finance research here at BMO, and we're pleased to be joined today by two leaders from a really exciting company, Steve Cunningham, CEO of Enova, and Scott Cornelis, CFO. Thank you all for joining us, and we saved the best for last. Thank you for everyone who made this conference such a fantastic event. Kicking it off, maybe with Steve, for investors who are newer to Enova, maybe if we can just start by describing the customer problem you solve and where the company fits in the broader lending ecosystem.
Yeah. Well, thanks for having us, Andrew. Happy to be here and have a chance to tell the Enova story. First of all, we've been in business for a very long time, since 2004. We started as the first online-only, really payday short-term lender. Obviously, we're not in that business anymore, and today, we serve really non-prime consumers and small businesses that are underserved by traditional banks in particular, right? We're a non-bank, and so our focus has always been on the underserved segments. If you think about that, our sizing of the consumer base is probably upwards of 100 million when you think about no file, thin file, less than 670 FICO. There's about 35 million small businesses in the U.S., and that number is growing quickly, a record number of new business formations this year.
Many of those are outside of the reach of the traditional banks just because of their risk profile, their track record. Where we fit in the ecosystem is we start at, on the consumer side, we start at around a 35.99% APR, and we'll go deep subprime. On the SMB side, we don't really overlap with the banks, but it's all scorecard, unsecured, proprietor guaranteed. We feel like we fit very nicely across the spectrums of customers that, again, the banks are happy to give them a checking account, but they are not really meeting their credit needs.
Mm-hmm. I guess speaking to that bank dynamic, I mean, for these consumers, these small businesses, I mean, what are the key pillars of your business model that makes it difficult for traditional banks to be able to kind of serve this demographic and this base?
Yeah. I suspect if most of you all went out to get a loan, probably the one thing that you care the most about is rate. You may not even care about the brand. Maybe the BMO guys do, but for the most part, you're interested in rate. These customers are very different. They care about speed, certainty around the loan size that they're looking for so that they can live their lives. It's kind of flipped on its head. We have two brands, or we have really three brands that we go to market with. On the consumer side, we go with NetCredit on the near-prime side, which has been around since probably 2012, and CashNet, which is our deeper subprime brand, which has been around since the beginning, installment loans and lines of credit.
We can quickly make a decision while you're applying. We're online only, have always only been online only, and increasingly, that's what people want to do. We can make a quick decision. In many cases, we can get the money into your account the same day. We've increasingly been able to get that to you instantly once you have been approved. On the SMB side, it's very similar. If you think about some of these smaller companies, let's just say you're like a baker.
You depend on having your oven working. Your oven is on the fritz, and it's not working. If you go to a traditional bank sometimes, it's a people-driven, ubiquitous underwriting. They're looking for collateral. It's a slow process. It could take a while to get an answer. For us, we've increasingly been accelerating our decision-making process. We have capabilities to decision an app in less than a minute. Again, we can get the money into your account the same day in a lot of cases, and you can move on with what you need to do. That's really what these customers are looking for. They're willing to pay a premium for that, and we do risk-based pricing. It's not a one-size-fits-all on pricing. We do price for the risk that we face on both of the portfolios.
Mm-hmm. It's interesting that you're operating on both sides of the house there, the consumer and the small business. I guess, how should investors think about the strategic role of having both of those platforms under one roof? Over a full credit cycle, what benefits do you kind of see or receive from that synergy?
Yeah. I really like having the two of them together. I think most people are familiar with consumer, more familiar with consumer than they are SMB, just because there's more public companies. It's a little bit more mature. I would call that market a lot more homogeneous. By that, I mean it's more employment-specific. You see a lot more cyclicality, let's say, and I think we're used to seeing that. I would also say that unlike prime, there's what I call a subprime paradox. So the loss rates you expect are high. You price for that risk. The durations are short. The payback periods are more frequent than a monthly pay, so your weighted average life is shorter.
The way we manage the portfolio is we use those payback periods to give us that quick feedback, and we're constantly adjusting how we go to market.
What you tend to see, and I'll use consumer here as an example before I talk about SMB, is that you tend to see in a situation where credit is deteriorating, you see less of a credit shock and more of an origination slowdown. We can point back to periods of time. Last year was an example in one of our products where we didn't like what we were seeing in the credit space. We slowed down.
I think I've lived in some of the prime information-based shops in my career. I think it's very different. What you tend to see in prime and super prime is very low losses, but trough to peak is much more volatile.
