughts on providing a bit more disclosures and separating out the two so on our side, we can better assess kind of how that's tracking?
Yeah. We're still going to be evolving, I think, how we provide our disclosure around the number of units and in between greenfield, brownfield and other acquisitions and as well as forecasting the timing. But we don't have any plans right now to be providing much in the way of separately disclosing them as a separate segment or a separate population. But we will be providing some more visibility as to what we think the projection would be as well as what the current rate is. And then really, we did provide some guidance just as part of our release today that really provides a bit of a model that can be used to give some guidance as to what you can expect to be able to better understand the economics.
Okay. And then maybe just another question. How should we measure your success, especially in the earlier years? Has or will senior or middle management comp be tied to KPIs presented within this plan, whether that's kind of Project 360, the revenue, and/or the EBITDA target?
Yeah. All of our compensation plans are tied to sales and EBITDA. And as a matter of fact, we just made a change to make sure that even at the GM level at this point, their compensation is tethered to sales and EBITDA attainment. And that attainment is against the budget, which is tied to the goals that we just laid out. So, I feel like we've got really good continuity across the alignment in the organization, particularly as it relates to incentive plans. We've put a pretty robust structure in place to make sure that we're tracking and measuring success against the CAD 100 million through a fairly robust PMO process. And I think you'll see the proof points coming through the P&L at the end of the day.
Yep. Okay. That's great to hear. Those are my questions. Thank you.
Thanks.
Your next question comes from the line of Chris Murray from ATB Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
Hi, Chris.
Yeah. Thanks. Good evening, guys. Thinking about the broader market, so I guess a couple of questions here. Historically, at least for the last few years, this has been basically a static market size. And there's always been the debate about the market shrinking with things like ADAS versus collision rates and the cost of repair. So, when you think about your annual same-store sales growth, let's just assume for ease of the brain damage, that 2% is inflation, but you're still going to be gathering share from folks. And so, the question I've got is around what's going to be the strategy to capture that share in a static market? And as you start getting larger, the market dynamics are likely going to have to start shifting around a little bit.
So how are you thinking about what the market looks like in five years and how this plan dovetails into that? And I guess as part of this, is there anything implied in your change in geography or footprint? Is there anything that says you sort of change from where you are in Canada and the U.S. or do anything differently?
Yeah. So, couple of questions I think packed into that statement. So, first off, you're right. On the underlying market itself, we've talked for a long time about there's a 2% headwind associated with the adoption or the penetration of ADAS. That's partially offset by a 1% increase in miles driven and a miles driven and number of vehicles on the road, which leaves the overall claim volumes down around 1%. And then inflation and complexity makes up three to four points of growth on the ticket, which leaves you at a 2%-3% kind of market. And we've historically doubled that by taking share, leveraging mostly the DRP relationships, which as DRP relationships continue to strengthen and they do continue to strengthen, that obviously favors players like us.
I think the most important thing we can do to stay relevant with our clients is to make sure that we're providing great service at a great value and taking care of their clients in a reasonable period of time. You see that in the broader investor deck that we put out there. I think we're certainly above average as it relates to NPS scores. We're lower than the average cost of repair than the industry, which is value added for our clients. And we, we're the best in the industry on length of rental. So, I think by doing those things, we continue to put ourselves in a better position to be able to win with our clients. That, augmented with the fact that our growth strategy is much more focused on establishing a one or two position in the markets that we play in.
The purpose behind that is to make sure that we're relevant with our clients in the marketplace. We're going to focus a lot of our growth in markets where we're densifying a market, which gives us the ability to just more deeply penetrate the relationships we have in the markets that we're playing in.
Okay, and just to confirm, there's no intent to step out of your current markets here. You're not going to Europe. You're not going to Mexico or anything like that, right?
Nothing in this plan contemplates anything like that. No.
