LuxExperience B.V. (LUXE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning. Thank you for joining. It's a pleasure to introduce Michael Kliger, CEO of Mytheresa; and Martin Beer, the CFO of Mytheresa. Thank you, Michael and Martin, for joining our conference.

First of all, congratulations on a great fiscal first quarter. Outstanding results. As we think of the market and the opportunity set that is before you, would be great to kind of understand who you are. And one of the things that you've talked about in your IPO filings was you described Mytheresa as a leading luxury e-commerce platform for the global luxury fashion consumer. Can you talk about that and where you fit into the whole luxury landscape?

I mean happy to do so, and thanks for having us. It's always great to have an opportunity to give context to the story and provide our view on the next quarters, but more importantly, next year. So what's the bigger context for the opportunity? First of all, we are, of course, part of luxury, and luxury has one of the most interesting aspects, which is it's a pretty resilient consumer sector, as evidenced by many, many phases of crisis. But within the overall luxury sector, we are, of course, part of the online part. And the interesting opportunity about online is that luxury is trailing. Luxury is behind many, many other consumer sectors. My best guess through the pandemic, we may achieve like over 20% online share, but the best estimates out there is this should go to 30% online share already by '25. So very quickly expanding subsector in a super exciting, stable, resilient overall sector. So a great place to be, obviously, in times of insecurity and in times of economic apprehensions. So this online opportunity is estimated, in soft line terms, so only ready-to-wear, bags and shoes, to be a $110 billion market, the online part that is, by '25. This total market is, of course, served by different business models. But I always stress, it is not the business model that matters. It is the customer proposition, and there are different customer propositions because there are different customer segments that is. And if you really want to make it very simple, there are 2 extreme luxury shoppers. And then, of course, there are variations in between. And one luxury shopper is a shopper that is owning a luxury item, may have set their eyes for a long time on a certain bag, on a certain pair of sneakers. And then they buy that after having thought about it, after having maybe saved money, whatever, but they finally buy it. But this purchase will often be their one and only luxury purchase for another 12 to 18 months. This is a huge market, and this is served very well by dot-coms who create iconic desirable pieces. This is well served by deep marketplaces where you can and obviously also need to search very precisely to find your product. So that's one part. It's a very big part. It's actually the biggest part in luxury. But with customers that have relatively low spend per capita. The other extreme is shoppers that buy luxury very frequently. They have a luxury lifestyle. Our best customers shop just with us 30 times a year and thereby is more skewed towards ready-to-wear because they're wardrobe builders, and their journey is more driven by occasions. So they don't start the journey by, "I want this bag. I want this pair of sneakers." Occasionally, that happens also, but it's more driven by, "Back to work. I need to update my wardrobe. I have this big red carpet event. I need a new gown. I need new heels." And so what they are looking for is not the deepest and the biggest, but a curated multibrand offer that inspires, where you can go and say, "I need a floral dress," you are confronted with hopefully the best selection of floral dresses that doesn't take you hours to go through and search. And that's the other extreme. It's the smaller part of the EUR 110 billion, best estimated to be a EUR 35 billion market, but it is, of course, much higher spend per capita. This part is where Mytheresa is positioned. And this is where we have clearly the leading position in the multibrand inspirational platforms. If we ask our customers, "Where else would you buy or are you occasionally buying," it is platforms like MATCHES. It is a platform like NET-A-PORTER, also curating, even though, I fare, not curating as much luxury as we are, but these are alternatives. And when we look at the last 2 years, we have clearly outperformed these 2 players, meaning we have gained customers. And so there is in this EUR 110 billion TAM a place for marketplaces, a place for dot-com, but there is also a customer that wants wardrobe multibrand offers, and this is where we take today the leading position.

All right. That is very interesting. When you say curated, what do you mean by curated? Is it like Gucci is offering -- Gucci has like maybe 50 handbags. You pick only one. How do you decide that? How do you decide what the right assortment is? And what is the right assortment to present to your customers? So when they are looking for a floral dress, how many different brands -- within that floral dress, how many different colors? How is it that you decide that? What's the secret sauce?

