管理層發言
Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for participating in today's conference call to discuss Dave's financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2026. Joining us today are Dave's CEO, Mr. Jason Wilk, and the company's CFO and COO, Mr. Kyle Beilman. By now, everyone should have access to the second quarter 2026 earnings press release, which was issued today after the market closed. The release is available in the Investor Relations section of Dave's website at investors.dave.com. This call will also be available for webcast replay on the company's website. Please note that this call is being recorded. Operator instructions were provided. Certain comments made during this conference call and webcast are considered forward-looking statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain known and unknown risks and uncertainties as well as assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in these forward-looking statements.
These forward-looking statements are also subject to other risks and uncertainties that are described from time to time in the company's filings with the SEC. Do not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which are being made only as of the date of this call. The company undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, except as required by law. The company's presentation also includes certain non-GAAP financial measures, including adjusted EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA margin, adjusted net income, non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross margin, adjusted earnings per share and compensation expense excluding stock-based compensation as supplemental measures of the performance of our business. All non-GAAP measures have been reconciled to the most directly comparable GAAP measures in accordance with the SEC rules. You will find reconciliation tables and other important information in the earnings press release and Form 8-K furnished to the SEC. I would now like to turn the call over to Dave's CEO, Mr. Jason Wilk. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon, and thank you all for joining us. The business is performing exceptionally well as we close out the first half of 2026. Q2 revenue grew 30% year-over-year to $171 million, and adjusted EBITDA grew 48% to $76 million at a 44% margin. On the strength of these results and the trends we see in the business, we are once again raising our full year guidance for revenue, adjusted EBITDA and adjusted diluted EPS. The key takeaway from today's call is that our growth engine remains incredibly strong with Q2 representing our ninth consecutive quarter of 30% plus revenue growth. Marketing efficiency and overall user growth continue to outperform. That gives us the confidence to lean further into marketing in the second half, which should accelerate MTM growth. Combined with more levers than ever on ARPU, we're well positioned to sustain this trajectory for the foreseeable future. Turning to our growth pillars.
Starting with member acquisition. We added 951,000 new members in the quarter, up 32% year-over-year, our fastest growth in nearly four years, and we delivered it at many times the scale we had back then. We did this while holding CAC flat at $19, which we believe tells us two things. Our brand and funnel are getting more efficient as we grow, and we are still in the early innings of penetrating the enormous 185 million customer TAM in the U.S. Moving to our second pillar, engagement through ExtraCash. Originations reached $2.3 billion, up 27% year-over-year as member engagement and overall demand remains very strong. Additionally, average ExtraCash size reached a new high of $215, meaning members are getting more of the short-term liquidity they need for gas, groceries and rent from Dave while also driving incremental monetization for us. We are monetizing that growing demand more effectively than ever.
Last quarter, we removed the $15 fee cap for new members. Earlier this quarter, we removed that fee cap for a large portion of grandfathered members, and we plan to increase the fee cap to $20 for the remaining grandfathered members effective late August. The more efficient monetization enables us to increase average origination sizes per user with planned initiatives to raise our maximum well above $500 without compromising margin. We additionally began rolling out Cash AI V6, the latest generation of our proprietary cash flow underwriting engine. V6 is built on more than 700 model features, nearly 400 of which are brand new. As with any model upgrade, V6 is designed to expand gross profit dollars within our controlled range of loss rates, not necessarily to drive the lowest possible loss rates. With stronger gross spreads from our new pricing, the model has greater flexibility to optimize unit economics.
Early results suggest V6 is delivering higher credit limits and is driving the desired outcome of expanded gross profit dollars. Those higher limits also deepen member value, which tends to compound into better conversion, retention and reactivation and ultimately MTM revenue growth, a win-win. Moving to our third pillar, deepening card engagement. Dave Card was approximately $530 million, up 7% year-over-year as card volume continues to benefit from its natural synergy with ExtraCash. As we discussed last quarter, we have deliberately shifted our focus from new debit initiatives to our new Dave Flex Card, which we believe has more differentiation in the market to win top-of-wallet spend given our advantages in underwriting. We continue to expand test cohorts as unit economics have improved and early engagement has been promising. Our focus remains to test and learn and optimize through year-end.
