Credit Acceptance Corp (CACC) 2016 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good day everyone, and welcome to the Credit Acceptance Corporation third-quarter 2016 earnings call. Today's call is being recorded. A webcast and transcript of today's earnings call will be made available on Credit Acceptance Corporation's website.

At this time, I'll turn the call over to Credit Acceptance Corporation Senior Vice president and Treasurer, Doug Busk.

Thank you, Jesse.

Good afternoon and welcome to the Credit Acceptance Corporation's third-quarter 2016 earnings call.

As you read our news release posted on the Investor Relations section of the website at www.creditacceptance.com, and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that both contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Federal Securities law. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, and which could cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. These risks and uncertainties include those spelled out in the cautionary statement regarding forward-looking information included in the news release. Consider all forward-looking statements in light of those and other risks and uncertainties.

Additionally, I should mention that to comply with the SEC's Regulation G, please refer to the Financial Results section of our news release, which provides tables showing how non-GAAP measures reconcile to GAAP measures.

At this time, Brett Roberts, our Chief Executive Officer, Ken Booth, our Chief Financial Officer, and I will take your questions.

(Operator Instructions)

John Rowan, Janney Capital Markets.

I just want to make sure I understand your commentary here around unit volume growth. Obviously it piqued in September of 2015 at 41% and the unit volume growth has come down now 12% for the quarter in the third quarter of 2016. But then in the subsequent paragraph you say that it declined 8.3%. I just want to make sure, the unit volume is down 8.3% and not growth has come down to 8.3%; am I reading that correctly?

That's correct. So year-over-year unit volumes were 8.3% less in October than the same period of the prior year.

Okay and then later on in the paragraph there you talk about forecasted collection rates coming down. And that you believe that the reduction in forecasted collections has impacted the unit volumes for the year. Can you discuss that little bit, I mean are we at a point where forecasted collections are starting to really hurt dealer hold back payments. And that could be what's causing you know some tepid unit volume numbers for you?

No. I don't think that's what were saying. We're just saying we see the trends of loan performance throughout the last four quarters: we reacted to those trends. The amount that we pay the dealers at loan inception is a function of the collections that we expect. So if we expect lower collection levels then we're going to pay the dealers less money and that's what impacts lower volume in our opinion.

Okay. It doesn't look like you guys purchased -- repurchased any stock during the quarter correct?

Correct.

Okay. Is that just a function, I've haven't looked through the queue yet, is that a function of not having an authorization or liquidity? Do you think you'll get back in the market to repurchase stock?

We continue to approach it the same way. The first thing we look at is do we have excess capital, and if we do then the board makes a decision when it's appropriate to buy it back. We'll continue to use the same criteria and over time you could probably expect we'll repurchase more shares.

And then just last question, obviously asking about the provision expense. I know in the past we've talked about it and whether or not it's the accounting noise in the portfolio or to whether or not it seems like there is actual pressure in the underlying fundamentals of the auto loan book. Can you just give us an idea of how you look at in the provision expenses of $22.8 million this quarter.

As we said before, we really focus on the adjusted results. We don't really look at the provision internally. We have GAAP statements that we prepare and we release and you're welcome to look at those, but internally we focus in the adjusted results for the reasons we talked about in prior calls.

Thank you.

John Hecht, Jeffries.

Afternoon guys. Thanks much. Just going a little bit back to the volumes. Volume's down -- unit volumes down in October. Can you tell us what's going on with the loan volume as we go to the fourth quarter? And maybe you could even flavor it with some of your thoughts on the competitive environment and what that might mean to loan volume in the quarter.

Well it's November 1, we gave you volumes through yesterday. So that's about as current as we can get.

Yes, but unit volume. But your average loan size has gone up fairly -- a lot over the past year so, so that offset the unit decline. I'm wondering if you could just give us just a little bit more color about the total volumes including the average size.

We don't, we don't have dollar volume at this point. We just have unit volume. I mean you're right, the dollar volume has grown more significantly than unit volumes in the last two quarters for sure.

Okay, so maybe we can talk about that little bit then. I've seen your purchase loan business is growing at a much greater rate than the dealership business, maybe you could talk about, is that influenced by something internal? Or is that influenced by the competitor environment? How should we be how should we see the balance of that play out going forward?

I think the primary driver that you see throughout the release is we continue to be in a difficult competitive environment. It's one that's been in place for quite some period of time.

Our strategy in prior cycles like this has been to grow the number of active dealers. It's pretty hard to grow volume per dealer in the environment that's as competitive as it is today. And we've had some success with that strategy in the past. And I think what we allude to in the release, that that strategy gets more difficult as the number of active dealers grows, it becomes tougher to grow that active dealer base at the same rate.

And so we're posting to run into a situation where our existing salesforce is signing up as many dealers as they're capable. But it's not enough to offset attrition and the impact of the competitive environment and volume per dealer and still leave us with a rapid growth. I think that's where we are today.

The purchase loan program has helped. That's as we've talked about a separate channel for us. We've had probably more success in growing that segment of the business than we thought we would. And so that certainly helped. And as the prior caller mentioned, the average size of the contract is up as well, so you have some dollar volume growth. But ultimately, if we want to be a lot larger company than we are today we have to figure out how to grow unit volume and that's certainly been challenging in the existing competitive environment.

Okay. And then when it comes -- is there any way you can give us, characterize maybe the terms and that purchase model is that. What's the average loan maybe yield and size and duration or anything like that to help us forecast for what that might look like going forward?

We don't have -- I'm not going to give you any additional numbers other than what's in the queue in the release. There's quite a bit of information particularly in the queue on the average loan size, average advances, etc.

The purchase loans are larger they're longer-term. There obviously, we acquired those in a different way we give the dealer one payment upfront instead of dealer hold back payments at the end. But other than that, they have similar characteristics they're a little bit lower yield, a little bit larger size, but we're happy with the profitability of loans we're writing right now.