I mean the curation happens at 2 levels. One is which brands do we offer, which brands do we take on the platform. I mean we have less than 250 brands. Our closest competitor is at 1,000 brands. So this is already where we curate because we really want to have a great representation of the best luxury brands, but there are not many. So you fully cover them with these numbers. And then, of course, we add exciting newcomers, exciting brands that will fit our audience. And the whole curation aspect depends on a clear and very thorough understanding of the customer you are serving. If you are just aggregating everything that's out there, you say, "Look, I put everything together. You do the work. You find what you like." Our approach is different. We have a very clear understanding of who we are serving, which is supported both by data and by long-term experience of our buying teams. And then if we go into the collections, the big luxury brands, they offer broad collections. If you go into a retail store of any given luxury brand, they don't have everything. They select. There's only a selection presented in any store of a dot-com. There's also only -- of a physical boutique. There's only a selection even on the dot-com. Of the big brands, there is never the total offer because everyone needs to select. And we select -- in bags and shoes, it is obviously -- there are many popular styles, which have longevity. So in bags and shoes, you are brought some styles that have been around, meaning -- Gucci just brought the Jackie bag. I mean the Jackie bag dates back to the '60s, and that's a style you always carry and the color variations. But particularly in ready-to-wear, our buyers pick by an understanding of what will be extremely liked this season, by an understanding of color, by an understanding -- and that's -- that is an art in this business. And if you create institutional know-how as we did, it's an important art that you have, and you try to have -- for each piece that we carry, there should be a reason. We don't want to have 25 black blazers. Even if they're all great brands. If you look for a black blazer, we want to have for this season, let's say, the 10 best. If you look for a floral dress, we also want the best floral dresses from ZIMMERMANN, from Dolce & Gabbana, from Miu Miu. But again, we don't want 15 versions of floral dresses with red roses. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't serve the customer well. This is all dependent on who our customer is, and the curation allows us to also be differentiated. If you look and analyze the -- our top 10 brands, if you take all the SKUs that we carry from those top 10 brands, if you want to find those SKUs, you will only find around 20% to 25% on MATCHES and NET-A-PORTER. And even on a Farfetch marketplace, which is huge, of course, you only find about 35% of those SKUs that our teams picked, which is a combination of: we pick much more from runway; we pick many, many more expensive pieces than the others because we serve this customer base; we have exclusive pieces that even when we bought them, we knew we are the only ones; and then just by how we buy and how other buy -- how other people buy. So if you ask our customers and focus groups or -- at events, 8 out of 10, they say, [ "We love your brands." ] And that is a competitive unique value proposition that we have continuously executed for years with our buying team and with our analytics team.

It's interesting that you bring this aspect of building a wardrobe and buying for occasions as your key target demographic. COVID would have probably affected you a lot more than it may have affected a platform that was serving the lower-end customer that was -- which is, of course, the bigger market. Can you talk to those trends in terms of how you've seen the competitive landscape kind of differ as far as COVID is concerned?

So you're absolutely right. I mean COVID for us took away occasions. With our travel restrictions, you didn't go on holiday. There were -- restaurants were closed. Theaters were closed. Big family facilities were capped. But this is, of course, where being an online player still gave us a net gain. I mean during the pandemic, we had record numbers in new customers and in revenue. And the reason for that was, of course, we were a source to buy product. I mean we sold braless gowns and heels and clutches and dresses than we normally do, but we sold cashmere knitwear, flats and sneakers because we were, for 2 reasons, the platform of choice. Number one, many stores were closed or it became a bit of uncomfortable to go to stores. So we actually converted some bricks-and-mortar players to become online -- buyers to become online buyers. But also during the pandemic, we were, in terms of operational excellence, the player that maintains full control over warehouse operations. We were always able to ship. Boutiques were closed. We were able to ship. Some of our competitors were not able to ship because their warehouses closed down. We maintained a Net Promoter Score over 80 throughout the pandemic quarters. So yes, we were affected because the occasions went away, which was actually what happened when stores opened. The occasions came back, and we benefit. But during the pandemic, there was -- probably the total pond was smaller, but we got a much bigger share of the pond because we were often the only source to buy these products.

So as you think of like COVID potentially -- COVID, with new variants coming out every now and then, it's like we can't really say we are in a new normal. But when things kind of opened up and mobility opened up, how do you see this cohort of customers that you acquired from physical retailers? What was their behavior when mobility opened up? Did they go back to the boutiques and the physical stores? Or do you still manage to keep 70% of the spend or 100% of their spend?

I mean critical question. And I think the best region to assess is the U.S. because the U.S. kind of went back to normal in April of this year. We are not absolute normal, but we, of course, absolutely, were -- it was critical to understand, are these new cohorts that we acquired during the pandemic, particularly the ones last year in autumn and winter, are they behaving the same? Are they of the same quality? That's what we shared in our investor presentation. One of the first indicator of behavior and quality is the 90-day repurchase rate. How many of the cohort members already bought again after 90 days? This gives you the first indicator on whether these cohorts have the same solid customer lifetime value. And the good news is and was that the 90-day repurchase rate on those cohorts is as good as cohorts that we attracted in '19 -- calendar year '19. So they have the same quality. They have the same propensity to buy luxury. And at least for the time that we were able to analyze, which was up to, let's say, October, November before the scare of a new variant hit us, we did not see that -- as stores were opening, that these cohorts started to spend less, indicating that they were going somewhere else. So the view we have supported by data is that we brought people onto our platforms that would have done it anyway in 2, 3 years. They had already [ propensity to ] maybe buy online luxury. Now they were kind of forced to do it. But Net Promoter Score over 80 indicates people that tried it, they really liked it, and we do create the stickiness that we always saw. And you referred to retention. This is a very important part of our business model. Actually, one of the truly most exciting one. We are able to analyze cohort data back to '15, and we have a very consistent pattern. From year 1, in the first year, we have a revenue retention of 80%, which is very good considering that, of course, we also attract, through Google Search or through other traffic sources, the onetime buyers, the onetime buyers that, by definition, just want a pair of sneakers and don't buy again. So these are the customers that will drop off, and it's actually good that they drop off because we really want to focus on those heavy wardrobe builders. With the second year, consistently with the '15 cohort, '16, '17, '18, all the cohorts, we achieved a revenue retention of close to 100%, in some years, over 100%. So after the second year, we have 100% of revenue retention, which is a combination of we still lose individual customers for lifestyle changes, for many reasons, but this slight drop in numbers is continuously compensated by the ever-increasing average spend of the customers remaining in the cohorts. So we have a business model because we are focusing on this high-frequency wardrobe-building customers that you could characterize business-wise, of course, as a recurring revenue, 100% revenue retention with the second year. And this revenue retention is not dependent on further marketing stimulus. So this is not coercion, coercion by more promos or discounts. We actually know and have also shared that in the F-1 that 80% of touch points in customer journeys of existing customers are unpaid, our e-mail, our app push, our advertising, our [indiscernible]. So the existing customer journey is not dependent on continuous marketing pushes. Our marketing dollars go into acquiring new customers. And as we are really pushing hard for growth, we, of course, spend a lot in marketing, but it's not directed at maintaining our existing customers but acquiring new customers. Our existing customers are, of course, attracted and also require enormous resources in terms of personal shopping, excellent service, excellent delivery times. So they are not for free, but they're not dependent on marketing pushes. And this recurrence of our customers is, of course, a key source of profitability. And this is why, because of this focus on these customers, we see profitabilities where others struggle because we don't have a focus on intermittent customers because intermittent customers, the next one takes another investment. Our CAC versus LTV continues to grow. The 2015 cohort -- every year, CAC to LTV improves because they continue to buy. And that is a really important aspect of our business model, which is the result of our customer focus, which is a different customer than served by other business models.

That's very, very interesting because what that means is if the new customers that you got during this period, you are going to retain. And for them, there haven't been that many occasions. So they haven't really had the need to build a wardrobe. So as COVID ends, whenever it ends, there will be a need for these guys to kind of come in and build their wardrobe. And most of that spend will come to Mytheresa. So what that tells me is that the growth that you're seeing right now, that growth could be much higher in the future once these occasions kind of come back.

I mean we certainly saw that in our Q1 fiscal. I mean we reported close to 30% growth in a quarter where many other players reported sort of weaker demand. And that strong Q1, you saw it in the numbers. I mean we had 41% more top customers. So people really upped their spend per customer to fall into that category. And so our Q1 result was already, as you point out, the result because Q1 was -- I mean, I was personally hoping COVID was over, and I am wrong, unfortunately. But Q1 was this moment where it's back to vacation planning. It's back to attending invitations. And so our Q1 -- the story of Q1 was massive up in spend of our best customers. And so this pent-up demand, of course, at some point will also then normalize. It's almost impossible to predict, but that is why our guidance for the full fiscal year at the end of last fiscal year was expecting, okay, 30%, we achieved, GMV, during the pandemic. We said, okay, at a normal level, reflecting online growth, we should come back to 22% to 25%. This is our medium-term growth projection. However, when does this happen? It did not happen in Q1 because we exactly saw the release of pent-up demand as occasions are coming back. And now we see how the rest of the fiscal year plays out between harsh lockdowns or continuous opportunity to dress up and take vacations. But clearly, Q1 was, as you described, pent-up demand release as occasions were coming back.

Very, very interesting. Another thing that you've done recently is you have altered the management structure for your North America business. Probably to focus more on North America, can you talk about the growth opportunity that you're seeing and how we should see that kind of translated into numbers and time lines?

I mean you should see that by a far higher growth rate in the U.S. than in the rest of the business. And we have already seen that in the last 2 quarters, almost double the growth rate, and we expect that to continue. And it's a very simple analysis. I mean our business, and Martin, keep me accurate. I think end of fiscal year, we had 11% share of our business in the U.S. And in the last quarter, we already, just for the quarter, of course, had an increase to, I believe, 14%. So in our business, we are growing the share of the U.S., but the global share of the U.S. is 25%. I mean the luxury online business of the U.S. is 25%. It's actually the largest online luxury market in the world. China is the largest luxury market. But in terms of online, the U.S. is still the largest market. And so it's difficult to put a time line on it, but that's the goalpost. That's what we are driving to have, of course, also a fair share representation in our business for the U.S., but also for Asia. And you are absolutely right, we appointed a President for North America. She started June 1. We have our own sort of team now. We opened an office in New York. The team is, of course, very customer-focused. So we hired personal shoppers, social, PR, events, affiliates, really focusing on that. And the team has done an amazing job over the last couple of weeks. It's not even half a year, and already, we ran activations in The Hamptons. We ran activations in LA. We did a fantastic Vogue100 event last week in Miami. We have now personal shoppers based in New York, in Florida, in California. And so these customer activations are key, getting the word out, getting brand awareness. And of course, we still have to improve also some service elements of the business. I mean we ship from our warehouse here in Germany to the U.S. We actually achieved very good and quick delivery times, but it is a bit too much paperwork for our customers. So we still have opportunities to improve, but we expect for a longer time that growth rates in the U.S. clearly outpace growth rates in the overall business.

That's interesting. I had another thought. But before we go there, the logistics element. So if you're shipping from Germany into the U.S., you are forced to cross the Atlantic, and that takes time. So as you think of logistics, do you think in terms of like having an outpost, having a fulfillment center in the U.S., that can help you get those things faster to the consumers? Or do you think that the speed that you have is good enough for the consumer base that you have?

There are 2 answers to that question. Shipping speed, we are excellent. The interesting aspect is we ship airfreight. Most of the big department store groups in the U.S., they ship land haul. We are faster than many locals. We get our parcel faster to the U.S. consumer than locals. We have seen that. We have heard it from our customers. They are amazed that ordering [ from ] Germany is faster than ordering from a distribution fulfillment center in Kentucky. So speed is important. We are good with speed. But the second part of the answer, local fulfillment is still something we -- over time, because the big difference is not that we have to cross the Atlantic. The big difference is, of course, we have to go through customs. And customs can make it a hassle for our customers. I've never met a customer that loves to deal with customs. So having a local fulfillment makes it landed goods. And so it becomes a domestic purchase. It becomes a domestic return. And therefore, having local fulfillment is something that makes sense. It's on the road map, but it's not for the next 2 to 3 years. We will need critical mass with the demand in the U.S. so that we don't have too shallow stock. But for customs reason, it makes sense.

Okay. Great. And then -- so coming back to the competitive landscape and trying to understand that, 2 elements to it. One is the brands want more control over their inventory. And yet, you have the wholesale model that's out there. And when you look at like some of your competitors that are offering -- that are more on a marketplace basis, they are seeing a lot of like discounting that is happening. And so it's full price versus discounting. How do you see that trend kind of flow through into the next few years where brands increasingly want more control? And yet you have this concept of discounting, which is kind of killing the pricing. Will that continue?

I mean I think you pinpoint exactly the 2 big concerns of brands -- of luxury brands today. And they are connected because with inventory control, we also hope to have less inventory roaming around that often triggers discounting. So number one, like all brands are keenly interested in full price because it protects the brand equity. And to be honest, also economically, it increases the margin for the whole industry. I mean discounting destroys the margin pool. So full price is a key focus, and we are welcoming this. Our business model is based on full price. I mean Martin has pointed out numerous times, don't take our word. Check our gross margin, our product margin. We have a stable product margin over the last 5 years. So our enormous growth over the last 5 years has not come at the expense of reducing our product margin. Discounting, we have achieved growth with a stable, sometimes even slightly increasing product margin. And so it is the full price business that we are keen. There's the full price business, which is also much more in the big luxury brands, because the discounting is a particular issue in the contemporary and premium brands because by definition, they are so widely distributed. So we have, of course, a structural advantage. Our 250 or less than 250 brands, by virtue of their positioning, are less prone to discounting than if you carry more than 3,000 brands because your sweet spot will sit in a market where so many players have access. It's much, much harder to execute price discipline, let's call it. Price control is not allowed so it's price discipline. Inventory control, that's something that the high-end players want. There are many brands that clearly are dependent and also very reputable brands, this is not only contemporary, that actually have a keen interest in the wholesale model. Wholesale allows them to produce collections and sell them and receive cash. And wholesale brands, meaning they have a bit of retail, but most of the business sits in wholesale, rely on this model. They also don't want to have discount because it destroys the equity of the brand. But inventory control for them is not key. In the high-end luxury, inventory control is for many brands very important. And we all know that the high-end luxury brands will also pull stock out of their own retail and make sure that it doesn't sit around and either sort of shred it or make sure that it sits in warehouses for the next year before they bring it back to outlets. That's true luxury. And that trend -- or that interest has always been the case. And we have seen over the last, I would say, 2 to 3 years a decrease in distribution -- a massive decrease. Big, big brands want to make sure that they're not over distributed with the risk of brand equity control. But their focus is, of course, on maintaining and retaining the best platforms, the best players. And so we also see that -- as long as we are able to demonstrate that we are full priced and we bring a unique and affluent customer base, we also see us as a beneficiary of this ongoing trend to reduce distribution because there will be less and less places where you find our products that we have on our website today. So it is all a give and take. We need to do in our own interest also economically to maintain full price. Short term, increasing artificial sales with discounts has never helped the player. It only hurts you. And so we have abstained from this as much as possible. And again, don't take my word. Just look at the numbers Martin presents. And so you're absolutely right, but we believe the game, the business concept, the customer that we are focusing on, we will gain with this trend. We will gain further with this trend.

That's really interesting. I was going to ask you a question on the competitive landscape and how you are different. But we have already covered so much of it that maybe -- that differentiation. I mean the only thing that I can -- I mean, this is something I'd often hear is, "less is more." That probably describes you in many ways. That is your differentiation. So let's talk about this -- the CPM model that you just started out with the fall/winter collection and will roll out with more brands as we get into the spring/summer and the next fall/winter. So one, you've already said that on a dollar basis or on a euro basis, it is very similar to the wholesale model. So completely get that. What are the benefits that you get in terms of an endless inventory stream? Or what are the benefits that you get out of the CPM model?

Let me just add, it's not less is more, the right less is more. [ You still need to do ] the right thing. But I think the comparability of the profit pool, I think this is a key aspect, and of course, you understand that. But maybe Martin, I mean, I would love to have you also go -- again that it is [ clearly understood, ] we are agnostic between the 2 models. It just depends what's the better model for the brand recognition. The profit pool logic margin, I think we should spend some time on.

Yes. Definitely happy to do so. In the CPM, the platform fee is a bit lower than the wholesale margin in relation to the GMV. So there is a lower platform fee, but it is compensated by a lower marketing cost ratio. And there is the upside due to the effect that Michael highlighted as with the focus on selected multibrand partners. We have a great access to customers. We have access to in-season replenishment, not running out of certain styles and colors and sizes. And we have access to products that we didn't have access before as we are considered a flagship store. And with this, the profit pool of the CPM and the wholesale model are very comparable. And that's also reflected in our guidance of the 22% to 25% of GMV. Also this year, our gross profit guidance, in the same area. So it's a very strong addition to our overall offering because there will be brands that clearly prefer the CPM. But as Michael said, they have to have certain prerequisites and an appetite for it. And the maturity of the brands -- and I've spoken with a lot of CFOs of those brands. They don't want us to send the merchandise back at the end of the season, and they don't want to be paid when the customer buys the merchandise. So it's also a different type of cash flow situation. So we are now able to offer both models, the CPM and the curated -- and the wholesale model to the brand, which is a huge strategic benefit for us to offer that. And so we're really happy to do that because it's -- on the P&L, it's agnostic.

Sorry. One thing, Martin, you mentioned was lower marketing cost ratio. What do you mean by lower marketing cost ratio? Because -- and I would think that if you're selling a jacket to a customer and you're spending, whatever, $5 or whatever that you are spending on acquiring that customer or acquiring that sale, that will be regardless of whether it is on a wholesale basis or on a CPM basis.

The marketing is much more integrated with the marketing of the brand. And we see, as we -- as the brand also focuses their multibrand partnership to selected partners, it is -- we are the partner of choice also for the customer, having access to the products of the brand. That's why the -- and there are some additional topics. So that's why the marketing cost for the SKUs of that brand are lower than the -- than for the wholesale model.

The CPM model is really an evolution in the partnership approach. It's integration on the supply chain side. The brand that sits on the CPM gets daily data on sales, on return, on their stock that sits on our warehouse. And that, of course, allows to optimize. I mean this is not, "Ship us everything, and then we see how we sell." We have the opportunity to adapt to [ the buying patterns ] in season, drive replenishment. And the brand, coming back to what Martin said, it's certain prerequisites, but a brand that has a huge inventory pool that serves retail stores, that serves travel, that serves outlet and that also serves platforms like [ us, ] of course, there's optimization. If we run out of size 41, in this [indiscernible] pool, there is always 41. And therefore, we are much better. And so you have more units behind the same SKU that gives [indiscernible] in marketing. And then the other part, we also really create integrated marketing plans. We really understand much better than in the wholesale model when are certain items dropped, when are they coming so we can align our campaigns. We do [ still have ] our own campaigns, but there's better alignment. When or what team is important? And then that is also particularly for bigger brands that will run multiple brand stories, multiple drops. And so there are these -- we always believed when you partner, you can create benefits, hopefully, first of all, to the customer but also overall. And this is where there's additional opportunity in addition to top line sits and [ resides. ] And we are very happy with the results of the first brand that went live this fall/winter. And as you pointed out, we will -- we have already rolled up -- [ brought on ] additional brands with spring/summer '22 in this quarter. And so it will take some time to adjust the processes. The data flows, but still forecasting models for winter [indiscernible] can always improve over time. But we are seeing already good, good, good early results. And we are now on -- conceptually and partner-wise, we have announced 2 strong legs that allow us to adapt to different scenarios. And to be honest, I can even see further evolutions over the coming years. This is not an industry which works in set ways. We have much more technology that we could leverage. The aspect of what all of what we do is we believe we have one of the best propositions for wardrobe-building customers. And this best proposition allows us to have great economics, allows us to attract brands because they want to have visibility to these customers. And so the position should only be touched to improve it for the customer. But in the background, I see many more evolutions of how we partner with brands.

Interesting. It will be interesting to see how the model evolves and how your sales could be faster than what you are initially projecting simply because the inventory that sits behind the SKU could be endless or virtually endless.

Virtually, yes.

Yes. I mean it's not a question of exclusivity in this industry. So exclusive necessarily means you don't produce as much in order to maintain that cache of exclusivity. So can't let you -- we are almost up on time. Can't let you go without asking you a couple of questions. One is fiscal 1Q was a strong quarter. You met or exceeded expectations across almost every metric. And yet the stock has underperformed, I would say, except for today. Today, I see green and I see an outperformance. But...

That is clearly due to this conference. So thank you very much.

Thank you. So what do you think people haven't really gotten? What do you think they need to get? Is it the conservative guide that is so European? Or what is it that is missing here?

I mean I think feedback from investors has -- have been sort of a variant of points. One is as always, we are a new kid on the block. We have a business model that luxury, high net worth, owning stock, CPM -- I mean, you really need to understand maybe a bit longer what is it that we are doing, where come -- does the value creation come? And also, you want to see [ in a couple of ] quarters that these guys really deliver. And so far, so good. And we work hard as [ hell ] to continue that. So I think we are fully accepting that we need to build a strong track record as a public company. We had always a strong track record. And I think we have put ourselves in an excellent position. As you said, the last quarter was another great example. That's number one. Number two, we have, of course, after the IPO, still not a huge liquidity in the stock. And so we have heard and we do believe there's a technical aspect, which is, [ of course, something ] that will be fixed over time. But at the moment, I mean, the traded volume is not that much that the stock can [ really ] develop by what we clearly see as the superstrong fundamentals. And then I think the last point about it is the stock has been flat which, compared to many of the IPOs that were done in the first quarter, is actually not bad. We would like and also our investors, of course, would like an even better performance. But we feel -- most important is continue to build the business, continue to deliver the numbers that we have guided to. Slight positive overachievements are always welcome. We know and we drive for that. And liquidity will be solved over time. No insights yet when but will be solved. And track record is built over time. And so I believe that Martin and the whole management team, also [ because of ] vested interest, the fundamental strength of the stock is fantastic. And I think also it's always important to see how we are doing, how our competitors are doing, but to also truly appreciate this is not just the sector. This is not pandemic, yes, pandemic, no. No. Mytheresa, as a team, has institutional capabilities and know-how. We are outperforming our [ sector ]. And I think that is also something -- are we the best company in our sector? We believe so. And we need, of course, to have the track record fully built up. So I'm not concerned. I would welcome an even better stock price. But concerning would only if our numbers weren't strong, and they are strong. So the rest will follow.

With that, thank you so much. This has been very, very helpful. I'm sure investors would appreciate the thoughts and insights that you kind of gave today and probably do some work -- do some homework following this. So thank you so much, Michael. Thank you so much, Martin, and thank you all for joining the UBS TMT Conference. Have a great day.

Thank you very much for having us.

Thank you.