We do not expect Dave Flex to contribute meaningful revenue in 2026 and it is not embedded in our guidance. We will share more as performance data matures. Before I turn it over to Kyle, a couple of strategic updates. First, on our partnership with Coastal Community Bank. During the quarter, we began funding ExtraCash receivables through our new structure with Coastal. As it scales, it makes our funding model significantly more capital efficient, lowers our cost of funds and frees up meaningful liquidity to pursue high-return investment opportunities and return capital to shareholders. We have already unlocked nearly $100 million of cash on the balance sheet as a result of this favorable arrangement. Finally, on the DOJ matter, we have no updates and continue to vigorously defend our position. In closing, halfway through the year, this business is delivering exactly what we said it would.
Members are growing quickly. Credit is further improving from an already favorable level, and we are expanding revenue per user. My thanks to the entire Dave team for another exceptional quarter. And with that, I'll turn it over to Kyle.
Thanks, Jason, and good afternoon, everyone. The second quarter brought together the things we care most about: durable, high-quality revenue growth driven by a healthy mix of efficient customer acquisition and improving revenue per user, all while delivering strong credit performance. We additionally delivered on continued operating leverage and growing capital efficiency as we moved receivables off balance sheet to Coastal. The combination, in addition to the ongoing momentum we continue to see, gives us the confidence to raise our full year outlook across all metrics. Today, I'll cover the drivers of the quarter and how we are thinking about the ARPU trajectory, credit and provision, margins, capital and our financial targets for the year. As always, there is a detailed KPI breakdown in the earnings supplement on our IR site. Starting with revenue. Total revenue was $171 million, up 30% year-over-year and nearly 8% sequentially.
Growth was driven by a 17% increase in MTMs to $3.08 million and 11% ARPU growth. New member conversion, retention and reactivation performed well. This quarter, the mix shifted toward member-led growth as acquisition reaccelerated. The mix shift is deliberate and healthy as a result of the sizable ramp we're seeing at the top of the funnel. So let me expand on the ARPU trajectory Jason mentioned a moment ago. As acquisition increases, newer members represent a larger share of the MTM base. Their ARPU begins lower and expands with tenure, more than doubling on average from the acquisition month to the fourth month on book. At the same time, several monetization tailwinds are stacking. By late August, nearly all of our members are expected to have either no fee cap or a $20 cap, and we expect the share with no fee cap to continue increasing. Lifting the fee cap gives us meaningful monetization headroom to expand ExtraCash limits, not only up to the current $500 maximum, but as Jason mentioned, we have plans to go beyond that, increasing both member value and total monetization.
Additionally, our high-margin subscription mix continues to expand, reaching 9% of total revenue compared with 6% a year ago. Together, these factors reinforce our confidence in the ARPU opportunity ahead, even before accounting for the impact of Dave Flex and other future products. The quarterly cadence will reflect acquisition mix and as newer cohorts mature and these monetization levers scale, we expect to enter 2027 with a significantly larger MTM base and increasing monetization across that base. Turning to credit and provision. Our 28-day past due rate, which we believe is the most direct measure of underlying credit quality, improved 14 basis points year-over-year to 2.12%. Sequentially, the rate increased due to seasonal normalization following Q1's tax refund season. More importantly, year-over-year performance strengthened from roughly flat in Q1 to 6% better in Q2, even as originations grew by 27%.
Credit performance has remained strong thus far in the quarter, based in part on the early impact of the V6 model rollout, which we expect will deliver Q3 loss rate in a similar range to Q2 with the benefit of higher ExtraCash origination sizes. Provision for credit losses was $29 million, up 14% year-over-year. Provision reflects three main drivers: portfolio growth, credit performance and the day of the week on which the quarter ends. Sequentially, provisions increased 8% compared with a 15% increase in gross ExtraCash receivables, including the portion funded through Coastal. Both Q2 and Q1 ended on a Tuesday, which is typically the intra-week peak in outstanding receivables. As we noted last quarter, Q1 established the loss reserve at that peak, so we do not expect Q2's Tuesday quarter end to create the same incremental pressure, and that's what we saw. With a neutral day-of-week effect, provision as a percentage of ExtraCash originations improved by 1 basis point sequentially.