I think as a result of that, we've had a lot more consistency in our financial performance because we have that discipline and where we're using that constant feedback to tune. On the SMB side, very similar. We're using that constant feedback, fast repayment to tune how we go to market every week, and we're tweaking all the time. The SMB side of things is a lot less homogeneous. By that I mean we're underwriting in all 50 states to roughly 900 industries. At any point in the cycle, you've got winners and losers.
There's industries right now that we don't like, even though the economy seems to be chugging along nicely. Even during periods like COVID, there were industries that were doing very well that you could lend to. While not a complete offset to the consumer side of the shop, it's a nice complement in that it gives you a bit of a stabilizing force. There's less seasonality, and to some extent, less cyclicality than the consumer side of the business.
That's helpful. Maybe if we could put some quantitative behind all that qualitative commentary. Scott, I mean, help give the audience maybe a sense of the scale that you've been able to kind of build over the last several years, the sense of your growth rates. They've been quite impressive, and profitability is firing at the same time. Maybe if we can just kind of round that out.
Yeah, I mean, it's been a great story on the growth, certainly the top line. This past quarter, origination is growing 31%. I think we've had several quarters in a row of at least 20% top line growth and better than that on the bottom line. So just a great story on both top and bottom line. We've had periods where SMB has grown above 40%, but consistently above 20% for almost two years, which is great. Consumer, Steve talked about a slight pullback last year, but now kind of that re-acceleration into 37% originations this past period. The scale is there. Our portfolio is as big as it has ever been.
That competitive edge has really led to that growth and all the things Steve talked about.
Yeah. I mean, when you are at growth levels of that magnitude, I mean, there is clearly a market share gain story here that is underway. I mean, how do you distinguish between healthy market share gains and growth from incrementally more risk? Because you are obviously taking a lot of the areas of the market that have been underserved.
Yeah, I mean, I think we are really ROE focused, so we get back everything we do is sort of that risk-adjusted returns. We have a pretty sophisticated way at Enova of modeling, making sure that all of our growth is meeting those ROE hurdles. We do not get really too obsessed with any one metric, like our charge-off rate or our cost to acquire. As long as that demand is there and it is meeting those hurdles, we are going to grow significantly within that framework.
Mm-hmm. Maybe if we kind of think about the macro and the consumer, where we sit today. Saw the headline this morning, new $500 million buyback is clearly expressing a lot of confidence in the model, for the short- term and the long- term. Maybe we can kind of speak to the signals that you're seeing in the market. I think the tone over the last day and a half has been that of resiliency across the U.S., despite some of the negative headlines around affordability and such.
Yeah, I mean, Steve, you jump in, but on the buyback, we're certainly bullish. It's our biggest program we've announced to date, $500 million. That's really, we return capital. Our first order of capital allocation is always organic growth. Our returns are significant in the loans we make. Secondarily, we'll return capital through the buyback. As you said, our valuation and where it's at, we think it's a great time to continue that. We're always in the market, but certainly at these levels, depending on the price, we're going to buy more right now.
That's again, something that we've always done, but are doing more aggressively now and into next year.
That's opportunistic, right? It's not programmatic?
Sure.
Great.
Yeah, I mean, we do set a program, so we're always sort of have a bid in the market, but we have a grid where, when the share price drops or our multiple is such that, like it is now, we feel like we're going to buy more.
Maybe I can talk about the macro that you were just-
Yeah, that'd be great.
-talking about. I think on the, we talked about this a little bit on the last call that, there's a lot of headlines, a lot of sensationalism, a lot of negative things that you hear out there. One thing I would say is, like, for example, on the consumer side, I think resiliency is a good word. The labor markets right now are pretty good. I think you see it with unemployment. You can see it with some of the job growth.
Even wage growth, it's not exceeding CPI, but it's keeping pace. It's pretty close. Those are all encouraging signs in combination with consumer spending and some tick up in sentiment even. People like to talk about energy prices. We have a significant amount of electronic bank statement data that we collect, and we can see that people tend to spend low single- digits of their income on energy, on gas. They adapt, so it's not just something happening to them. You can actually see them spend more per transaction, but overall keep a lid on their spending. That's kind of a characteristic of this customer base.
They're kind of always in recession, I would like to say, paycheck to paycheck. So they're very good at adapting their behavior, knowing when they need cash flow, when they need to come to you for a loan. Because we have those brands that are well-known and we have very high trust among them, that's one of the reasons why we've been able to be successful and to manage that credit very carefully. I think on the SMB side of things, they benefit a lot from consumer spending, and I think even beyond that, if you just take a look at the Beige Book and GDP revisions, everything seems to be sort of cooking along okay. Looking into that electronic bank statement data, you see average balances haven't really changed meaningfully, overdrafts aren't up or down.