Okay. And then the other question is just on the, I guess, on whatever Project 360 or however you want to call it. If you want to think about this, what exactly is it that you see differently or doing differently than you've been doing historically? Margins have sort of naturally moved higher just with higher levels of same-store sales. There's an absorption factor, things like that. But what is it that's kind of different in Project 360 that you think gives you an ability to generate those extra earnings?
Look, I mean, Project 360 is really more geared towards going after some structural costs. It's, again, as I said earlier, not reliant on growing our way into a cost structure. And it's not reliant on same-store sales growth to offset the cost of increasing or the increasing cost of running or operating the business. It's at this point where we realize there's some structural costs that we can take out of the business. That, plus as we've grown in size, leveraging the size and scale we have to get better discount structures with our vendors and better position ourselves with a fewer number of partners that are out there. Those types of things are really what Project 360 is focused on in the short term.
In the long term, things like enhancing store operations through better use of technology, things that take a little bit longer for us and are a bit more of an investment to get the benefit out of. That's why roughly 70% of the benefit is coming in the first two years, and the balance of it kind of trickles in over the next two or three years. So, I think we will be much more intentional about structural cost versus just what you articulated in terms of growing our way into it.
Okay. And then maybe just return to the first question a little bit. As you get larger, are you expecting any sort of competitive dynamics as the industry continues to consolidate? And does that change kind of how we think about the consolidation of the industry kind of moving forward over time?
I mean, look, I think we're only talking about ourselves getting to a point where we're slightly less than or around 10% of the industry. I think there's many examples of industries where a few players have consolidated to 40% or 50% of the industry. I don't see any aberrant kind of behavior or dynamics that come out of us continuing to effectuate the plan that we have.
All right. I'll leave it there. Thanks, folks.
Great. Thanks.
Your next question comes from the line of Zach Evershed from National Bank Financial. Your line is now open.
Hi, Zach.
Good afternoon, everyone. It's actually Nate calling in for Zach today.
Oh, hi, Nate.
So, my question is, could we get some more color on your insurer relationships given the predicament of rising costs of repairs, higher severity versus perhaps premiums increasing on a lag? Is there any accretion to be had on that front and baked into your plan?
So the best information I can give you on where we're positioned with our insurers is the answer I gave to the question a second ago, which is we position ourselves as one of the best in the industry on NPS, one of the best in the industry on length of rental, and in providing good value for our insurance clients through keeping the average cost of a repair down. That's what keeps our relationships with our clients solid. As it relates to any specific client, certainly we're not going to do that. But I don't know if that answered your question.
Okay, so just moving on then, you mentioned also that 70% of the cost savings will be had by the end of year two, but just regarding the margin target, do you anticipate that it'll take you the full five years to bring margins up to 14%?
No. But obviously, we've left ourselves some room in the presentation to, we've demonstrated that by the midpoint of this journey, we'll get ourselves to 13%. That's how you can think about the 70% of the target being achieved. And the other 30% will trickle in. But I don't anticipate it being the entire five years to get us to the 14% goal.
That's helpful. Thank you. And regarding the 80% internalization target over the next two to three years for scanning and calibration, is that a ceiling or more of a midpoint target? And can you discuss if there's any structural reasons for not hitting perhaps near 100% internalization?
Yeah. I think the only thing is, and the reason for not hitting 100% is just that you'd have to way overstaff that business in order to get to 100% of our own volume. So there's an element of this that's a mobile service that has to be performed. There's a balance between the loss of profitability by having excess staff to make sure you get to 100% versus being at 80% or 90% that keeps the team busy 100% of the time. So it's really a productivity play.
Gotcha. And can you describe how that curve kind of works? Is 80% what you're going to target in perpetuity, for example, as the business continues to grow?
I think what'll happen ultimately with this business is a piece of it will migrate into the shop and move away from mobile as more ADAS penetration takes place. I think when that happens, you're going to get to 100% of our activity will be when it's done in shop. But it won't be not all shops will be able to support having an ADAS or a calibration tech inside of it, which leaves us in a position where we do it mobilely, which I think that we will target 80% for the mobile side.
