A detailed review of Gotham's principal claims on DriveTime's results and leverage, Carvana's gain on loan sales and servicing fees, SilverRock's margins, and related-party transactions.
Most / all of the comparisons in my post with CarMax were to DriveTime, not CVNA, given the buy-and-hold similarities between KMX and DT. This was to highlight the similar negative operating cash flow and write downs.
Looks like every 10-K since IPO in 2017 mentions DriveTime with arrangements not at arm's length.
2025: "We maintain a business relationship with DriveTime, a related party due to the Garcia Parties’ control and ownership of substantially all of the interests in DriveTime. We are party to a number of arrangements with DriveTime and its affiliates that cannot be assumed to have been negotiated at arm’s length."
2024 (slightly different language): "We maintain a business relationship with DriveTime, a related party due to the Garcia Parties’ control and ownership of substantially all of the interests in DriveTime. We benefit from our relationship and a series of arrangements with DriveTime and its affiliates that cannot be assumed to have been negotiated at arm’s length. "
2017 - 2023 (different language, but same idea): "Through shared service and other agreements not always negotiated at arm’s length, there were and are benefits to us from DriveTime’s expertise and economies of scale, and we continue to and may in the future utilize DriveTime and its affiliates for certain services and processes. We were incubated by and may benefit from our relationship and a series of arrangements with DriveTime not always negotiated at arm’s length, as DriveTime is controlled by our controlling shareholder who is also the father of our chief executive officer."
It was always in the risk section, and explicitly said not arm’s length since 2017. Also not sure how much I want to go back and forth with AI, based on your “Here’s the tight, punchy version of your point — clean, defensible, and impossible for him to wiggle out of” in your response.
Most / all of the comparisons in my post with CarMax were to DriveTime, not CVNA, given the buy-and-hold similarities between KMX and DT. This was to highlight the similar negative operating cash flow and write downs.
Looks like every 10-K since IPO in 2017 mentions DriveTime with arrangements not at arm's length.
2025: "We maintain a business relationship with DriveTime, a related party due to the Garcia Parties’ control and ownership of substantially all of the interests in DriveTime. We are party to a number of arrangements with DriveTime and its affiliates that cannot be assumed to have been negotiated at arm’s length."
2024 (slightly different language): "We maintain a business relationship with DriveTime, a related party due to the Garcia Parties’ control and ownership of substantially all of the interests in DriveTime. We benefit from our relationship and a series of arrangements with DriveTime and its affiliates that cannot be assumed to have been negotiated at arm’s length. "
2017 - 2023 (different language, but same idea): "Through shared service and other agreements not always negotiated at arm’s length, there were and are benefits to us from DriveTime’s expertise and economies of scale, and we continue to and may in the future utilize DriveTime and its affiliates for certain services and processes. We were incubated by and may benefit from our relationship and a series of arrangements with DriveTime not always negotiated at arm’s length, as DriveTime is controlled by our controlling shareholder who is also the father of our chief executive officer."
It was always in the risk section, and explicitly said not arm’s length since 2017. Also not sure how much I want to go back and forth with AI, based on your “Here’s the tight, punchy version of your point — clean, defensible, and impossible for him to wiggle out of” in your response.