It's pretty steady state, so we feel really good about our ability to continue to, with that stable backdrop, to continue to do what we do with that unit economics framework that Scott described, which is really what drives everything that we do every day at Enova.
You mentioned that word adaptability as part of the reason that the U.S. consumer's been able to kind of manage through inflation and these other pressures, and I've heard that brought up across several of my companies over the last, call it three or four quarters. Is that adaptability that the consumer is kind of leveraging today, is that different than what they've done in the past five years? Is the consumer today more sophisticated in being able to navigate these challenges?
Yeah, I mean, I don't know if they're more sophisticated, but they probably have more tools, right? Most things now, if you think about what happened since COVID, a lot more online, right?
A lot more people have moved online to manage their-
Instead of just walking down to your local bank and asking for a loan.
Exactly. That's been a real advantage to us, right? We're well-positioned. We've only always been online, so that really helps us, so that experience is good. We don't have channel conflict or have to invest in multiple channels. I would say those consumers have always been resilient. How they've been able to move has probably been more quick than maybe in the past. I think it's easy to fall into the trap when the media's writing about something like it's happening to people.
I mean, we know that when things are happening, we adapt to what's going on around us, and our customers, even though they might be considered subprime, they do the same thing.
Mm-hmm. On the small business side, there's a lot of companies that I cover that have a software and payments kind of hybrid model, and a lot of them actually leverage capital programs. If I think of names like Toast or Square, and Shopify for another one, that's a point of competition because they're also serving small businesses. Is it just that the pool that you're addressing is growing as well, and all of you are taking more share from the banks? I'm trying to understand the interplay there.
Yeah, so if you think about the size of the market, I mentioned, like, it's tens of millions of small businesses. Actually, if you look at new business applications, there's been a record number of those this year, right? It's been really rapid over the last five years. So it's a fast-growing market. Those companies that have been in business for 12- 18 months start to fall into our target markets. I think some of the names you just talked about in the payment space, they have a captive audience.
Right? They're probably a little bit more narrowly focused on certain industries, like retail and those kind of spaces.
Restaurant.
Exactly, which is one of our 900 industries that we serve.
But they're probably not out offering credit to a microelectronics manufacturer or a local CPA firm, right? They're also much more upmarket from us.
They're probably a little bit more down in the bank space and leaning into that convenience and overlapping a bit more with those customers, whereas we're more adjacent. One of the things, we do a survey with our SMB customers with one of our partners every quarter, and what we've seen is remarkably more and more of the small businesses don't even go to banks anymore for credit.
It is because they have been turned down, it takes too long. The last survey we did, about 75% of small businesses said when they are looking for credit, they start with non-banks like OnDeck.
I am sure some of the names that you mentioned as well. They may compete with us in some verticals, but w e are much broader and much more tied into distribution channels, both direct and indirect, and other strategic partners that might lend on the prime basis but are sending us their non-prime t urndowns.
Oh, makes a lot of sense, and it is a lot. You are fishing with a much broader net than-
Yes.
-those other firms. I was looking at my machine before coming on stage here, and through the course of 2024 and 2025, and even three or four months ago, the stock was just completely ripping. Then it kind of pulled back on the heels of withdrawing the application, because you guys were going to ultimately become a bank.
Yes.
Now, I know that you said it doesn't change the strategy, but maybe if we take a step back, what did that process kind of teach you about Enova and what it wants to look like in the future? Are there some things down the road that maybe you'll kind of revisit that opportunity?
Yeah. Just a little bit about my background. I've been at banks. I was at Capital One and Discover , and at Harley-Davidson, which had an ILC. Enova was my first non-bank stop, and I was a regulator in D.C. for a number of years with the FDIC, so I know the drill pretty well.
It seemed like that was an opportunity to try to take a swing with what was happening more broadly with opening the garden walls in the banking system. I think it was something we had looked at for a while. It wasn't a deposit play. It was more around distribution simplification for us. I think most of the time when you see non-banks go into the banking space, it's about deposits. For us, that wasn't the case. I think going through that process, we learned a lot about ourselves. There's obviously some things that we will adopt as it relates to our operations and our risk management, and there's some things we absolutely won't do because we're not going to be a bank because we don't need to do them.