Gotcha, and just one last one. You mentioned a steady volume as a base case within your plan. Can you just expand on whether that's based on a run rate of repairable claims or a certain claim frequency and on perhaps what time frame you decided to take your sample for that steady volume base case?
We used the trailing 12 months of volume. So if you were to use our trailing 12 months of volume and put CAD 100 million of savings on top of a CAD 3 billion business, that's 300 basis points of growth versus 11.3% trailing 12 EBITDA right now. That's 14.3%.
Thank you. I'll turn it over.
Great. Thanks.
Your next question comes from the line of Bret Jordan from Jefferies. Your line is now open.
Hey, Bret.
Hey, guys. What are you guys assuming for total loss rates in 2029 in that industry growth model?
I think our perspective on the size of the industry, Bret, is that it's going to continue to grow in that 2%-3% a year range. Total losses may go up during that period of time, but we still expect the growth in the industry to be in that 2%-3% range.
Okay. Do you guys model a total loss number in that, or is it?
We don't.
Okay. Thank you. That was my question.
Your next question comes from the line of Steve Hansen from Raymond James. Your line is now open.
Yeah, guys. Thanks. Just quick follow-up. I don't ask four questions in a row, so I just wanted to be respectful. Look, Brian, I think you described the rateability and return benefits to greenfield in your earlier remarks. I get that. I'm just curious, how important do you think greenfield is to your insurance customers in terms of that long-term vision? Do you view that as a key part of the strategy to continue going here, or could you do it also just straight through M&A? I'm just curious how important that is.
I missed there was a part of your thing that said how important what was?
How important are greenfields to our insurance clients?
Oh, yeah. I mean, I think look, I think there's a bit of a misconception that if we put a greenfield into the market, we're actually adding capacity to the market. I don't view it that way. I think not all capacity in the market is created equal. And there are lots of new growth markets in the U.S. in particular that are a byproduct of suburbanization, expansion of large markets into other areas that don't have body shops. And quite honestly, I mean, a portion of this strategy is focused on where are those markets that growth has happened, large population growth has happened, and many people have relied on drive times to go get their vehicle repaired.
We're cutting down those drive times. We're putting a box in there in a densified market and doing that. So I don't feel like the insurance carriers feel like we're adding capacity. I think there's enough retiring capacity out of the system that we're augmenting some of that with what we're doing. I do think our insurance clients appreciate the quality and layout of the facilities and the fact that we can service all aspects of the business from it. So I do think clients like what we're doing with it. So I think it's viewed favorably.
Maybe it's too granular, so I apologize in advance. But is it possible to identify the average greenfield size relative to your average shop today? I know the slide you have is illustrative. It's gotten effectively equivalent. But the greenfields at 17,000 or 13,000 sq ft are presumably larger on average and have higher throughput than your average shop.
Presumably the 16 or 17 thousand is above the average.
Yeah. And I think the model that's out there, albeit illustrative, is the target that we're expecting for these shops. And as you can see, they get well over CAD 4 million versus an average shop today that's the average AUV in our business today, I would have just on math, is 3.2 million or so.
Okay. Very helpful, guys. Thanks for your time.
Great. Thanks. See you next week.
As a reminder, if you have a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. Your next question comes from the line of Sabahat Khan from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
Hey, Sab.
Great. Hey. Thanks very much for the call. I guess just following up on that earlier discussion around new units to market and some of the comments earlier around the good metrics that Boyd has and getting these shops added to the DRPs, etc. I guess, to what extent would you have talked to your insurance customers around, "Look, we're looking at this many shops to the system. How many do you think would get added?" Or is it just a broad ratio of, "Look, every X shops we bring, this many get added"? How are you sort of making those decisions around, "Look, what's the right number to add, and how many will get added to those programs," etc.?
