Affirm Holdings, Inc. (AFRM) 2026 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Affirm Holdings fourth-quarter fiscal 2026 earnings call.

下午好。歡迎參加 Affirm Holdings 2026 會計年度第四季財報電話會議。

(Operator Instructions)

(接線員指示)

As a reminder, this conference is being recorded, and a replay of the call will be available on our Investor Relations website for a reasonable period of time after the call.

提醒各位，本次會議將被錄音，且會後一段合理期間內，通話重播將可於我們的投資人關係網站上取得。

I'd now like to turn the call over to Zane Keller, Head of Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin.

現在我想把電話交給投資人關係主管 Zane Keller。謝謝。您可以開始了。

Thank you, operator. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone listening that today's call may contain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those set forth in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our Investor Relations website. Our actual results may differ materially from any forward-looking statements that we make today. These forward-looking statements speak only as of today, and the company does not assume any obligation or intent to update them, except as required by law.

謝謝，接線員。在開始之前，我想提醒各位收聽者，今天的電話會議可能包含前瞻性陳述。這些前瞻性陳述受到多項風險與不確定性影響，包括我們向美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提交之文件中所載者；相關文件可於我們的投資人關係網站取得。我們的實際結果可能與我們今天所作的任何前瞻性陳述存在重大差異。這些前瞻性陳述僅截至今日為準，除法律要求外，公司不承擔亦無意更新之任何義務。

In addition, today's call may include non-GAAP financial measures. These measures should be considered as a supplement to and not a substitute for GAAP financial measures. For historical non-GAAP financial measures, reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures can be found in our earnings supplement slide deck, which is available on our IR website.

此外，今天的電話會議可能包含非 GAAP 財務衡量指標。這些指標應視為 GAAP 財務衡量指標之補充，而非替代。就歷史非 GAAP 財務衡量指標而言，與最直接可比之 GAAP 指標的調節表可見於我們的財報補充簡報投影片，該資料可於我們的投資人關係網站取得。

Hosting today's call with me are Max Levchin, Affirm's Founder and Chief Executive Officer; Michael Linford, Affirm's President; and Rob O'Hare, Affirm's Chief Financial Officer. In line with our practice in prior quarters, we will begin with very brief opening remarks from Max before proceeding immediately into your questions.

今天與我一同主持電話會議的有 Affirm 創辦人暨執行長 Max Levchin、Affirm 總裁 Michael Linford，以及 Affirm 財務長 Rob O'Hare。依照我們過去幾季的慣例，我們將先由 Max 做非常簡短的開場致詞，隨後立即進入各位的提問。

With that, I will turn it over to Max to get us started.

那麼，我把時間交給 Max 來為我們揭開序幕。

Thank you, Zane. As always, the performance as good as it is. I'll keep the prompt remarks brief. As you may have noticed, fiscal fourth-quarter was our most profitable quarter ever, even without the tax allowance release. The company is thriving, and the core business is firing on all cylinders.

謝謝你，Zane。一如既往，表現確實非常好。我會把開場發言保持簡短。如各位可能已注意到，會計年度第四季是我們史上獲利最高的一季，即使不計入稅務備抵（tax allowance）回轉亦然。公司正蓬勃發展，核心業務全速運轉、各方面火力全開。

I'm excited to announce that our veteran execs, Pat Suh and Michael Linford, are promoted to SVP, GM of Global Markets and President, respectively, setting us up for an even tighter execution and allowing me to get even deeper into developing our next generation of products and services.

我很高興宣布，我們資深高階主管 Pat Suh 與 Michael Linford 分別晉升為全球市場資深副總裁兼總經理（SVP, GM of Global Markets）以及總裁，這將使我們的執行更為緊密，也讓我能更深入投入下一代產品與服務的開發。

With that, happy to address your questions. Back to Zane.

那麼，我很樂意回答各位的問題。交回給 Zane。

Okay. Thank you, Max. Now let's get to your questions. Operator, please begin the Q&A session.

好的。謝謝你，Max。現在我們開始進入提問。接線員，請開始問答環節。

(Operator Instructions)

(接線員指示)

Adam Frisch, Evercore ISI.

Adam Frisch，Evercore ISI。

Congrats to you, Mike, on a well-deserved promotion. Max, at the Analyst Day, you said you're most excited about things you can't really talk about yet. If precedent holds on the initial guidance and how you ultimately will end the year, growth in fiscal '27 should again be terrific, but with investors focused on the sustainability of high growth rates, when should we expect to see some of these initiatives start to show up in future years? And do you believe that over the long-term, Affirm needs to or should offer consumers multiple financial products and services in addition to what you do today?

恭喜你，Mike，這次升遷實至名歸。Max，在分析師日你提到，你最興奮的是一些你還不能真正談的事情。如果依照過往慣例，從初始指引到最終年度表現，2027 會計年度的成長應該仍會非常亮眼；但投資人關注的是高成長率的可持續性，我們應該何時能期待這些計畫在未來幾年開始反映出來？另外，你是否認為從長期來看，Affirm 除了目前所做的之外，還需要或應該向消費者提供多種金融產品與服務？

Thank you. It's a compound question. I'll go backwards. We already offer multiple products to consumers today. So the answer to, should we do that, we think is yes, otherwise we wouldn't have built all these other things. For the moment, the majority of our products are various expressions of offering credit, but not necessarily at the point of sale. It also comes, obviously, in the form of a card. We have an account. We have a version of our product that works for business purchases.

謝謝。這是一個複合式問題。我倒著回答。我們今天其實已經向消費者提供多種產品。所以對於「我們是否應該這麼做」的答案，我們認為是肯定的，否則我們也不會打造這些其他產品。目前我們的大多數產品，都是以不同形式提供信貸，但不一定是在結帳點（point of sale）。當然也包含以卡片的形式。我們有帳戶。我們也有一個版本的產品可用於企業採購。

So we've already spread into several other subcategories, including verticals that we address. Actually, there's a bunch of that in my note in as well. So we absolutely expect to continue expanding. In terms of when these things will show up, I think this is probably a question for our CFO and Michael in sort of how we set guidance. But the -- a big part of the expectations from this promotion that Michael got and my own focus is I plan to spend a lot more time working on things that will only show up in fiscal '28, '29, and so on.

因此我們已經擴展到數個其他子類別，包括我們所服務的垂直領域。其實我在備註裡也提到不少。所以我們絕對預期會持續擴張。至於這些事情何時會反映出來，我想這可能更適合由我們的財務長與 Michael 來回答，關於我們如何設定指引。但——對於 Michael 這次升遷以及我自身工作重心的很大一部分期待是：我計畫投入更多時間在那些只會在 2028、2029 會計年度及之後才會顯現的事情上。

And so the numbers we're putting to the market today reflect our products that are working and growing and printing profits. Some of the crazier ideas from the future are in the future, and we try very hard not to overpromise and underdeliver.

因此，我們今天提供給市場的數字，反映的是我們已在運作、正在成長、並且能持續產生獲利的產品。一些更瘋狂的未來想法仍在未來，我們非常努力避免過度承諾、卻交付不足。

Okay. I think growth is in good hands with you taking that.

好的。我認為成長交到你手上是很放心的。

Harry Bartlett, Rothschild.

Harry Bartlett，Rothschild。

I just wanted to touch on something you mentioned in your shareholder letter. Clearly, it is doing very well, but you said that you're really available at 80 of the top 250 e-commerce sites and 10% of e-commerce merchants. You're very well integrated with a lot of the major PSPs now and clearly very well known as a brand. So I guess the question is, what's the impediment for getting these remaining merchants to sign up? And how do you kind of bridge that gap to get there?

我想談一下你在致股東信中提到的一點。顯然你們表現非常好，但你說你們目前大約覆蓋前 250 大電商網站中的 80 家，以及 10% 的電商商戶。你們現在已與許多主要 PSP（支付服務供應商）深度整合，而且品牌知名度也很高。所以我想問的是，讓其餘商戶加入的阻礙是什麼？你們要如何彌補這個差距、達成覆蓋？

We don't think of it as an impediment. I think we have an exceptionally strong revenue team, and Wayne, that who runs it, is an exceptional executive and deserves every accolade. And so I expect his team to continue executing and signing each one of these merchants one by one, sometimes in bulk, but mostly one by one.

我們不把它視為阻礙。我認為我們有一支極其強大的營收團隊，而負責帶領的 Wayne 是一位非常出色的高階主管，值得所有讚譽。因此我預期他的團隊會持續執行到位，逐一簽下這些商戶——有時會成批簽約，但多數時候是逐一簽下。

I think the majority of the time for large merchants, these are long sales cycles that take a lot less convincing than ever before. People understand the value that we provide, and they are excited to see it added to their checkout. But many large enterprises that sell things online have complex and frequently outdated systems. A lot of times, adding a new major point-of-sale system requires them to do some major modifications. Sometimes it pushes them to do whatever work that they were postponing because they weren't planning on adding another one.

我認為對大型商戶而言，多數情況下這些都是很長的銷售週期，而所需的說服程度比以往小得多。大家都理解我們所提供的價值，也很期待把我們加入他們的結帳流程。但許多在線上銷售的大型企業擁有複雜、且往往過時的系統。很多時候，新增一個主要的銷售點系統需要他們進行重大修改。有時這也會迫使他們去做那些原本一直延後的工作，因為他們原本並不打算再新增一個系統。

So these are not things that flip in one quarter. But the reason I mentioned the numbers you quoted is because there's just an enormous amount of greenfield. We think our -- if anything, this is a sort of a notion of our sales team has a lot of work to do for probably quite a number of quarters, but no one should be taking a break or should you be thinking we're running out of the Internet or anything.