Tend to focus on existential things for us, credit, liquidity, compliance. We are also a partner to commercial banks and have been for about a decade. There are commercial banks out there that have an appetite to serve some of the customers that we traditionally have served. They just do not want to put a lot of their balance sheet into it, so they are more than willing to take some risk and offer to sell participations or those loans back to us, and we service them because we know how to do it from front to back.
Almost arbitraging the capital efficiency, right?
Absolutely. You can either go direct, we have direct licenses, or you can leverage partners to enter some of these geographies. The thought with the bank was we could vertically integrate some of that.
There was some deposit pickup, but I would say like 75% of the synergies was related to geographic expansion. We can still do those things. It is just not as easy.
But we can still do them. On the funding side, Scott's built a fantastic balance sheet. We lead the industry in terms of funding costs and spreads, and since we announced, I think we've done about $1.6 billion in new financing with some of the tightest spreads that we've ever done across multiple markets. I think the way I would think about the We've said a lot publicly about the bank. It was an attempt to do something opportunistically. It was not existential. We do not have a growth problem without it. We can still do a lot of the products and the things that we were thinking about doing with Grasshopper.
We can still do those things, and we intend to. It was funny because most of the attention we got after that was less about what that means for us and more about what that means for everyone else that may have a little bit more of an existential reliance on a bank charter or things like that. Obviously disappointing, but you saw how we've progressed this year with fantastic growth. We pointed to a strong fourth quarter, and we've got opportunities in front of us with our competitive positioning that are pretty tremendous, with or without a bank.
Maybe we could talk about some of those potential S-curves that could be on the horizon. You discussed opportunities such as secured consumer lending, deposit advances, leaning further into embedded finance for small businesses. When you kind of evaluate these adjacencies, what makes an adjacency attractive enough for you to pursue or not pursue it without compromising returns or, as a lot of other organizations I've seen in the past, like chasing every shiny new opportunity?
Yeah, I would say it's pretty simple, right? Won't be shocking. It needs to be a big market that's still highly fragmented, right? So not like U.S. credit cards where like 80% is held by a few names. So, most of these things that we're talking about are large fragmented markets where you could come in and disrupt. It needs to fit our model, online only. We're not going to get in brick and mortar. And it needs to have a lot of ties into the things that we're really good at, analytics-based underwriting, digital distribution, all those types of things. So if you think about our roots were in payday lending. I think traditional payday was just something consumers didn't want. You can start to see where we talk about deposit advance products, for example. It's kind of the new payday, right?
Earned wage access and like-
Yeah, all kind of the same, smaller dollar, very short- term. The difference between us and others that might provide that is we actually have off-ramps for people. It would be bad if you have a consumer that has a $200 advance and they are having to roll it 20 times or perpetually because you can never get out of it. That is a sign they need a new product. The advantage for us moving into that adjacency is we can, if that is a person that is kind of new to credit and that is how they have started, we can graduate them on their journey without them having to leave with products that would make a lot of sense for their life, just as an example. I think secured lending is an interesting one. I think if you think about an auto title loan, it is traditionally brick and mortar, but if you think about what is happening with digitization across the world and robotics, is now the time for some digital disruption of that space, right?
Again, we are not going to get in brick and mortar. I am not interested in partnering with Kios], but could we do something more directly with a consumer on a digital basis with an auto title? We will check that out. There are some interesting ideas out there, some small companies that are doing some interesting things around that we will take a look at.
Yeah.
Embedded on the SMB side of things, one of the things we learned with Grasshopper, they are great banking as a service business where that was largely deposit oriented. Particularly in the commercial and SMB neobanks that were out there, they were really looking forward to us coming into the fold because of our ability to offer credit into those customers. There is a lot of demand for non-prime credit capabilities. There is plenty of prime capabilities, but the non-prime is a premium, and that is something that we do. We have strategic partners today on platforms where we are embedded into the ecosystem, taking their turndowns. We have some experience with that, with strategic partners in our direct SMB business today that we could expand out, as you see more and more customers turning to apps and neobanks versus traditional banks for their credit needs.
Mm-hmm. There may not be an easy way to answer this question, but if we think about your growth plans over the next five years, is there a way to kind of parse out how much comes from extending your existing capability stack or entering these new categories? Is there a way to kind of frame what the mix is there?
Yeah. The way I think about it is I think we have sustainable long-term growth rates with the product set that we have today and the innovation that we are going to tackle there. Whether it is product positioning or features or whatever it may be, I think we can The markets are big enough and they are fragmented enough, and there is enough of a demographic shift to online that we are going to win and we are going to be able to grow in both of those portfolios for a long time. I think the new things that we are talking about are going to become, they either help you ensure that you deliver that growth rate or they are going to kink your growth curve over time. Ideally, it is that kinking the growth curve.