Looking ahead, Q3 and Q4 will end on a Wednesday and Thursday, respectively, which should be favorable for provision as a percentage of originations and for gross margin. On gross margin, we said last quarter that the first quarter would be the low point for the year and margin expanded sequentially as expected. Non-GAAP gross profit was $124 million, up 34% year-over-year, and non-GAAP gross margin was 72%, up about 300 basis points year-over-year. We continue to expect gross margin to expand into the mid-70s over the balance of the year, and that is after absorbing the fees under the Coastal funding arrangement, which are recorded in financial network and transaction costs. Now working down the P&L. This was the quarter we began accelerating our top-of-funnel marketing. Advertising and activation expense was $20 million, up 32% year-over-year and 43% sequentially. Part of the sequential increase reflects a deliberately lighter first quarter when tax refunds temporarily reduced members' need for short-term liquidity and marketing is typically less efficient.
The balance of the step-up was by design. ExtraCash demand remained strong, while acquisition returns improved as the removal of fee caps enhanced monetization for new members, credit quality improved and CAC remained stable as we scaled. As Jason noted, given those returns, we plan to expand investment over the balance of the year, which should be further supported by the ongoing rollout of Cash AI V6.0 that we expect to drive both stronger conversion and higher monetization as a result of higher limits. On fixed costs, total compensation was $36 million, including $16 million of stock-based compensation tied to performance-based restricted stock awards granted in 2024, 2025 and earlier this year as achievement of the underlying 2026 financial targets became probable during the quarter. Excluding stock-based compensation, compensation grew 7% year-over-year and declined 5% sequentially as modest headcount additions were more than offset by the seasonal step down in payroll taxes.
Our incremental investment over the next couple of quarters is planned to be concentrated in three areas: product development, marketing and embedding AI more deeply across the organization, which we expect will deliver greater speed and scalability to our business over time. Those investments are modest and may temper fixed cost leverage over the next two quarters. Thereafter, we expect operating leverage to become more pronounced as the business continues to scale. Finally, other operating expenses include approximately $4.4 million of nonrecurring items. Excluding those items, other operating expenses were down sequentially. Pulling it together on profitability, adjusted EBITDA grew 48% year-over-year to $76 million, more than 1.5x the rate of revenue growth. Adjusted EBITDA margin was 44%, up nearly 600 basis points year-over-year. Sequentially, margin remained flat despite the marketing step-up I just described.
That was a deliberate investment at what we believe are attractive returns and does not change our expectation for continued annual adjusted EBITDA margin expansion. Below the operating line, several items affected the comparability of our GAAP net income results for this quarter. We recorded $37 million of noncash charges from the required quarterly mark-to-market of our warrant and earn-out liabilities as our share price appreciated during the quarter. These items are excluded from our adjusted results as they do not reflect operating performance. Note that the warrant and earn-out securities expire in January of 2027, thereby eliminating the noncash gains and losses in our P&L that we've been subject to over the last several years. GAAP net income was $7 million compared to $9 million a year ago, reflecting the noncash charges I just described. Adjusted net income was $56 million, up 39% year-over-year, and adjusted diluted EPS was $4.12, up 48%, reflecting both solid financial performance and our lower share count that now includes a full quarter of the repurchases we completed in March following the convertible note transaction.
Turning to our capital position. We ended the quarter with $254 million of cash, investments and restricted cash, up $77 million from $178 million at March 31. The increase was primarily driven by $93 million funded through the Coastal arrangement, offset by share repurchases during the quarter. As a result of the Coastal structure, net cash from ExtraCash receivables shifted from a $51.7 million use of cash in the second quarter of last year to a $30.5 million source of cash this quarter, demonstrating how the arrangement reduces our direct funding requirements and enhances the free cash flow generation of the business. We repurchased $19 million of shares during the quarter, leaving $94 million available under our authorization. Our capital priorities remain unchanged: fund high-return organic growth and repurchase shares opportunistically when we believe doing so creates attractive per share value.
Turning to our updated 2026 outlook. Based on first half results and the trajectory we see, we are raising guidance across all three metrics. We now expect revenue of $725 million to $735 million, representing 32% year-over-year growth at the midpoint, up from our prior range of $710 million to $720 million. We expect adjusted EBITDA of $315 million to $325 million from $305 million to $315 million, and we expect adjusted diluted EPS of $17 to $17.50, up from $16.25 to $16.75, assuming a 23% effective tax rate. Our updated outlook assumes a higher level of advertising and activation investment in the second half than contemplated in our prior outlooks, reflecting the attractive returns we are seeing, a near-term growth mix weighted more towards MTMs, continued ARPU support from pricing actions, cohort maturation, subscription mix and Cash AI V6.0. Gross margin expansion towards the mid-70s, inclusive of the Coastal Fees and no meaningful revenue contribution from Flex.