所以這些事情不會在一個季度內就翻轉。但我之所以提到你引用的那些數字，是因為仍有極其龐大的未開發空間（greenfield）。我們認為——如果要說的話，這反而意味著我們的銷售團隊在接下來相當多個季度都還有大量工作要做；但沒有人應該因此鬆懈，你也不該認為我們快把網際網路「跑完了」之類的。

Harshita Rawat, Bernstein.

Harshita Rawat，Bernstein。

I want to ask about in-store. As Affirm Card continues to scale and now you have the wallet partnerships, how can you scale in-store usage of Affirm where the opportunity is arguably much bigger, as you also alluded. I know there are unique friction points in terms of getting approvals, what happens when you get declined physically get them in store. So I know 30% of your Affirm Card transactions are offline, but it's still very small as a percentage of your overall GMV. So I would love to hear your thoughts on product planning.

我想問一下關於實體店內。隨著 Affirm Card 持續擴張、而且你們現在也有錢包合作夥伴關係，你們要如何擴大 Affirm 在實體店內的使用？那裡的機會可以說大得多，正如你們也提到的。我知道在取得核准方面有一些獨特的摩擦點，例如當你在實體店內被拒絕時會發生什麼。所以我知道你們有 30% 的 Affirm Card 交易是線下，但占你們整體 GMV 的比例仍然很小。所以我很想聽聽你們對產品規劃的想法。

I 100% agree. One of the things that the innovation team that I have now more time to run is working on is improving the in-store process. And most things, payments in general, are very rarely about uncovering some low-hanging fruit that was just already in the ground, you need to pick it up. It's primarily about polishing off unhappy paths: poor connectivity. How do you make sure your product works in a large store that's essentially a Faraday cage, you can't get connected to the Internet. How do you integrate with point-of-sale systems that don't know how to read QR codes, don't know how to read barcodes.

我百分之百同意。我現在有更多時間帶領的創新團隊正在做的一件事，就是改善實體店內流程。而大多數事情——一般而言支付——很少是去發現某個早就存在、唾手可得的果實把它撿起來。它主要是在打磨那些不愉快的路徑：例如連線不佳。你要如何確保你的產品在一間大型商店裡也能運作——那種地方基本上像法拉第籠，根本連不上網路。你要如何與那些不會讀 QR code、也不會讀條碼的收銀／POS 系統整合。

It's kind of an endless long tail or not endless. There's a meaningful long tail of conditions that make approval or tender delivery or even handling things like card size adjustments in-store just that much harder than online. Online, you hit back on your browser and you correct whatever it is you need to correct. In store, you have to go back to -- the back of the queue to the cash register, which is annoying and people would rather not do that. So the bar for error is much lower, like you have to create a much better consumer experience.

這有點像一個無止盡的長尾——或也不是無止盡。但確實有一個相當可觀的長尾情境，會讓核准、付款方式交付（tender delivery），甚至像是店內處理卡片額度／金額調整這類事情，都比線上困難得多。在線上，你在瀏覽器按返回鍵，就能把需要更正的地方改掉。在店內，你得回到——收銀台隊伍的最後面，這很煩，人們也不想這麼做。所以容錯門檻低很多：你必須打造更好的消費者體驗。

So we're excited to work on that. By no means that should imply that we are unexcited about e-commerce. We actually have a lot to do. Obviously, there's still 80% more e-commerce to go. But offline is a giant portion of the market and continues to be. And we have some really interesting ideas on how to make the experience not just uniquely better, but also uniquely Affirm.

所以我們很期待在這方面努力。但這絕不表示我們對電商不感興趣。其實我們還有很多事要做。顯然，電商還有 80% 的空間要走。但線下仍然是市場中非常巨大的一部分，而且一直都是。我們也有一些非常有趣的想法，能讓體驗不只是獨特地更好，也能獨特地「很 Affirm」。

So maybe the best answer to your question is not quite going to preannounce anything here yet, but we expect to launch a few ideas that are uniquely Affirm specific, which through the lens of sort of product development, you can ask people to do more work to use your product if you're delivering disproportionate value.

所以也許對你問題最好的回答是：我現在還不會在這裡預先宣布任何事情，但我們預期會推出幾個非常具有 Affirm 特色的點子。從產品開發的角度來看，如果你能提供不成比例的價值，你就可以要求使用者為了使用你的產品多做一些事。

You can consider sort of Affirm online relative to credit cards. Credit cards are really easy. Just type in a number or you tap it offline and off you go. Affirm has to do a little bit more work to get approval to understand why you might get declined, but the value is there. You get this amazing 0% deal, you get no fees, you get no deferral. And so the work is a little bit more, but the value is tremendous.

你可以把 Affirm 的線上體驗拿來和信用卡相比。信用卡真的很容易。你只要輸入一串號碼，或在線下用感應刷一下就完成了。Affirm 需要多做一點工作來取得核准、理解你為什麼可能被拒絕，但價值是存在的。你能拿到很棒的 0% 優惠、沒有費用、沒有展期（deferral）。所以雖然多做了一點事，但價值非常可觀。

And so we're going to bring that same ethos of maybe the work is a little bit more, but the value is so much better than what you do with your traditional payment instrument offline. And we'll show something off in the coming quarters.

因此我們會把同樣的理念帶到線下：也許需要多做一點，但你得到的價值會比你用傳統線下支付工具好得多。我們會在接下來幾個季度展示一些成果。

Rob Wildhack, Autonomous Research.

Rob Wildhack，Autonomous Research。

I wanted to ask you about the UK. It sounds like you're pleased with the progress to date. But could you just tell us more about the early receptivity from consumers and from merchants? And then I'm also curious if there's been any competitive response or changes from the incumbents there that you've seen? Any details there would be great. And congrats to Michael and to Pat on the new roles.

我想問一下英國。聽起來你們對目前的進展感到滿意。但你能否多談談消費者與商戶端的早期接受度？另外我也好奇，你們是否看到任何競爭對手的回應，或當地既有業者有任何變化？任何細節都會很有幫助。也恭喜 Michael 和 Pat 擔任新職務。

Pretty excited about the United Kingdom, seeing solid results. We just held our first executive dinner there a couple of nights ago where we met with some of the larger existing merchants there and got their first round of formal feedback and all that. And by all accounts, it was a love fest. So I think we're doing well in terms of creating new friends and early fans.

我們對英國市場相當興奮，看到穩健的成果。我們就在幾天前在那裡舉辦了第一次高階主管晚宴，與一些當地既有的大型商戶見面，並取得他們第一輪正式回饋等等。各方面看起來都非常熱烈。所以我認為我們在結交新朋友、建立早期粉絲方面做得不錯。

The consumer uptake, I think we said it before, and it turned out to be true. There's a lot of love to be had when you don't try to make money by sneaking your business model into fine print and hiding things with fees and such, and we don't do any of those things. And sure enough, consumers love it. But retailers actually have a fresh appreciation for that because to date, there hasn't been a player in the market that would build the products the way we do.

至於消費者採用，我想我們之前說過，而事實也證明如此。當你不試圖透過把商業模式藏在小字條款裡、用各種費用把東西藏起來來賺錢時，就會獲得很多好感——而我們不做這些事。果不其然，消費者很喜歡。但零售商其實也對此有新的認同，因為迄今為止，市場上還沒有任何一家業者會像我們這樣打造產品。

On the competitive response, and I don't want to be too loud here because I might wake someone up, but we're not seeing much to report on the matter, to be honest. I think for now, at least we're doing great in terms of feeling like our product is a unique play in the market.

關於競爭回應，我不想太大聲，免得把誰吵醒，但老實說，我們目前沒有看到太多值得報告的動態。我想至少就目前而言，我們做得很好，因為我們覺得自己的產品在市場上是一個獨特的打法。

Will Nance, Goldman Sachs.

Will Nance，Goldman Sachs。

I wanted to ask just on the growth in interest-bearing this quarter. Obviously, very strong. I know you're calling out the 41% growth in Pay-in-X, but it's also great to see kind of the largest product almost keeping pace with that product. So just curious how you're thinking about overall product mix and then just more of a nuance there. Just wondering if like the shift to the promotional event, if that created any like mix dynamics that we should consider from the fourth to the first-quarter?

我想問一下本季計息產品（interest-bearing）的成長。顯然非常強勁。我知道你們特別提到 Pay-in-X 成長 41%，但也很高興看到規模最大的產品似乎也幾乎跟上那個產品的步伐。所以我想了解你們如何看待整體產品組合，另外再問一個比較細的問題。想請教像是促銷活動的轉移，是否造成任何我們需要從第四季到第一季考量的組合（mix）變化？

Yes. Great question. I think it really comes down to mix within sort of the two largest centers of gravity within the product portfolio. So on the one hand, we have point of sale. We did actually see sort of an acceleration in 0% share within point-of-sale integrations. And I think some of that is due to the Big Nothing event, but just it's also been a push of ours in terms of what we're selling into merchants.

是的。好問題。我認為這主要取決於產品組合中兩個最大「重心」內部的 mix。一方面，我們有銷售點（point of sale）。我們確實看到在 POS 整合中，0% 占比出現某種程度的加速。我想其中一部分是 Big Nothing 活動所致，但同時這也是我們在對商戶銷售時一直在推動的方向。

And then really on the direct-to-consumer side, we actually see a much higher proportion of interest-bearing loans within that product set. So we're running sort of north of 80% interest-bearing on our direct-to-consumer products. And I think just with the continued growth and scaling of things like Affirm Card, it's really that, that's driving the sort of mix shift back towards interest-bearing a little bit.

而在直面消費者（direct-to-consumer）這一側，我們其實看到在該產品組合中，計息貸款的占比高得多。所以我們的直面消費者產品，計息占比在 80% 以上。我想隨著像 Affirm Card 這類產品持續成長與擴張，主要就是它在推動組合稍微往計息方向移動。

Dan Dolev, Mizuho Securities.

Dan Dolev，Mizuho Securities。

Exceptionally, as you said, Max, ludicrous quarter. I like that one. I have a question about something you said at the Analyst Day. You said it gets easier to grow as you gain scale, but some of your competitors are not seeing that. So what are you doing right or maybe what are they doing wrong that makes you benefit from that virtue? And congrats again.

如你所說，Max，這一季異常地——簡直荒謬。我喜歡這個說法。我有個問題是關於你在分析師日提到的一點。你說隨著規模擴大，成長會變得更容易，但你的一些競爭對手並沒有看到這種情況。那麼你們做對了什麼、或他們做錯了什麼，讓你們能受益於這種優勢？再次恭喜。

Thank you. I can only speak, I guess, to what we're doing right. I think we know exactly who we are. Like we have a very, very specific set of views on why we do what we do, why we prioritize certain things, why we won't do other things and not just what kind of products or what sort of structures we're willing to put in front of our customers and what we're not.

謝謝。我想我只能談談我們做對了什麼。我認為我們非常清楚自己是誰。我們對於為什麼做我們在做的事、為什麼優先考量某些事情、為什麼不做其他事情，都有一套非常、非常明確的觀點；而且不只是我們願意提供給客戶什麼樣的產品或什麼樣的架構，以及我們不願意提供什麼。

But we are a network. Every decision we make at the product level, at the sales level, at the capital markets level, we ask ourselves, does this benefit every part of our network? Does this grow the consumer base? Does it give them a reason to spend more with us? Does it give them a reason to spend more with our customers, the merchants by adding a merchant, are we exposing our consumers to the merchants we want them exposed to and so on. And so we are constantly asking ourselves how can we create a virtuous cycle? How can we aid the virtuous cycle that we've created.

但我們是一個網路。我們在產品層面、銷售層面、資本市場層面所做的每一個決策，我們都會問自己：這是否讓我們網路的每一個部分都受益？這是否擴大消費者基礎？這是否給他們一個理由在我們這裡花更多？這是否給他們一個理由在我們的客戶——商戶——那裡花更多？透過新增商戶，我們是否讓消費者接觸到我們希望他們接觸到的商戶，等等。因此我們一直在問自己：我們如何創造一個良性循環？我們如何促進我們已經建立的良性循環。

If you have a network, eventually, you start seeing network effects. And network effects are very simply, it is expensive to leave because you're going to miss out on a large and growing body and it's dumb not to join because you are missing out on a large and growing body of business. So the larger we get, the more valuable the network becomes, the more activity that happens on the edges of the graph we're building and the more people, the more merchants want to join the graph.

如果你有一個網路，最終你會開始看到網路效應。而網路效應很簡單：離開的成本很高，因為你會錯過一個龐大且持續成長的群體；而不加入也很愚蠢，因為你會錯過一個龐大且持續成長的業務量。所以我們規模越大，網路就越有價值；我們正在建立的圖譜邊緣發生的活動越多；也就有越多人、越多商戶想加入這個圖譜。

I think for most payment systems, if you sort of cast your eye across the last 50 years of -- and I've been building payment systems for almost that long, sadly, the ones that survive and thrive are the ones that are extremely focused on building a network almost at the expense of anything else. And by the way, if you are willing to stay focused and go long, you are rewarded with profitability, with pricing power, with sustainability of the business, sustainable growth.

我認為對大多數支付系統而言，如果你回顧過去50年的發展——而且坦白說，我做支付系統也快有那麼久了——能夠存活並蓬勃發展的，都是那些極度專注於建立網路、幾乎不惜犧牲其他一切的系統。順帶一提，如果你願意保持專注並拉長時間尺度，你會得到回報：獲利能力、定價權、業務的可持續性、可持續的成長。

All of that comes in time if you're focused on building a network. And we have been from the very beginning. If you look through my letters, you'll find the word network probably the most commonly repeated now. And that's sort of the secret to the success so far, and we have no intention of changing that. I think a lot of the players in the space decide that the next shiny object is the thing that will create short-term value and whatever happens next happens next. We try to measure things not in quarters, but in years and hopefully decades. So the strategy has worked for us so far. We'll continue doing exactly that.

如果你專注於建立網路，這一切都會隨時間到來。而我們從一開始就是如此。如果你翻看我的信，你會發現「網路」這個詞現在可能是出現最頻繁的。這算是迄今成功的祕訣，而我們完全沒有打算改變。我認為這個領域裡很多參與者會覺得下一個閃亮的新事物才是能創造短期價值的關鍵，至於之後怎樣就之後再說。我們試著不是用季度來衡量，而是用年、希望甚至用十年來衡量。所以這個策略到目前為止對我們有效。我們會繼續照做。

Great. We agree. Congrats again.

很好。我們同意。再次恭喜。

Jason Kupferberg, Wells Fargo.

Jason Kupferberg，富國銀行。

So everyone's been asking you guys for a while, are there any signs of consumer stress in the business? Any concerning signals in your data on delinquencies? The answer has consistently been no. We see another strong quarter here. The consumer is really resilient. Is there a case to be made that you guys could actually loosen the credit box a little bit? Or does that feel too risky in light of some of the macro uncertainty out there? And then just a quick one for Rob. Any way you want us to think about modeling GAAP EPS for fiscal '27?

大家問你們一段時間了：在業務中是否有任何消費者壓力的跡象？你們的逾期數據裡有任何令人擔憂的訊號嗎？你們的回答一直都是沒有。我們看到這一季又很強勁。消費者真的很有韌性。是否可以說，你們其實可以把授信門檻稍微放寬一點？還是考量到外部一些宏觀不確定性，這樣做風險太高？另外快速問 Rob 一個問題。你希望我們用什麼方式來思考並建模 2027 財年的 GAAP EPS？

(technical difficulty) you answer, and I'll think of something clever?

（技術問題）你先回答，我再想個聰明的說法？

Sure. I mean I think we've given you a lot of the building blocks of GAAP EPS, Jason. We've given you GAAP operating income. We've also given you an estimate for share count. I think the one piece you're missing is the tax rate, and I'll probably go back to some of the guidance that we gave at the Investor Forum in May.

當然。我的意思是，Jason，我們已經給了你很多用來推算 GAAP EPS 的組成要素。我們給了你 GAAP 營業利益。我們也給了你股數的估計。我想你缺的那一塊是稅率；我大概會回到我們在 5 月投資人論壇提供的一些指引。

We think on sort of a run rate basis, the GAAP tax rate lands in sort of the mid- to high 20% range. I would just caution though that there can be some volatility in the effective tax rate just based on some of the GAAP versus tax differences and how things like stock-based compensation and some other forms of share remuneration treated.

我們認為以某種「常態化」的運行水準來看，GAAP 稅率大概落在 20% 中段到接近 30% 的區間。不過我也要提醒，有效稅率可能會有一些波動，主要取決於 GAAP 與稅務之間的差異，以及像是股票基礎薪酬和其他形式的股權報酬在會計與稅務上的處理方式。

So there's likely to be a bit of volatility, especially as we're continuing to scale profitability. So that's one of the reasons we stopped short of giving an exact guide for EPS. It's just the volatility that we think may play out in the tax rate.

因此很可能會有一些波動，尤其是在我們持續擴大利潤規模的過程中。這也是我們沒有給出 EPS 精確指引的原因之一。就是我們認為稅率可能出現的波動。

Yes. And on the credit side, sort of a couple of thoughts that are sort of disconnected. We're not so big that you can look at Affirm and read the tea leaves of the overall macroeconomic state of the United States. Our consumer is doing fine. You can see that in the numbers. And we are benefiting tremendously from the ability to say yes and no to every transaction. So we are literally choosing the loans we want to make in real time in very small increments, roughly 100 million times a quarter. So highly differentiable curve, and we decide the shape in the area under.

是的。至於信用面，我有幾點想法，彼此不一定完全相連。我們的規模還沒大到你可以看著 Affirm 就能解讀美國整體宏觀經濟狀況。我們的消費者表現良好。你可以從數字中看到。而我們也極大受益於能對每一筆交易做出「同意」或「拒絕」的能力。所以我們基本上是在即時、以非常小的粒度選擇我們想做的貸款——每季大約 1 億次。因此這是一條高度可區分的曲線，而曲線的形狀與其下方面積由我們來決定。

So in the sense of control of our credit outcomes, I said it before, I'll say it again 1,000 times, we are in control of the credit reality. You would see us slow down growth before you would see us have a real credit disturbance. And obviously, these are imprecise sciences. So there are always ups and downs in the DQs. But generally speaking, we manage to a number in the sense that credit target is the input, not the output of the business. The output is the approval rates and things like that.

所以就我們對信用結果的掌控而言，我之前說過，我再說一千次：我們掌控著信用的現實。你會先看到我們放慢成長，而不是看到真正的信用擾動。當然，這些都不是精確科學。所以逾期（DQ）總會有起起落落。但一般來說，我們是以一個數字來管理：信用目標是投入（input），而不是業務的產出（output）。產出是核准率之類的指標。

And so with that, we definitely have conversations around what's the overall policy stance. Are we feeling good about the future? Are we feeling less good about the future? Should we tighten, should we loosen? But it's never expressed in terms of some giant lever somewhere that Rob Finnegan grabs on to with both hands and opens up the floodgates of money or closes down. It doesn't work like that at all. There's a constant conversation happening in the credit team asking themselves, are there opportunities for strategically more permissive stance at a class of transactions or a class of consumers at a class of merchants.

因此在這個框架下，我們確實會討論整體政策立場。我們對未來是否感到樂觀？還是沒那麼樂觀？我們應該收緊，還是放寬？但這從來不是用「某個巨大拉桿」來表達，好像 Rob Finnegan 兩手一抓就把資金閘門打開或關上。完全不是那樣運作。信用團隊一直在持續對話，問自己：是否存在機會，能在某一類交易、某一類消費者、或某一類商戶上，策略性地採取更寬鬆的立場。

And those conversations happen all the time on a weekly basis, just like the credit team reports back to the management team on a weekly basis of exactly what the landscape looks like. At any given moment, you could hear them say, you know what, here's what's going on. An interesting standout is this. And this could be anything like we're seeing an early signal in DQ0 or DQ1. So day after the payments are due or two days after the payments are due, we're wondering what that is. We're going to monitor it for the next six weeks and make a decision.

而這些對話一直都在發生，每週都會進行；就像信用團隊也會每週向管理團隊回報當前的整體態勢到底長什麼樣。在任何時點，你都可能聽到他們說：你知道嗎，現在的情況是這樣。有一個有趣、特別突出的點是這個。而這可能是任何事情，例如我們在 DQ0 或 DQ1 看到一個早期訊號。也就是付款到期後的隔天或兩天後，我們在想那是什麼原因。我們會在接下來六週持續監控，然後做出決定。

And so all this flavor is to give you a sense of we just really do not think about credit as this binary switch that gets flipped on or off. We never scramble to or away from it in part because we have so much control in part because we have an extremely serious point of view on what these numbers have to be for us to be a responsible and reliable counterparty to our capital markets partners. And so that is the most important relationship in the business on the supply side, and we have to maintain it.

因此，所有這些說明是為了讓你理解：我們真的不把信用視為一個非黑即白、被打開或關閉的二元開關。我們從不會慌忙地轉向或遠離它，一方面因為我們有很強的掌控力，另一方面因為我們對於這些數字必須達到什麼水準，才能成為對資本市場合作夥伴負責且可靠的交易對手，有著極其嚴肅的觀點。因此，這是供給端業務中最重要的關係，而我們必須維持它。

And so I am sure somewhere right now -- I hope they're not listening to me rant, but instead of doing their job in credit, but someone in the credit analytics team is putting together a scenario analysis showing how a merchant is getting slightly higher approval then what that does for our GMV and an alternative analysis showing how the merchant is getting a slightly lower approval and what that does for our GMV and consumer satisfaction. And so yes, the work is done constantly.

所以我敢肯定此刻在某個地方——我希望他們不是在聽我發牢騷，而是在做他們在信用部門的工作——信用分析團隊裡有人正在做情境分析，展示若某個商戶的核准率略微提高，會對我們的 GMV 造成什麼影響；以及另一個分析，展示若商戶的核准率略微降低，會對我們的 GMV 與消費者滿意度造成什麼影響。所以是的，這些工作一直都在持續進行。

By the end of this call, a decision to loosen and a decision to tighten will be made and it will be executed in due notion by the end of it.

在這通電話結束前，放寬與收緊的決策都會做出，並且會在結束前以適當的方式執行。

James Faucette, Morgan Stanley.

James Faucette，摩根士丹利。

I want to touch on the increase in Pay-in-X and kind of the comments that were made in the letter -- shareholder letter about getting some increased participation from merchants there. Just wondering like how you think about being able to expand that program? And then at least more interestingly, perhaps to me is, is that a gateway to improving or expanding up into 0% promotions, et cetera, for those kind of merchants? Is it basically a test/proof point for them?

我想談談 Pay-in-X 的成長，以及信中——股東信裡提到的評論，關於在那裡讓商戶有更多參與度。想請教你們如何看待擴大這個計畫的可能性？另外，至少對我來說更有趣的是：這是否是一個入口，能夠改善或進一步擴展到 0% 促銷等方案，提供給這類商戶？這基本上算是他們的一個測試／驗證點嗎？

That's a great question. I'll start this time and Rob can speak to the exact Pay-in-X growth, which is pretty good this quarter.

這是個很好的問題。這次我先回答，Rob 也可以補充本季 Pay-in-X 的具體成長情況，表現相當不錯。

So kind of the most important things to understand is free use of money is valuable to all consumers. So you can sort of ask like what is Affirm for? And one version of the answer is it's for people trying to figure out how to fit a considered purchase, something that actually registers on their personal financial radar into their monthly outflows. So it's affordability, it's access to capital when they need it or access to credit when they need it. The kind of a baseline answer.

所以最重要需要理解的是：資金的免費使用對所有消費者都有價值。因此你可以問：Affirm 是做什麼的？其中一種答案是：它是為了幫助人們把一筆經過深思熟慮的購買——也就是在個人財務上確實「有感」的支出——納入每月現金流出之中。所以它關乎可負擔性、在需要時取得資金，或在需要時取得信用。這算是一個基礎的答案。

A more sophisticated answer is there's always alternatives in that space. And so the question then becomes, well, what's the cost of money? What's the cost of it? And obviously, the cost is interest we charge and the best possible deal is, well, what if there was no interest at all? What if someone else paid your interest.

更進階的答案是：在那個領域永遠都有替代方案。因此問題就變成：資金成本是多少？它的成本是什麼？顯然，成本就是我們收取的利息；而最好的交易是：如果完全沒有利息呢？如果有其他人替你支付利息呢？

And -- that is a really, really important function in part because that makes the product appealing across all credit spectrum. So you could argue that there's a natural point where you say, well, you know what, I have excess of cash. I just don't care. And if you're going to charge me interest, I'm going to pay cash and move on. I'm going to pay with my credit card and pay it off before the end of the month, so there's no interest at all.

而——這是一個非常、非常重要的功能，部分原因在於它讓產品在整個信用光譜上都更具吸引力。所以你可以說，存在一個自然的臨界點：你知道嗎，我現金很多。我其實不在乎。如果你要向我收利息，我就直接付現金然後結束。我也可以用信用卡付款並在月底前繳清，這樣就完全沒有利息。

The second you enter a space of very low interest like demonstrably lower than your credit card APR or 0, which is everyone's favorite price, you end up in a place where even a super prime borrower would benefit from free use of money. And the longer term is the loan, the more obvious the benefit. So every one of these Pay-in-X type products, it's a version of access to money at no cost to the consumer, we're always looking for ways of funding those transactions by the hands of our partners because they are the primary beneficiaries of these transactions.

一旦你進入非常低利率的區間——明顯低於你的信用卡 APR，或是 0（大家最喜歡的價格）——你就會來到一個連超優質借款人也能從資金的免費使用中受益的狀態。而且貸款期限越長，這個好處就越明顯。因此，這些 Pay-in-X 類型的產品，本質上都是讓消費者以零成本取得資金；我們一直在尋找由合作夥伴出資來支撐這些交易的方法，因為他們才是這些交易的主要受益者。

So it extends from merchants to manufacturers, to brands, sometimes to marketing partners to platform partners. So there's plenty of people who are involved in a transaction that have a degree of margin and have a differing level of excitement to see that transaction go through.

所以這會從商戶延伸到製造商、品牌，有時也包括行銷合作夥伴與平台合作夥伴。因此，一筆交易中牽涉到很多參與者，他們各自都有一定的利潤空間，且對於交易能否成交有不同程度的期待。

The most exciting ones are, of course, merchants because they're dealing with things like inventory management, they have discounts, they rather not make, but they do want to see inventory move. But there's also people in manufacturing and the original equipment manufacturers in particular, that have a predictable upgrade cycle that they're trying to stick to. And they will be very excited a year from launch to push their last year's innovations and the new ones can go forth.

最興奮的當然是商戶，因為他們要處理像是庫存管理，他們有折扣——雖然不太想給，但又希望庫存能動起來。但也有製造端的人，尤其是原始設備製造商（OEM），他們有可預期的升級週期，正努力維持這個節奏。而在產品上市一年後，他們會非常積極地推動去年的創新，讓新產品可以順利接棒。

And so all of that adds up to ample opportunity to create more of these Pay-in-X and pay-over-time transactions with zero. And I particularly like the longer-term ones because that's where underwriting at 0% consumer interest is a really, really hard science. Like this is the kind of thing where if you screw it up a little bit, you'll make a lot of unprofitable transactions.

因此，這一切加總起來，就帶來了大量機會去創造更多這類 Pay-in-X 與零利率的分期付款（pay-over-time）交易。我特別喜歡期限更長的方案，因為在消費者利率為 0% 的情況下做承保，是一門非常、非常嚴謹的科學。這種事情只要你稍微搞錯一點，就會做出大量不賺錢的交易。

Part of our longevity in the space and our competitive strength has been our ability to precisely price these things, both on the credit side and the profitability side, the capital markets lens. It's very, very hard to do write unless you're very good and very confident in both your underwriting and your control of your underwriting.

我們能在這個領域長期經營並具備競爭優勢，部分原因在於我們能精準地為這些交易定價——不論是在信用面，還是在獲利面、也就是資本市場的視角。除非你在承保能力與承保控制上都非常強、非常有信心，否則要把這件事做對是非常、非常困難的。

So that's kind of why these transactions keep showing up. That's why we do things like the Big Nothing. That's why we do a lot of these promotions in various forms of Pay-in-X. That's why you see growth of various Pay-in-X tractions. And you should expect to continue to see more of these. They're all building a giant book of -- this is proof that you, your favorite the manufacturers, the retailers, all the participants should participate in these because even though they tap into your margin a little bit, they drive the kind of buyer that has a lot of choices, and this is their favorite choice.

所以這就是為什麼這些交易會不斷出現。這也是為什麼我們會做像 Big Nothing 這樣的活動。這也是為什麼我們會以各種形式做很多 Pay-in-X 的促銷。這也是為什麼你會看到各種 Pay-in-X 交易的成長。而你也應該預期未來會持續看到更多。它們都在建立一個龐大的「交易簿」——這是在證明：你、你最喜歡的製造商、零售商，以及所有參與者都應該參與其中；因為即使它會稍微動用你的利潤空間，但它能帶來選擇很多的買家，而這正是他們最偏好的選擇。

Yes. And the only thing I would add to that, James, is just I think we really pride ourselves on the breadth of product offerings we can bring to a merchant that can be tailored to the basket of goods that they're selling. And in most cases, the products that we're offering to that merchant's consumers will be dynamic as you go up the basket size spectrum.

是的。James，我唯一想補充的是：我們非常以能為商戶提供廣泛的產品組合為傲，而且可以依據他們所販售的商品組合進行調整。在多數情況下，當你沿著購物籃金額的光譜往上走時，我們提供給該商戶消費者的產品也會是動態變化的。

And so I think what you saw play out this quarter was we had a large merchant that has a relatively low average order value compared to the rest of our network, and they decided to make Pay in 4 an evergreen part of their financing program, and that showed up in a bit of an acceleration in growth for Pay in 4.

所以我認為你在本季看到的情況是：我們有一個大型商戶，其平均訂單金額相較於我們網路中的其他商戶偏低，而他們決定把 Pay in 4 作為其融資方案中的常態（evergreen）選項，這也使得 Pay in 4 的成長出現了一些加速。

But we're pretty agnostic ourselves around whether it's a Pay in 4 offering or a three-month 0% offering. We really want to make sure we put the right offer in front of the consumer that's going to do the right amount of cash flow smoothing for that consumer. And so it really is going to be merchant dependent. And I think our ability to customize those financing programs specific to the merchant is a real differentiator for us in the market.

但我們對於究竟是 Pay in 4 方案，或是三個月 0% 的方案，其實相當中立。我們真正想確保的是：把正確的方案呈現在消費者面前，為該消費者提供恰到好處的現金流平滑效果。因此這確實會取決於商戶本身。而我認為，我們能針對特定商戶客製化這些融資計畫的能力，是我們在市場上的一個真正差異化優勢。

Connor Allen, JPMorgan.

Connor Allen，摩根大通。

I wanted to ask about the services vertical. It looks like volume in that category accelerated quite a bit, almost doubled year-over-year. So could you talk maybe just a little bit about services, what drove that acceleration? And then maybe how sustainable the premium growth is within that category?

我想問一下服務（services）這個垂直領域。看起來該類別的交易量增速明顯加快，年增幾乎翻倍。所以能否請你稍微談談服務業務，這波加速是由什麼驅動的？另外，該類別中的溢價成長（premium growth）有多可持續？

Part of it is we signed this really large services platform or two. And I gave an exceedingly long answer last time, so I promise I'll do a shorter one now.

其中一部分原因是我們簽下了一個或兩個非常大型的服務平台。而且我上次給了個超級長的回答，所以我保證這次會簡短一點。

So we signed a couple of very large services platforms. They're doing well and growing. And yet this will inevitably come up at some point in this conversation. We're still very, very early in all of those platforms. The product needs to be adapted to the specific motions of those products and services. And we're pretty excited.

所以我們簽下了幾個非常大型的服務平台。它們表現良好且正在成長。不過這點在這場對話中遲早一定會被提到：我們在這些平台上仍然、仍然非常早期。產品需要針對那些產品與服務的特定運作方式（motions）做調整。我們對此相當興奮。

Our best integrations are always the ones where we get to co-build with the people we are integrating, and we're knee-deep in building a bunch of really cool new stuff, specifically for the services platform. So no promises how long the two times the speed is going to keep going, but I don't think we're even out of the first inning of that particular game.

我們最好的整合，永遠是能與我們正在整合的夥伴一起共同打造（co-build）的那些；而我們現在正深度投入，正在打造一堆非常酷的新東西，特別是為了服務平台。所以我不敢保證這種兩倍速度會持續多久，但我認為我們甚至還沒走出那場比賽的第一局。

Bryan Keane, Citi.

Bryan Keane，花旗。

Congrats on the promotions, of course. I wanted to ask on Affirm Edge, Max, I think you said that could be a source of upside in the future. Any traction to highlight during the quarter? It looks like we have a couple of pilots now going to happen in the second half of the year. Maybe just how is that product resonating and the potential for it to be a needle mover in fiscal year '28.

當然，恭喜升遷。我想問 Affirm Edge，Max，我記得你說過那可能會是未來的上行來源。本季有沒有什麼進展可以分享？看起來我們現在有幾個試點（pilot）將在今年下半年啟動。能否談談這個產品的市場反應如何，以及它在 2028 財年成為關鍵成長驅動（needle mover）的潛力？

And then secondly, just Rob, on revenue less transaction costs. I know it always gets a lot of attention. We were talking, I think, 3.25% to 4%. The guidance, obviously, for fiscal year '27 is a little bit above that at 4.16%. Can you just talk about mix and maybe the drivers to be above the midterm guide there?

第二個問題是，Rob，關於「營收扣除交易成本」（revenue less transaction costs）。我知道這個指標一直很受關注。我們之前談到的區間我記得是 3.25% 到 4%。而對 2027 財年的指引顯然略高於此，為 4.16%。你能否談談組合（mix），以及高於中期指引的驅動因素？

Sure. I'll take the second one first. Just in terms of the revenue less transaction cost outlook, I mean, really just with the execution that we've seen within the debt capital markets, we just -- we brought on a capital base that gives us a profile and a funding cost that we think should carry on through fiscal '27. And the other big assumptions are things like the mix of how we fund the business, and we expect the mix to stay pretty consistent with what we saw in fiscal '26.

當然。我先回答第二個問題。就「營收扣除交易成本」的展望而言，主要是因為我們在債務資本市場（debt capital markets）的執行表現；我們引入了一個資本基礎（capital base），使我們具備我們認為可延續至 2027 財年的資金結構與資金成本（funding cost）輪廓。另外幾個重要假設包括我們如何為業務融資的組合，而我們預期該組合會與 2026 財年所見大致一致。

Loan product is the other sort of mix component that can drive revenue less transaction cost, take rates. We may start to skew slightly higher to interest-bearing, but it would be a very slight mix shift there. So just given the setup that we have, the other piece, of course, would be consumer credit, and we're not seeing anything in the business today that gives us pause or worry.

貸款產品是另一個會影響「營收扣除交易成本」與抽成率（take rates）的組合因素。我們可能會開始略微偏向計息（interest-bearing）產品，但那會是非常輕微的組合變化。所以就我們目前的配置而言，另一個當然是消費者信用（consumer credit），而我們目前在業務中沒有看到任何讓我們停下來或擔憂的跡象。

So I think with sort of those building blocks coming into the year, that's what informed the outlook that we gave, which really is consistent take rates with what we experienced in fiscal '26.

因此，我認為帶著這些「基礎構件」進入新年度，這就是我們給出該展望的依據；而該展望基本上反映的是與 2026 財年相同的抽成率水準。

Edge, banks move slowly. That's maybe not a very nice thing to say about our prospective partners, but they're deliberate. They have regulators. They need to make sure that what they launch is not just looks good and looks good to them and was good to us. It also has to look good to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and sometimes Office of Currency Controller and so on. So there's a fair number of people that have to okay and bless structures.

至於 Edge，銀行動作很慢。這樣說我們的潛在合作夥伴也許不太好聽，但他們做事很審慎。他們有監管機構。他們必須確保推出的東西不只是看起來好、對他們來說好、對我們也好。它也必須讓聯邦存款保險公司（Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation），有時還包括貨幣監理署（Office of Currency Controller）等等覺得沒問題。所以需要相當多的人來核准並背書這些架構。

That said, pretty excited. We're still building out parts of it. So a little bit of it is just like we have to build the rest of the technology. You're building a thing that you're hosting locally for a bank to log in and like fine-tune their financing programs. It's a thing we didn't do before, now we have to.

話雖如此，我們相當興奮。我們仍在把其中一些部分建置完成。所以有一部分就是：我們必須把剩下的技術建完。你是在打造一個要在銀行本地端（locally）託管的東西，讓銀行登入並微調他們的融資方案。這是我們以前沒做過的事，現在必須做。

So there's some work to be done in terms of the technical part of it, but majority of the stuff is built. We're very excited about the reception we're getting. I continue saying this sort of in various quarters. I think the second you see one, you should expect to see more like a bunch, but the first one is always going to feel like what if something goes wrong, how do I handle that?

所以在技術面還有一些工作要做，但大多數內容已經完成。我們對目前收到的反饋非常振奮。我在不同季度一直在說：我認為一旦你看到第一個案例，就應該預期會看到更多、而且會是一大批；但第一個總是會讓人覺得「如果出問題怎麼辦？我該怎麼處理？」

And so -- and we're very sensitive to that. And we know how to launch credit products, but it's not the same thing as launching it for others. So we will frankly take as long as it takes for us as long as we need to bring -- to handhold these first launches to market to be able to report excellent results and hopefully get everybody else excited, too.

所以——我們對此非常敏感。我們知道如何推出信貸產品，但替別人推出並不一樣。因此坦白說，我們會花需要的時間——只要有必要，我們就會在最初幾次上市（launch）時全程陪跑（handhold），讓它們順利推向市場、能夠回報非常好的成果，並希望也能讓其他人同樣感到興奮。

Matt O'Neill, Bank of America.

Matt O'Neill，美國銀行。

Yes. Appreciate it. Max, I was curious, you laid out a pretty complete map of growth vectors this quarter. I didn't notice leasing or device upgrades on the list. You presumably looked at it given how much of your volume is high-ticket electronics, you push hard into 0% APR. I was hoping maybe you could just walk us through how you think about the economics of a lease versus an installment loan for the same purchase, what an originator might gain from that? And why you conclude it's not a strategy for Affirm either now or ever?

是的。感謝。Max，我很好奇，你這一季把成長向量（growth vectors）的版圖講得相當完整。我沒有看到租賃（leasing）或裝置升級（device upgrades）在清單上。考量到你們的交易量有很大一部分是高單價電子產品，而且你們也大力推 0% APR，我猜你們應該評估過。我想請你帶我們走一遍：對於同一筆購買，租賃相較於分期貸款（installment loan）的經濟性你們怎麼看？放款機構（originator）可能從中獲得什麼？以及為什麼你們認為這不是 Affirm 現在或未來的策略？

I host a breakout seminar on -- 45 minutes on deep dives in the economics and complexity of the leasing. There's a couple of different things going on in that domain. The notion of kind of a subscription to your device and an automatic upgrade to the latest and greatest on unpredictable cadence, it's actually a really good idea. It's been around for a little while. It certainly pops up in conversations and sort of attempted launches here and there over the last decade. So I don't think -- there's nothing too equival on -- with on that front.

我可以開一場分組研討會——45 分鐘——深入講租賃的經濟性與複雜度。那個領域有幾件不同的事情同時在發生。像是把裝置當作一種訂閱，並在不固定的節奏下自動升級到最新、最強的機型，這其實是個很好的點子。它已經存在一段時間了。過去十年它確實不時出現在討論中，也有一些零星的嘗試性推出。所以我不認為——在那一面沒有什麼太新奇的。

On the other side of the equation, ask your favorite financial services, financial institutions analysts, how they feel about lease-to-own and rent-to-own companies. And if it's an unedited context, you might hear some expletives. And so between those two, there's a lot of complexity in leasing it doesn't usually happen on day one. It happens on day 365 or whatever it is, 720 something when you find out that the thing you've been for the last couple of years, you don't actually own any of it.

而在等式的另一端，你可以去問你最喜歡的金融服務、金融機構分析師，他們怎麼看待「先租後買」（lease-to-own）和「租購」（rent-to-own）公司。如果是在未經剪輯的情境下，你可能會聽到一些髒話。所以介於這兩者之間，租賃有很多複雜性，而這些問題通常不會在第一天發生。它會在第 365 天或不管是什麼時候、720 多天之後才浮現——當你發現你過去幾年一直在付的那個東西，其實你一點都不擁有。

And we definitely care very much about the high-end device sales and scheduled upgrades and creating structures that help our retail partners, our manufacturing partners push their merchandise that way. So I think that's a very, very important task and we're certainly quite motivated to participate in that segment. We think there are better ways.

我們當然非常重視高階裝置的銷售與既定的升級週期，並建立一些架構，協助我們的零售合作夥伴、製造合作夥伴以那種方式推動他們的商品。所以我認為那是一項非常、非常重要的任務，而我們也確實相當有動力參與那個細分市場。我們認為有更好的做法。

We think we can offer something to the market that is a little bit less prone to the -- what the bleep happen here that happens a couple of years from launch of such things. And we'll have more to say on the matter in some reasonably predictable future. For now, I think we're all going to learn with some of the ones that have launched recently and certainly information to be had. But we tend to try to build things from first principles, and that's what we're going to try to do here, too.

我們認為我們可以為市場提供一些東西，讓它比較不容易出現——就是那種「這到底發生了什麼鬼」的狀況，而那往往會在這類產品上市幾年後發生。在某個相對可預期的未來，我們會就此再多談一些。就目前而言，我想我們都會從一些最近剛推出的產品中學到東西，當然也會有資訊可供參考。但我們一向傾向從第一性原理出發來打造產品，而這次我們也會這麼做。

Andrew Bauch, BMO Capital Markets.

Andrew Bauch，BMO Capital Markets。

I wanted to ask about Affirm Money Account. I feel like it hasn't been discussed in some time. So could you please provide an update there? And then as we think about your list of priorities, are there any interplays to consider with Affirm Card as it pertains to Affirm Money Account? Meaning does Affirm Card serve as an on-ramp to Affirm Money Account similarly to overall active accounts serve as an on-ramp to Affirm Card? And what does that -- what could that ultimately look like?

我想問一下 Affirm Money Account。我覺得這個產品好像有一段時間沒有被討論了。所以你能否提供一下最新進展？另外，當我們思考你們的優先事項清單時，Affirm Card 與 Affirm Money Account 之間是否有任何需要考量的互動關係？也就是說，Affirm Card 是否像「整體活躍帳戶」之於 Affirm Card 那樣，扮演 Affirm Money Account 的導流入口？而那——最終可能會長成什麼樣子？

That's a great question. For one, it's really important for us to have a first-party product that is the most beautiful version possible of a first-party debit card that speaks to a tightly integrated checking/savings account that works really well with the Affirm Card structure because that's literally what Edge is. So any time we go tell a bank, it's going to be amazing to look at these stats, but better have something that's real. So it happens that we have one of our own. I don't talk too much about it, but it's a great product. I happen to think it's the best way to use Affirm Card.

這是個很好的問題。首先，對我們來說非常重要的是要有一個第一方產品：也就是一張盡可能最美、最完整的第一方簽帳金融卡（debit card），並且能對應一個高度整合、運作非常順暢的支票/儲蓄帳戶體驗，且能與 Affirm Card 的架構緊密配合，因為那基本上就是 Edge。所以每當我們去跟銀行說，看看這些數據會有多驚人時，最好也要有一個真實可用的產品作為佐證。剛好我們自己就有一個。我不太常談它，但它是一個很棒的產品。我個人認為，這是使用 Affirm Card 的最佳方式。

Reveal too many reveals here, but it's something that my zero to one team has full ownership of, and we're working quite hard on making it an exceptional product. It's really a great product. If you haven't connected your Affirm Card to your Affirm Money Account, you should definitely try that. But it has been iterated on and is looking better than ever, and it is the experience that Affirm Edge will offer to our bank partners on the issuing side, but there's even more to come. I'll bite my tongue on that one. But ask me again in a quarter.

我不想在這裡爆太多料，但這個產品由我的 zero-to-one 團隊全權負責，我們也正非常努力把它打造成一個卓越的產品。它真的很棒。如果你還沒把你的 Affirm Card 連結到你的 Affirm Money Account，你一定要試試看。它已經反覆迭代，現在看起來比以往任何時候都更好；而且這也會是 Affirm Edge 在發卡端提供給我們銀行合作夥伴的體驗，但後面還會有更多。這部分我先不多說。但你下一季再問我一次。

Moshe Orenbuch, TD Cowen.

Moshe Orenbuch，TD Cowen。

I wanted to follow-up on an earlier question on the Affirm Card. Given that you get much higher spending, I think you mentioned twice as much on the card versus a typical customer. But at the same time, in-store commerce is three or four times and the card is still growing at a rapid pace. Could you talk a little bit about how you think or what the drivers are for its contribution to GMV? Like is it going to be more about the attach rate? Is it going to be more about the spending per card? And anything that you would share with us about things you're doing to kind of enhance both of those metrics?

我想追問一下先前關於 Affirm Card 的問題。考量到你們的卡片帶來更高的消費額，我記得你提到過，卡片用戶的消費大概是一般客戶的兩倍。但同時，線下（in-store）商務是三到四倍，而卡片仍在快速成長。你能否談談你認為它對 GMV 貢獻的驅動因素是什麼、或你怎麼看？例如會更取決於綁定率（attach rate）嗎？還是更取決於每張卡的消費額？以及你們是否能分享一些正在做的事情，以提升這兩個指標？

Good question. I think the honest answer is both. And we care a lot about attach rates. I think we try not to be overly aggressive in pushing it because it is kind of the more sophisticated like you have to work your way to understanding why you want one of these products. So it's not another thing we hammer you with. But then again, we do see two times the use. So we should obviously be hammering it, perhaps harder. And so anyway, attach rate is important. We're at 19% right now relative to actives. We will, I think, see an increase. That's a reasonably good guess.

好問題。我想誠實的答案是兩者都有。而我們非常重視綁定率。我想我們會盡量不要過度強推，因為這算是比較進階的產品——你得先逐步理解為什麼你會想要這類產品。所以它不是我們一直拿來猛推、一直敲打你的另一個東西。但話說回來，我們確實看到使用頻率是兩倍。所以我們顯然應該更用力地推，或許要推得更兇一點。總之，綁定率很重要。目前相對於活躍用戶，我們的綁定率是 19%。我認為我們會看到它上升。這是個相當合理的推測。

On the flip side, we love the idea of higher usage per consumer too, and we're working on that. To accomplish that, I think a key goal in managing a successful credit business is you have to remember that your job is to help someone spend money responsibly. Like it's not very difficult to convince someone to borrow money, especially if you're not particularly concerned with how they'll pay you back.

另一方面，我們也很喜歡「每位消費者更高使用量」這個方向，我們也正在努力。要做到這點，我認為經營一個成功的信貸業務有個關鍵目標：你必須記得，你的工作是幫助某個人負責任地花錢。因為要說服一個人借錢其實不難，尤其是當你並不太在意他們會怎麼還你錢的時候。

And it's a much tougher job to convince them that to spend money with you is a better idea than through another product. So there's some degree of transparence that we need to engineer. We've been pretty successful at it, obviously, given the two times number, and we're finding more ways to do so.

但要說服他們「用你的產品來花錢」比用其他產品更好，這就困難得多。所以我們需要去設計某種程度的透明度。顯然我們在這方面做得相當成功，從兩倍這個數字就看得出來，而我們也在找到更多方法來做到這點。

One way to think about it or at least the way I speak to the team about it is we need to make sure that the Affirm Card isn't just the best card in the world. It's also the best way to use Affirm. So as you sort of cast your mind across various Affirm offerings, you should always come back to if I use the card, I will get even better blank.

其中一種思考方式——至少我跟團隊溝通時是這麼說的——是我們必須確保 Affirm Card 不只是世界上最好的卡。它也必須是使用 Affirm 的最佳方式。所以當你把思緒放到 Affirm 的各種產品上時，你應該總是回到一個結論：如果我用這張卡，我會得到更好的某某體驗。

So you should expect us to launch features and products that are cards specific that make it more compelling, which in turn will help attach rates because we're obviously not going to keep it a secret to telling people, if you use the card, you'll get X and Y and Z, use just Affirm, maybe slightly less amazing. And definitely not going to nerve the Affirm at the point-of-sale experience, but we'll keep on finding interesting and exciting ways to reward card.

所以你可以期待我們推出一些「卡片專屬」的功能與產品，讓它更具吸引力；而這反過來也會提升綁定率，因為我們顯然不會把它當秘密——我們會告訴大家：如果你用這張卡，你會得到 X、Y、Z；只用一般的 Affirm，可能就沒那麼驚豔。而我們絕對不會去削弱 Affirm 在結帳點（point-of-sale）的體驗，但我們會持續找到有趣、令人興奮的方式來回饋卡片用戶。

And then there was another leg to the question I talk for too long, I forgot. I think that's probably -- those are definitely the important two dimensions. (technical difficulty) without the card is still a very profitable product for us. It's not a trade down in terms of profitability. We're not going to make it different in terms of financing programs. You'll still get all the financing programs you get at the point of sale. We never want to be less for our merchant partners, but there are ways of making the card even more compelling. We'll work on that.

然後問題還有另一段，我講太久就忘了。我想大概——那兩個面向確實是最重要的兩個維度。（技術困難）沒有卡片的情況下，對我們來說仍然是非常獲利的產品。就獲利能力而言，這不是一種降級。我們不會在融資方案上做出差異化。你仍然會拿到你在結帳點能拿到的所有融資方案。我們永遠不希望對商戶合作夥伴而言變得更差，但確實有一些方法能讓卡片更具吸引力。我們會持續努力。

Darrin Peller, Wolfe Research.

Darrin Peller，Wolfe Research。

Can you just give us a quick update? I mean, obviously, you're outperforming the majority of players in the market, factor in pretty much all of them. But when you think about the competitive landscape, how do you -- I mean, we've seen obviously a number of your peers doubling down on BNPL and some rolling out debit flex cards. So your debit flex card, is there a differentiation you see there? And just more broadly, anything in the market in general you're seeing changing as these competitors start to roll out more and more products also?

你能否給我們一個快速更新？我的意思是，很明顯你們的表現優於市場上大多數玩家，幾乎把所有人都算進去也是如此。但當你思考競爭格局時，你怎麼看——我們也看到你們的一些同業明顯加碼 BNPL，還有一些推出了 debit flex cards。所以你們的 debit flex card，你們認為有什麼差異化？以及更廣泛來說，當這些競爭者開始推出越來越多產品時，你們是否看到市場整體有任何變化？

I can't say we spend a ton of time obsessing over our competitors. I think we are fairly fixated on ourselves. Selfish as that sound. Selfish as that sounds. I think the product that we have is really compelling. It is different. I still am not aware of any product out there that offer exactly what we do. I think the Visa Flexible Credential that we put together with them is a unique construct and has now been adopted by a couple of players, which is great. I'm excited to see more innovation come through the networks. And that's always a good thing.

我不能說我們花了大量時間去執著於競爭對手。我想我們相當專注在自己身上。雖然這聽起來有點自私。雖然這聽起來確實有點自私。我認為我們的產品真的很有吸引力。它是不同的。我仍然不知道市面上有任何產品能夠完全提供我們所做的事情。我認為我們與他們一起打造的 Visa Flexible Credential（VFC）是一種獨特的架構，現在也已被幾個業者採用，這很棒。我很期待看到支付網路帶來更多創新。而那永遠都是好事。

But the way we built our VFC card is quite unique. It connects to our accounts in a very specific way. And we're -- again, I'm not aware of anyone else who's quite replicated it perfectly. The other thing, like Rob mentioned, and I'll repeat it, one of the unique strengths of ours is we have a large collection of financing programs that we bring to bear for our merchants, but also for our consumers as they decide what fits their bill, their monthly exposure. And I think our card is still highly unique in just how wide the collection of offerings is and literally on every quarter has more and more of these truly unique 0% programs added to it.

但我們打造 VFC 卡的方式相當獨特。它以非常特定的方式連結到我們的帳戶。而且我們——再說一次，我不知道還有誰能把它完全複製得一模一樣。另外一點，如 Rob 提到的，我也重申一次，我們的一個獨特優勢在於：我們擁有大量的融資方案，可供商戶運用，也可供消費者在決定什麼最符合他們的帳單、每月負擔時選擇。我認為我們的卡片仍然非常獨特，因為其提供的方案組合之廣，而且幾乎每一季都會加入越來越多這些真正獨特的 0% 方案。

Like the rewards in the Affirm Card, people often ask us, what is the rewards program? Why is there not a 1% cashback or 2% cashback? And the honest answer is you're getting an extraordinarily more value in every transaction where the merchant is funding your zero's. That's effectively an 8%, 9%, 10%, 15% cash back. And so we wouldn't ever express it that way because that's not how it's understood, but it is the same price except you're paying no interest on it at all for sometimes up to three years. And that is definitely not -- has not been replicated by anyone, and I don't expect it to be easily replicable by anyone at all.

就像 Affirm Card 的回饋一樣，人們常問我們：回饋計畫是什麼？為什麼沒有 1% 現金回饋或 2% 現金回饋？坦白說，答案是：在每一筆由商戶補貼你 0%（零利率）的交易中，你獲得的價值遠遠更高。那等同於 8%、9%、10%、15% 的現金回饋。所以我們不會用那種方式來表述，因為大家不是那樣理解的，但它其實是同樣的價格，只是你在某些情況下最長可達三年完全不付利息。而這絕對——至今沒有人複製出來，我也不預期任何人能輕易複製。

Dan Perlin, RBC Capital Markets.

Dan Perlin，RBC Capital Markets。

And congratulations on the quarter and obviously the promotions. I wanted to just touch on quickly the gain on sale revenues, which once again was really the strongest line item for growth. I know you have pretty balanced growth, but this one continues to stand out. But it also looks like it might be normalizing a bit.

恭喜本季表現，當然也恭喜升遷。我想快速談一下出售收益（gain on sale）收入，這一項再次成為成長最強的科目。我知道你們的成長相當均衡，但這一項仍然特別突出。不過看起來它也可能正在稍微正常化。

And so I'm just trying to think about the revenue mix expected around your '27 guide. And that's really just predicated off your road map, the product road map and maybe some international expansion, which it sounds like isn't going to be overly meaningful yet. But any kind of I guess, mix shifts that we need to be mindful of would be helpful.

所以我在思考你們『27 指引』下預期的營收組合。而這基本上是基於你們的路線圖、產品路線圖，以及可能的國際擴張——聽起來目前還不會太有意義。但如果有任何我們需要留意的組合變化（mix shifts），提供一些看法會很有幫助。

I think the one thing that I would call out, and this has been true for several years, but it should play out similarly in fiscal '27 as well is just that we will have quarters where -- and Q4 is an example of this. We'll have quarters where when we do a nonconsolidated ABS deal like we did in the fourth-quarter, we'll see a bit more gain on sale revenue in those quarters around. So we stopped sort of sharing an exact schedule of nonconsolidated ABS deals for fiscal '27, but I think we did two in fiscal '26, and we would expect to have a pretty similar funding plan from that perspective going into fiscal '27.

我想我會特別指出的一點——這幾年一直如此，而且在 2027 財年應該也會以類似方式呈現——就是我們會有一些季度，像第四季就是例子。當我們做像第四季那樣的非合併（nonconsolidated）ABS 交易時，我們在那些季度就會看到出售收益收入稍微多一些。因此我們已停止分享 2027 財年非合併 ABS 交易的精確時程，但我想我們在 2026 財年做了兩筆，而從資金規劃的角度來看，進入 2027 財年我們預期會有相當類似的資金安排。

John Hecht, Jefferies.

John Hecht，Jefferies。

Congrats on the promotions and Max and looking forward to the 2029 product launch. The question I have is.

恭喜升遷，也恭喜 Max，並期待 2029 年的產品發布。我想問的問題是。

Are you mocking the fact that it takes me three years to do anything good. Which is okay.

你是在嘲笑我做出任何好東西都要花三年嗎？沒關係。

I think, Max, you implied that you you're now focused on the way out in the future opportunities. So.

我想，Max，你暗示你現在把重心放在更長遠的未來機會上。所以。

That's mostly could prevent you guys from putting into a spreadsheet.

那大多數可能會讓你們無法把它放進試算表裡。

Sorry, I don't anyway. The question I have is it's just sort of the maturation or seasoning of both your customers and your merchants. At the customer level, are you seeing things like a more rapid path to repeat usage at the merchant level? Or are you seeing more rapid pace to a certain level of penetration? Or are there tools that you guys can use to get there?

抱歉，反正我不會。我想問的是，主要是關於你們的客戶與商戶的成熟度或「養成期」（seasoning）。在客戶層面，你們是否看到更快的路徑走向重複使用（repeat usage），在商戶層面也是如此？或者你們是否看到更快的速度達到某個滲透率水準？或者你們是否有工具可以用來達成？

We're actually seeing really good results on both. And so a lot of it, it's sort of embarrassing. I'd love to take this great credit for like we discovered electricity and everything is faster now. Like we launched Crate & Barrel a few days ago, and then I saw an e-mail in my inbox telling me, "Hey, (technical difficulty) , are you Crate & Barrel customer because good news is you're an Affirm customer and Affirm now works is great." Like I think in the past, like five years ago, I'm not sure I would have gotten that e-mail. Two years ago, I would have gotten that e-mail a month after the launch. And a year ago, I would have maybe gotten it in the same week.

我們其實在兩方面都看到非常好的結果。而且很多時候，這有點令人尷尬。我很想把功勞都攬在自己身上，好像我們發現了電力，然後一切都變快了。像我們幾天前上線了 Crate & Barrel，然後我就在收件匣看到一封電子郵件告訴我：「嘿，（技術問題），你是 Crate & Barrel 的客戶嗎？因為好消息是你也是 Affirm 的客戶，而 Affirm 現在可以使用了，太棒了。」我想在過去，比如五年前，我不確定我會收到那封郵件。兩年前，我可能會在上線一個月後才收到。一年前，我也許會在同一週收到。

And now just like all those things are much tighter coordinated. There are machines, not people who are responsible for running through a checklist that happens. So the time from launch to meaningful impact to the first report to the merchant saying, "Horay, we're doing this for you. Let's get excited. Let's do more together." It just is a lot tighter. And so we're doing all those things. We're doing them better. So on the merchant side, we're just constantly improving the post-sales support, if you will.

而現在，這些事情的協調都緊密得多。負責跑完檢查清單的是機器，不是人。所以從上線到產生有意義的影響、到第一份回報給商戶說：「太好了，我們正在為你做到這些。讓我們一起興奮起來。讓我們一起做更多。」整個節奏都緊密得多。所以我們正在做所有這些事。而且我們做得更好。因此在商戶端，我們就是持續改善售後支援（post-sales support），如果你願意這麼說的話。

And on the consumer side, the best number I can point you to is transactions per user per year just steadily rises and -- we -- if anything, I raged our product team for not sending me enough e-mail or enough notifications or any form of telling me, hey, did you know that you haven't used Affirm in the last couple of weeks is I would welcome it. I'm not sure everybody else would.

而在消費者端，我能指給你看的最佳指標是：每位用戶每年的交易次數持續上升——而且——如果有什麼的話，我還會對我們的產品團隊發火，因為他們沒有寄給我足夠多的電子郵件、或足夠多的通知、或任何形式的提醒，告訴我：「嘿，你知道你已經好幾週沒用 Affirm 了嗎？」我其實會歡迎這種提醒。但我不確定其他人是否也會。

But we don't really do a whole lot of, hey, please come back. This sheer number of more surfaces where our logo is visible acts as a great reminder for consumers to say, "Oh yes, that was a great experience. I'll do it again." And cards obviously help, et cetera.

但我們其實沒有做太多那種「嘿，請回來」的召回行銷。單純因為我們的標誌可見的觸點（surfaces）變得更多，就能很好地提醒消費者說：「喔對，那是一次很棒的體驗。我會再用一次。」而卡片當然也有幫助，等等。

But all in, the growth of transactions per user is actually a fairly natural phenomenon. And so we continue to just make sure that merchants sign a lot of merchants, we bring them live. We help them promote us. We co-market things together. We now have a very large user base that we can tell excitedly about brands that we love that we're excited to come into the fold. And that has a predictable effect where people say, yes, I'd love to use Affirm, Crate & Barrel.

但整體而言，每位用戶交易次數的成長其實是相當自然的現象。因此我們持續確保商戶端：簽下很多商戶、讓他們上線。我們協助他們推廣我們。我們一起做聯合行銷。我們現在有非常龐大的用戶基礎，可以興奮地告訴他們：我們喜愛、也很期待加入我們生態系的品牌。而這會帶來可預期的效果：人們會說，是的，我很樂意在 Crate & Barrel 使用 Affirm。

So I think both those things are happening fairly -- fairly organically. I'm sure we can do more, by the way. So I suspect we'll only accelerate from here.

所以我認為這兩件事都正在發生，而且相當——相當自然地發生。順帶一提，我確信我們還能做得更多。所以我猜想我們從這裡開始只會加速。

Timothy Chiodo, UBS.

Timothy Chiodo，瑞銀（UBS）。

I want to talk a little bit about approval rates. I know earlier on the call, we were talking about how for credit loss, it's kind of a given number that you set. You can dial it up, you can dial it down. It's in your control. And the approval rate is sort of related to that at a given level of revenue or unit economics for that loan on the top line.

我想稍微談一下核准率。我知道在電話會議前面，我們談到信用損失時，它有點像是你設定的一個既定數字。你可以把它調高，也可以把它調低。這是在你掌控之中。而在某個營收水準或該筆貸款在損益單位經濟（unit economics）的前提下，核准率與此是有些關聯的。

The question that we get often from investors is around your approval rates relative to the other BNPL offerings that are out there. Clearly, they must be much stronger. But when the enterprise sales team goes in to meet with a new prospective merchant, what are they pitching in terms of how much better those approval rates are and how much more GMV they could deliver to that merchant?

投資人常常問我們的問題，是你們的核准率相對於市面上其他 BNPL 方案的表現如何。顯然，你們一定強很多。但當企業銷售團隊去拜訪一位新的潛在商戶時，你們在簡報中會怎麼說：你們的核准率到底好多少，以及你們能為該商戶帶來多少額外的 GMV？

I'm allowed to spread a slight amount of FUD, I will do so. We're definitely all compared on the approval rates. And merchants love to ask for guaranteed approval rates. And as a rule, we try very hard not to even talk about those things because that's always a counterweight to our ability to modify a credit policy on the fly as we must.

我被允許散播一點點 FUD（恐懼、不確定性與懷疑）的話，我就會這麼做。我們確實常被拿來用核准率做比較。而商戶很愛要求保證核准率。但原則上，我們非常努力地避免甚至去談這些事情，因為那總是會牽制我們在必要時即時調整信用政策的能力。

The typical competitive bake-off often enough includes us launching a checkout experience as we would anywhere else and our esteemed competitors launching one where they remove underwriting and fraud prevention and demonstrating extraordinary approval rates only to then have to pull back very hard because you can only make so many bad loans for a while.

典型的競爭性「比稿／試辦」中，常常會出現這種情況：我們像在其他地方一樣上線一套結帳體驗；而我們受人敬重的競爭對手則上線一套把核保與防詐拿掉的版本，展示出驚人的核准率——但之後又不得不非常用力地收回，因為你不可能一直做那麼多壞帳貸款。

And we tend to be very focused on our numbers and our losses. And I've said a million times, so I'm not going to dwell too much on it, but it's not enough to have great unit economics. We can obviously approve much deeper and just charge more interest and the profitability would be more or less the same, but anyone who's observing our credit results independent of the profitability would say, wait a second, like these guys are now going much deeper, maybe this isn't going to be as durable in a macroeconomic change reality.

而我們往往非常專注在我們的數字與損失。我已經講過無數次了，所以不想在這裡講太久，但光有很好的單位經濟是不夠的。我們當然可以核准到更深的風險層級，然後收更高的利息，獲利大致上可能差不多；但任何人若把我們的信用表現獨立於獲利之外來觀察，都會說：等一下，這些人現在核准到更深的層級了，也許在宏觀經濟環境變化時，這不會那麼耐久。

And so we tend to be very, very careful about not just the net result, but also the gross losses of the loan content itself. And so we pretty rarely ask ourselves how can we compete with approval rates. We -- all the time, like literally every single quarter ask ourselves, how can we refine our models, which -- if you want to imagine a credit model, it's a sorting function, a very, very sophisticated sorting function, but it looks at a large number of applicants on any given unit time and sorts them into least risky to most risky. And the job of the credit policy is to say, after this level of most risky, I don't want to approve anymore because that's the old risk I'm going to be able to sum it today.

因此我們對於不只是淨結果，也包括貸款組合本身的總損失（gross losses），都非常、非常謹慎。所以我們很少問自己要怎麼在核准率上競爭。我們——一直以來，真的每一季都會問自己：要如何精煉我們的模型。若你把信用模型想像成一個排序函數——一個非常、非常精密的排序函數——它會在任何一個單位時間內看大量申請人，並把他們從風險最低排到風險最高。而信用政策的工作就是說：超過這個風險門檻之後，我不想再核准了，因為那是我今天能承擔的風險。

And so long as our sorting is as precise as the future reality or as close to future reality as we can possibly get it, that's what we must do. There's not really a shortcut where we say, what if we just approve deeper because the competitors might do so. If anything, we kind of want them to approve deeper than us because they are not as good as we are at sorting risk full stop.

所以只要我們的排序能像未來的實際情況一樣精準——或盡可能接近未來的實際情況——那就是我們必須做的事。並沒有什麼捷徑是我們說：那如果我們只是核准到更深的層級，因為競爭對手可能會這麼做呢。如果真要說，我們反而希望他們比我們核准得更深，因為他們在風險排序上不如我們——就這麼簡單。

And so long as we are given enough time to compare and contrast, very quickly, you start realizing that what looked like a great approval rate on day one looks like a rug has been pulled and the approval rates are down and the losses are losses, of course, accumulate from the prior time period. (technical difficulty) putting his head down because he's heard enough of this. I'll stop there.

而只要我們有足夠的時間去比較與對照，你很快就會發現：第一天看起來很棒的核准率，後來會像地毯被抽走一樣——核准率下降，而損失當然會從先前期間累積起來。（技術問題）他把頭低下，因為他已經聽夠了這些。我就說到這裡。

That concludes today's question-and-answer session. I'd like to pass it back over to management for closing remarks.

今天的問答環節到此結束。我想把時間交回管理層作結語。

Great questions. Thank you all for joining the call today. I think we'll be seeing many of you on the conference circuit soon. So see you there. Have a good day. Thanks again.

問題都很棒。感謝各位今天參加電話會議。我想我們很快會在各個投資人會議的行程上見到你們當中的許多人。那我們到時見。祝各位有美好的一天。再次感謝。

This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.

今天的電話會議到此結束。您現在可以掛斷電話線。感謝您的參與。