If you just look back from where we were 10 years ago and where we are now, that kind of gives you an idea of the things that we are doing with OnDeck and SMB, and the things that we are doing with our NetCredit business, particularly with our bank partnerships, they are key drivers of our growth. 10 years ago, we were doing a much more payday. As you roll forward, obviously we are going to adapt and there will be new things that we do, and I think we have shown our ability to adapt both with what we have and add to the stable to continue that growth as we have done over our history.
Mm-hmm. Maybe one for Scott. You spoke to the strong balance sheet and funding. From my perspective, it seems almost like a competitive advantage for you guys, and it is central to the unit economics of any lender. What gives you the confidence that the company can continue to fund this growth through different capital market environments, through different macro environments, and maybe if there are any kind of proof points that you could provide over the last two or three years that would signal that confidence?
Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of what we do is secured financings through the ABS markets, and in that sense, it all comes back to asset performance. Our consistent credit, stable credit has really driven the ability to tighten spreads and access those markets.
Spreads have been continuously getting tighter, right?
Yes. We've had We're at our lowest cost of funds in a long time, even though benchmark rates are up somewhat. We just had our largest ABS deal for OnDeck about a month ago, $500 million, tightened 45 basis points from a year ago-
That's great.
-with a similar deal and well oversubscribed, and then we just priced another one in the market this past week. We also did a high yield bond or a senior note offering unsecured. You can see we're diversifying. That deal was our largest ever at $600 million with spreads about 100 basis points tighter than our last issuance. A lot of good things in the capital markets, but it gets back to that stable credit and asset performance. Obviously, our consistency financially and our profitability has helped be the backbone of that as well as an issuer. All those things kind of come together. We have the right relationships. We've certainly transitioned over our life cycle to from hedge fund and sort of faster, more expensive money to money center banks like BMO and JP Morgan and others.
That evolution has helped, but it comes with our growth and that consistent asset performance. I think the one thing that through the cycle, why we're pretty confident that we'll continue that access, and I'm a former ABS banker myself, so what you want to look for is significant excess spread if you're going to securitize, and how they're going to do through the cycle. Steve talked about the paradox that exists where volatility is actually lower on subprime and non-prime credit than prime. I remember during the great financial crisis, we had some super prime credit card books that would three or 4x their losses, and it would wipe out their excess spread. I think what we've seen in choppier capital markets is there's actually a flight toward names like us with that higher margin and lower volatility.
I think through the cycle, that helps, as does the short duration and quick feedback loop that we talk about, where we can see things quickly, we can pull back on originations quickly, and when you are match funded, those ABS markets really help that.
Mm-hmm. No, it makes a lot of sense. Well, it is counterintuitive, right? When you think about the volatility in the markets, most people kind of gravitate towards the higher end of prime, but sometimes that could be the one that cracks even more.
I mean, with all this strong growth, do you run the risk of underinvestment? I mean, what do you have to kind of put behind all of these big opportunities ahead of you, sustaining that growth? And maybe if we could just get a kind of a thoughts in laying out your investment roadmap, and what do the magnitude kind of look like internally?
Yeah. Well, we are a proprietary technology, highly scalable, as I talked about, online only. You can just look at some of our efficiency metrics and our capital outlays. It is pretty consistent. We are always thinking about the future, and so I think we have built in a lot of. Our credit side of things has always been machine learning, right, which is really applied AI. Before even generative AI, we have been using a lot of technology and automation, particularly in areas like the contact center, to be able to drive growth while keeping a lid on costs. We spend money, but we do it very thoughtfully, very focused on the priorities and the things that are going to bring value back to the company.
I am always thinking about, what capability do we need next? Is the team positioned the right way with the right skills and expertise? I think we've shown an ability to do that effectively with our highly scalable online-only model, with some pretty significant growth over the past 5-10 years.
Mm-hmm. Thinking about capital allocation one more time, we can put Grasshopper in the rearview mirror, but are there other inorganic opportunities that you may want to pursue in the years ahead? If there were, are these little tuck-in deals? What are the characteristics of an ideal target that you would be interested in?
Yeah. I mean, we've been very selective on M&A over the years. We did the OnDeck deal, which is more transformative. That was pretty unique in terms of a kind of tripling down on the SMB space, which we liked a lot with the Premier brand. So it was less of a roll-up and more of being opportunistic. I think Grasshopper was another one of those where it would have been more transformational. But never say never on those, but it's hard to kind of sit back and think about what those might be. Most of our M&A over time has been more of, how can we accelerate some desires we might have?
Some of the products that we've talked about, it may make sense if you look at capabilities that are out there, if there's a value from doing an acquisition to accelerate our desires, we would look at that. We would do that. But we're not going in saying, "That's what we're going to do." We'll look at the build-buy concept. That's going to be the primary focus on M&A for the future. I think Scott said it well, we can invest in our growth. We tend to have high ROEs versus our growth rates, so we always have capital to return, and then M&A is kind of behind the scenes right there. We can actually do all of it with the balance sheet that we've built.
I would just say one thing about the capital returns that our valuation. We have talked about some of the breadth here. I think people tend to focus on the consumer side of our business because that is where most of the publics are.
I think people know it well, less familiar with the SMB side of things. I do not think we get the full recognition of the breadth that those two businesses bring together and the stability. By that, I mean most of the people we get compared to, and even valued relative to, are more narrow in terms of the credit segments and the products that they offer and tend to be more consumer-centric. If you think about what we have just talked about, if you are one of those companies, you live or die by growing that product. We can look across our opportunities, both in terms of the breadth of the segments and the products themselves, and say, "We like what is happening here. We do not like what is happening here." We can just pause.
If we have a bad vintage or two, you will never know it. If you are a more narrow monoline company, you will know it.
Right? I think we use that buyback to sort of flex our muscles on, like, opportunities like right now, if you look at our valuation given our track record.
Yep.
Prior to Grasshopper, we were trading at almost 10 times one-year forward earnings expectations. Today, we're probably eight or below.
In those cases, we're heavy buyers because we believe in the growth prospects and the value that we think we can create with these portfolios.
Yeah, north of 20% growth, eight times is pretty hard to find in the market.
Yeah, I mean, the PEG ratio is one we point back to. I mean, we're trading at 0.3, I believe, which is a strong buy.
Mm-hmm. Maybe a hypothetical question, but let's just say you were going to start Enova today. Enova didn't exist, and you were going to build it from square one. What would be the hardest challenge for you to kind of replicate what you've created here? Essentially, what I'm asking is understanding the barriers to entry and really the moat that you've created.
Yeah, I mean, I think there's, I would just say there's probably like three big things. Number one is the technology we've built. It allows us to be very nimble, right? So our platforms are all built in-house. If you think about it, if you're direct in some states and going with partners and others, it's hard to find a third-party platform that's going to give you the ability to adjust those features to be able to be successful, and be fast in every one of those markets. So, I think that's built a huge competitive moat for us, and that online-only capability, don't underestimate the investment in that, and people are always trying to play catch-up.
Number two is the analytics experience and the credit expertise that we have. We have some of this in our investor deck, but if you just look at like, if somebody wanted to come in today, like on the consumer side, they would buy like a FICO, Vantage database and just start working as fast as they can to get a proprietary score, right? Well, today, as NetCredit as an example, we are probably on version nine or 10 of our credit model. You do not need to change these models every month. We get about a 30% repayment predictability lift versus FICO, Vantage. So huge competitive moat versus somebody who wants to come in and take us on.
The third thing is, because of that consistent performance, we have never had a layoff. We have been able to build a lot of consistency with our team and maintain that expertise, keep the people we want, and depart with dignity with the people that we do not. Do not underestimate the difficulty with the ebbing and flowing on cutting and building and cutting and building. I think that has given us a lot of stability and consistency that would be very hard to replicate.
I know we have just a limited amount of time left, but fast-forward one year from now, we are sitting up on this stage, what would be the best signal of success for Enova over the next 12 months?
It is going to be really boring, right? But boring is good, I think, in this space. I think you will see us continuing that track record of, if we have talked about, I do not know how many quarters of 20%+ originations growth year-over-year that we have had. Very strong. I think we have had nine quarters of 30%+ adjusted EPS growth. I think what we expect to be sitting up here is talking about very strong growth, and not just growth, but profitability. Where we are not seeing the valuation, we are leaning into that buyback, as we historically have as well. So, I think, again, kind of a boring story, but the numbers will speak for themselves in terms of how we are doing with the new product innovations, the innovations around the things that we already have, and just executing in the markets that we are in.
Great. Well, thank you guys so much for joining. Please help me in giving a round of applause for Steve and Scott. Thank you.
Thank you, Andrew. Appreciate it.