Yeah. I mean, obviously, we do get regular feedback from carriers on gaps in the marketplace. So I think that is one piece of feedback that we get. We're also looking at the relative size of a marketplace and the competitive density in the market and what that competitive density is comprised of, how much of it is MSOs, how much of it is single shops. I mean, the first point of entry into a market is for us to continue to drive the single shop acquisition strategy. It's the fastest place for us to get in if we can find a high-quality asset in a market where carriers need capacity. That's our first point of entry. If not, then we're going to look for opportunities to greenfield.
So I mean, it is a pretty robust model behind our decisions to put locations and where to put them, and for that matter, where to buy locations.
Great. Thanks. And then just a second quick one, just following up on the earlier discussion on total loss ratio. How are you guys just sort of thinking about the capacity for the—i s this 2% to 3% directionally in line with what the industry was going at when the total loss ratio maybe was in the low teens or mid-teens? The question basically is, is the 20-some-odd percent type total loss ratio still conducive for you to be able to grow in that mid-single-digit range on SSS, or is there at some point it just gets a little bit too high? How did you guys sort of triangulate that as you look ahead to five years? Thanks. I want to go back.
I think if you were to look at total loss rates prior to 2019, they're pretty consistent with where they're at now. And that's when the marketplace was growing at an average of 2%-3% or 4%. So, we would expect, I think we're planning for that type of total loss ratio. We're certainly not planning for a ratio that it was in the post-COVID time frame where used car prices shot up, total loss rate shot down, and the average, the same sort of sales growth in the marketplace was obviously much more robust. I don't know if you do.
Thank you.
I think total loss rates have crept up, but part of the reason they're creeping up, not the only reason, but the car park has aged, and when you have an older vehicle that's damaged, the likelihood of it being worth repairing is lower, so we're almost 13 years for the average age of a car, and that does have an impact on total loss rates.
Yeah. I think the only other thing I would add to that too that is just the indications that we're seeing in the marketplace now has used car value starting to creep back up again. I think, obviously, based on some of the speculation with what might be happening with tariffs and things like that, that only serves to probably push used car values up even further. I don't feel like there's anything. There's no economic indicator that would suggest to us that the average used car values are going to go down in a way where total loss rates would go much higher than they are right now.
Great. Thanks so much for the caller.
Great. Thanks.
Thanks, Sab.
Your next question comes from the line of Cheryl Zhang from TD Securities. Your line is now open.
Hi. Just a quick follow-up. So on the CAD 100 million recurring annual cost savings, would you be able to roughly break it down into buckets, or how should we be thinking about the relative size of the items that you have identified?
Yeah. I don't think we're not in a position where we're going to do that on this call. I think sometime in the maybe at the one of our upcoming earnings call, we would plan to do that. But you can see it's broken up between we've broken it out between gross margin opportunities and OPEX opportunities. I would say that I will tell you that they're weighted more towards OPEX than it is towards gross margin opportunity.
Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.
Your next question comes from the line of Tristan Thomas from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
Good. Good afternoon.
Hey.
Just a question. I mean, a lot of talk about insurance premiums as a headwind to the consumer. How do we think about that flowing through in terms of timing and what kind of impact if insurance rates do start to go back down? How are we thinking about that in the five-year plan?
I mean, we called for a return to kind of normal macroeconomic conditions. I think in the presentation, we showed kind of what happened post the Great Recession. We also showed what happened post-COVID, and you see a bounce back. I think most notably, at the Great Recession, you saw a bounce back to where we saw modest same-store sales growth in the year following that, and then I think 6% growth in the year after. I think what we're planning for is a normal kind of environment.
Okay. Thank you.
That concludes our question for today. I will now turn the call back to Tim. Please continue.
Good. Thank you, operator. And thanks to all of you for joining our call. I know it was very short notice, but we appreciate the opportunity to lay out our next five-year plan and address your questions and look forward to follow-up conversations. Thank you.
Thank you all.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation.