I'd hazard that if you asked any retail expert if they'd spend...

I'd hazard that if you asked any retail expert if they'd spend ~$33m on a retail website to create a vehicle with a ~$700m sales revenue run rate with >23% margins growing at ~100%, your response would be an unequivocal yes.

As to marketing, I have long thought they're grossly underinvesting on this front, given the demonstrated stickiness of the customers the spending generates. The investor call acknowledged as much and stated they would be correcting this error in coming periods (at a near-term cost to net margin).

I'm not sure if you think language and currency localisation is "easy" and "cheap", let-alone the logistics tech-engine that needs to be built to service these new countries needs in a way that leaves customers satisfied. It is an incredibly efficient tech spend so far in my estimation.

When the only meaningful criticism that can be levied to a highly complicated cross-border retail and logistics operation that has grown from $20m to $700m in 4 years is "in a handful of edge case applications it is possible there were some modest errors in customs/duties" then I think there's a bit of straw clutching going on by critics.

By all means, criticise the valuation, on a backward-looking basis, it is very hard to justify the P/E & EBITDA multiples. But one needn't look forward too many halves if they continue to add $150m in new sales in those halves to see operating leverage eat into those multiples very swiftly - Eternalgrowth