In closing, our second quarter results demonstrate the durability of our growth, continued control over credit and the flexibility of our operating model. We are increasing investment where returns are strongest while maintaining discipline on costs and the Coastal transition is expected to further strengthen our liquidity and capital position. We believe these factors support the updated outlook that we provided today and position us well for the balance of 2026. With that, operator, please open the line for questions.
分析師問答
Our first question comes from Devin Ryan with Citizens Bank.
I want to ask a question on the new pricing. Good to see that. So on the removal of the fee cap, if you can, what percentage of advances were being impacted by the $15 cap above $300? We can do some math on that, but it would be great just if you can give us a little bit of color. And then ultimately, just trying to get a sense of how much this will benefit the blended fee per advance. I appreciate the number has probably been growing, but just trying to dig in a little bit on the actual impact of this.
Devin, it's Kyle. I appreciate the question. We didn't remove the fee cap for existing users in the second quarter; that's rolling out as we speak. So it was really just impacting new customer cohorts in the quarter. As you can imagine, new customers' limits start out smaller and grow over time. So it's really that above $300 cohort of new customers that we would have had enhanced monetization for as a result of the fee change. That number is pretty small given that it represents a small portion of new customers and new customers represent an overwhelming minority of the overall MTM base. So I would say it had very little impact in the quarter, but will compound very dramatically over time as that proportion becomes a larger mix of the overall MTM base moving forward. Importantly, the movement of that fee cap plus the fee cap change on existing customers gives us a ton of room on the ExtraCash origination side as we don't have a cap on our monetization. We can continue unlocking higher limits as a result of that dynamic. It gives us a lot of stored energy within the business moving forward. We think that is impactful and something we really wanted people to take away from this call. So just to recap: very minimal impact in Q2, but expect it to be very meaningful on an ongoing basis.
I appreciate that comment. Maybe I could have been more clear. Essentially, what I was trying to get at is the amount of advances above $300. Now that more are essentially not going to be capped on a go-forward basis, there are already estimates of how much of the advances are in that $300 to $500 range currently that are now going to have a fee uplift.
Roughly the majority, I would say.
Great. Okay. I appreciate that. And then as a follow-up, as you consider obviously going higher and potentially even above $500, could you give some color around the different customer cohorts and credit across early versus more seasoned customers? I'm assuming the more seasoned customers have the better credit profile, but the more seasoned typically have the larger advance as well. So as you go into higher advances, what does that look like from a credit perspective for the firm? Are the higher advances actually better credit profiles because you have more data on these customers, which drives the comfort to go above $500?
Devin, it's Jason. The majority of the higher limit customers are mostly tenured members. We know a lot about them. They're highly repeat members. We feel very good about letting them go well in excess of the $500 limit given we have a more flexible and scalable pricing model at this point. If they need extra money above and beyond $500 for a short-term liquidity issue, we're not going to say no to that. We're excited to test into some new cohorts and existing cohorts on take rate behavior, utilization trends and ultimately ARPU and origination size uplift as a result of the change.
Devin, one quick thing to add to Jason's point. When you look at users at the very high end of the limit spectrum, their loss rates are very, very low. On a dollar-weighted basis, unlocking higher limits for those users can actually reduce our overall DPD rate because those users' loss rates are so low. We think it could be quite additive given the net monetization impact of the very low loss rates on those cohorts and the higher gross monetization we think we can generate as we move those specific users up higher.
Yes. That was the premise of the question. I appreciate that.
Our next question comes from Joseph Vafi with Canaccord Genuity.
Once again, terrific results. Nice to see a momentum stock in fintech out there. Maybe drill down a little on the card strategy from here. I know the new Flex card is coming out; could you double-click on the opportunity there? Is there a target market to grow payment volume and interchange revenue more in line with ExtraCash and the rest of the revenue line? How should we be thinking about the plan on that line item? And then I have a quick follow-up.
We think the Flex Card is highly differentiated within two markets we're looking at. One is BNPL, where there's high fragmentation with the idea you have to go to a merchant online to check out, versus our card that has the flexibility of a credit card where you can shop anywhere, anytime, online or offline. Compared to subprime credit cards that monetize via late fees and significant compounding APRs, monthly fees plus a small per-transaction fee, we feel the market is massive and helps us continue to penetrate the 185 million customer TAM that we are already addressing with ExtraCash. The margin profile of Flex is fairly similar to ExtraCash. We feel it's an opportunity to have a different vehicle with a slightly longer duration that helps customers get into different categories of spend, which we see in BNPL and credit card. ExtraCash tends to be mostly for gas, grocery and nondiscretionary items. Flex feels differentiated. We're using Cash AI as the underpinning for underwriting that product, and we are continuing to roll it out to more test cohorts, starting with our higher credit quality members and then further penetrating from there.
Got it. Any update on making the direct deposit relationship perhaps more of a strategic goal versus where you are now?
Over time, we envision deepening direct deposit penetration with our customers, but right now we want to focus efforts on deepening our relationship within credit. Compared to debit and direct deposit, where there is very little differentiation in the market and competitors often give away cash or balance sheet to get sign-ups, the harder problem to solve is underwriting this population effectively as we do now. If we lean further into new credit products like Flex and further into ExtraCash via higher limits, that's the harder problem and where our product resources are best spent versus trying to get people to switch their bank account, which has a lot of friction. That said, the more we can do for our members in short-term credit, the better chance we have of people considering us as their primary account and moving their paycheck. If they don't, we're fine with ExtraCash or Flex being top of wallet. Ultimately, that's our strategy rather than focusing on where the paycheck goes.
Our next question comes from Chao (Chris) Zhang with UBS.
First question is about the increase in the second half marketing spend. It's encouraging to see you're leaning more into the short payback, low CAC opportunity. Since the components of revenue growth in the second half may shift a little, can you give us a better sense of metrics you're looking at for marketing spend? Are you targeting a certain payback period, a certain CAC, or can you give a little more color on that? Second, on the second-draw feature: on one hand, it's an improvement to customer experience and can add incremental ExtraCash usage; on the other hand, some customers might be more conservative in taking the first draw if they know they have a second chance. Can you talk about the puts and takes and any impact on the second quarter results you have seen from that initiative?
Thanks, Chris. We're not optimizing for the lowest possible CAC; we are looking for positive returns on all incremental ad dollars. We're seeing incredibly positive trends. Our CAC has been roughly flat sequentially at $19 at many multiples of the scale we've achieved in prior periods at that CAC. We think we're seeing benefits from investments in brand and funnel optimizations and feel good about leaning more into marketing in the second half. Given the short payback periods that are now sub-four months, we've been testing for incrementality and seen positive outcomes that give us confidence to increase spend in the second half.
Chris, on the second-draw feature, we looked at utilization — of the approved limit for customers, how much of that approved limit they ultimately take. We tested throughout the quarter to ensure it was additive to customer experience and not negatively impacting monetization. We had a sizable test cohort in the quarter and utilization outcomes were positive. So it was a win-win: better customer experience, more flexibility, and we didn't erode monetization. The impact in the quarter was modest given ramping tests, but it's accretive to average origination size per customer due to favorable utilization dynamics with the second draw.
Our next question comes from Evercore. This is Ethan Hammett in for Adam Frisch.
Regarding the Flex trial, do you have any early reads on credit quality, usage trends and potential cannibalization of ExtraCash volumes as a result of Flex usage?
Conversion trends are positive and in line with expectations. On credit and cannibalization, Flex appears to be complementary to ExtraCash. Customers using Flex are still utilizing ExtraCash and use the products differently for different types of purchases. Unit economics are improving, we continue to expand test cohorts, and we're excited about Flex becoming a significant business over time once past the test period.
Our next question comes from Harold Goetsch with B. Riley Securities.
Terrific results. I want your thoughts on gross adds in the quarter — 951,000, a record high and up 31% year-over-year. That is meaningfully better than Q1 and much better than Q2 of a year ago. What tactics are you using to move that number higher?
The good news is it's more of the same. We're expanding marketing acquisition dollars across channels and have become more efficient on onboarding. Cash AI has offered better limits at the front door. These factors support efficient acquisition. Our channels are scaled brand channels: TV, streaming, and social. We have no exposure to search or AI disruption. Overall, we're executing across channels, and the numbers reflect that success.
To add, acquisition being up almost the same rate as our spend and near 100% incrementality at this scale speaks to the market size and our execution and channel expansion on the top of funnel.
A second follow-up for Kyle. Given your cash flow underwriting and visibility into transaction data, what percentage of your monthly transacting members or total user base are transacting in BNPL transactions that you can see? Have you ever given that number?
It's more than half.
Our next question comes from Ryan Tomasello with KBW.
A few questions on Flex. Based on early data, do you have any data on where average monthly credit limits are shaking out for Flex, and how much wallet share you're capturing with early adopters inclusive of ExtraCash? In the past you've said ExtraCash credit wallet share was sub-20%; curious where that could go with Flex over time. Also on funding: how much capacity does the arrangement with Coastal give you for ExtraCash funding, when should we expect full migration, and for Flex should we expect a similar off-balance sheet funding arrangement with Coastal?
We're pleased with Flex. We've been targeting roughly 2x the limits as the go-to-market for that product to offer more duration — Flex is pay-in-four while ExtraCash is pay-in-one — and the larger limit is expected to be a big driver of utilization. It's too early to give the detailed trends you mentioned, and we're not ready to disclose that level of detail yet. We'll provide more color as the product seasons and we have more data.
On the funding side, we had roughly $93 million drawn on a $225 million facility as of the end of the quarter. We are discussing increasing the size of that facility, and Coastal has indicated appetite to do so. Scaling depends in part on our full migration from our previous bank partnership, which we are in the process of migrating away from. We have plenty of capacity to continue ramping originations on that facility and believe there is room to expand. We would expect to replicate that Coastal structure for Flex as well.
Our next question comes from Jeff Cantwell with Seaport Research.
A couple of quick questions. On direct deposit: that area has been an on-again, off-again initiative. How would you plan to drive more direct deposit customers as you look ahead? As you move past 15 million total members, might there be a growing number interested if you offer that product? I'd love updated thoughts. Second, on Cash AI version 6, can you underline differences between V6 versus V5.5 and prior versions, any details on average origination drivers or improvement in loss rates to help as we model expectations?
Ultimately, the more we can do for customers within short-term credit, the better chance we have of someone considering us their primary account. Our current thinking is to focus on being top-of-wallet. If a customer's paycheck goes into Chase but they spend on our product, we can still be top of wallet. We believe our underwriting differentiation gives us a better chance to win primary share of wallet with credit rather than trying to get someone to switch bank accounts. It's not a strategic focus right now, though there are levers we could pull like reducing cost of credit or increasing limits to win direct deposit. For now, our focus is on credit products that differentiate.
On Cash AI 6.0 versus prior versions, at a high level we expect and have seen in testing that V6 will deliver higher average origination sizes and lower loss rates, so from a net monetization perspective you'll get an amplified benefit from those dynamics. We've rolled V6 out to about a third of our user base so far, and results look positive. We haven't quantified the origination lift yet, but the new model combined with removal of fee caps gives us a lot of room to increase average origination size. The total number of features in the model has increased by about 50% with roughly 400 new features; V6's risk splitting capabilities are far superior. Some new features focus on competitor utilization and institution-level features on where users are coming from, which are driving impact.
Our next question comes from Jacob Stephan with Lake Street Capital Markets.
Looking at larger-size advances, your 121-day charge-off rate ticked up in the quarter a little. As you push size higher above the $500 limit, and with comments about loss rates being similar to Q2, how do you separate size-driven loss dollars versus a rate deterioration related to V6.0?
The 121-day loss rate estimates for Q2 are actually better than Q2 of 2025, primarily due to iterations we made to V5. There's been no real impact from V6 on that metric in Q2. We're being conservative in our statements around loss rate performance and expect V6 to potentially drive loss rates down, but our real focus with V6 is keeping loss rates generally where they are while materially increasing average origination size. There are other dynamics: new user origination sizes are smaller and new-user loss rates tend to be higher than average, which is a headwind to headline average origination size. Net-net, we expect loss rates to be around Q2 levels while scaling average origination size and driving higher net monetization.
Okay. When you look at the competitive environment, there are many earned wage access products from larger neobanks. How does Dave stack up in comparison, and how is the consumer adjusting to several different products in the market?
It's not impacting our ability to acquire customers — we had a record quarter for new sign-ups with flat CAC. The market is large. Our go-to-market is different because you can access credit by linking a bank account with us, and we view competitors requiring direct deposit as having more friction. That yields faster speed-to-value, more referrals — a third of our acquisition still comes via friends and family. Our underwriting differentiation and Cash AI are harder problems to replicate, especially for companies that rely on direct deposit. We're not worried about competition; the larger issue is solving the underwriting problem effectively.
Thank you. This concludes the conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.