And then last question. Do you buy those similar to the dealer loans. Do you buy the purchase loans at a net discount on average?

Yes.

All right. Thank you guys very much.

We have information in the press release and the queue that shows what percent of the underlying consumer loan principal plus interest we are acquiring those at.

Thanks very much.

Moshe Orenbuch, Credit Suisse.

Thanks. To stay on that purchase program, I mean you buy them at a discount to the principal plus interest, but what price do you buy them relative to the actual principal amount?

Again there's a lot of information in the queue and in the release on advanced rates and the average size of the purchase loans and how much we give the dealers relative to the expected cash flows. I would just point you to the information that's already been disclosed.

The question that's I'm struggling with is, to the extent that the purchase program becomes a larger piece of the total company, what point does the level yield accounting no longer seem appropriate, or at least appropriate for that piece of the business?

I don't follow you. Why would purchase loans have anything to do with the accounting?

In other words, purchase loans are similar to the way you know other finance companies conduct their business, and they record those loans at the purchase price, and then they kind of accrue losses is based upon a loan-loss reserve methodology. It's a different accounting methodology. I guess when this was under 10% of the company, it's -- I struggle because it's quite hard for us to follow the quality of that underlying business, because you don't have the protections that you have in the portfolio program.

Let me just answer it this way. The accounting we follow is the required accounting. I can tell you that when we adopted the accounting they didn't say, well purchase loans are small, so account for them anyway you want to.

They looked at our accounting treatment for both dealer loans and purchase loans and the accounting treatment that we follow is what was prescribed at the time for both of those. So I think both our auditors and the SEC when they looked at it they both agree that the accounting we use is the accounting we should be using.

Okay. Thank you.

Leslie Vandegrift, Raymond James.

First question, we talked about this last quarter a bit on the forecasted collections for earlier in 2016. They changed positively a little bit this quarter, although not as much as first quarter to second quarter. I was curious if we had some more information other we've got a little bit of time between now and then on that first quarter 2016 pool right up that we had just in a one quarter change and a little bit this quarter, as well.

They continue to perform a little bit better than we expected at origination, so when you update the actual performance experience that you've incurred to date into your forecasting models that results a little bit of improvement in the all in forecasted collection rate, so it's just reflecting the better experience we have seen thus far.

So the ones that were originated earlier in the year, you're actually seeing cash collections above what you originally expected on that, at least earlier?

Yes.

Okay. And then when we talk about -- you guys already talked about the purchase volume, but kind of on the recovery value side, I know you look at your own portfolios rather than an indices, and was curious what your take right now is and for the next few months going forward on how you guys feel about when you repo the recovery value for the cars you're seeing, especially since it's on the older used vehicle side on these terms.

There's obviously been a lot written about predictions of what used vehicle values are going to do in the future, we're certainly aware of all that. We track all the vehicles in our portfolio and the change in the black book value every month. Obviously it's a used vehicle so it's a depreciating asset so goes down every month.

What we've seen so far this year is a steeper decline in terms of the depreciation on the vehicles in our portfolio than we have typically seen, probably the steepest declines this year going back to, I think 2008 was the last time we saw depreciation this steep.

So that's certainly impacting in the loan performance to date, and it's something that we've included in our forecast. As we talked about last time we don't -- the actual amount that we receive at auction from the repossessed vehicles isn't a huge percentage of our total expected cash flows.

So we don't necessarily have a prediction of what those used vehicle values are going to do in the future. It's not as important to us as it is to potentially other more traditional lenders. You could write a loan today, it's a 50-month loan, trying to predict what used vehicle values are going to be over the next 50 months is obviously very difficult.

So instead what we do is we try to build a margin of safety into our business model so that you know that predicting collection rates is very difficult so we try to set up a situation where even if our collection forecast come in a little shy of what we expected, the loans would still be very profitable and that strategy's worked for us very well over time.

Okay, and then on the just the overall loan portfolios side, when you look at, not just at the undiscounted collection rate that you guys have in there with the forecasted collections, but on actual net present value of total loan portfolio purchase and portfolio program, how is that looking right now?

I'm sorry I didn't quite follow that.

The net present value of the loan portfolio, how has that changed since last quarter?

I think we have a fair value disclosure in the 10-Q that will answer that question.

Okay. Sorry didn't have a chance to go through it all right before. And then, on the same direction there and I apologize if it's right beside that chart. The restructuring that you guys have had on the portfolio rather on loans done this year or in 2015, et cetera, the more recent vintages. How much of that have you had to restructure already, and people going in to extend the term or reduced rates, we have seen a lot of term changes across the industry. So just curious what you guys have seen.

We don't extend or rewrite contracts, except where we're required to by law, bankruptcy, FCRA, things like that. So we don't, we just don't do that is the answer.

Okay, all right, perfect. And then last question, and I apologize if this was asked at the beginning of the call, I got on two minutes late. For the last few months, we have seen the same number of shares registered to sell by the chairman, now we haven't seen that volume come through and they haven't been sold according to filings. But is there a regulatory reason why he has to register that specific number of shares each quarter even if he has no intent to sell them?

I know that the chairman has filed a notice of intent to sell under rule 144. Unfortunately, I'm not intimately familiar with the requirements under that rule, whether that's something that he needs to refile periodically, or just what the details are. I do know that that notice has to be filed before the first sale, but unfortunately I can't tell you a lot more than that.

Okay. Nope, I understand. Perfect. That's all my questions. Thank you.

(Operator Instructions)

David Sharf, JMP.

Good afternoon. I hopped on late, as well. So I apologize if these were asked.

One was just a point of clarification. Am I correct in assuming that the last couple quarters, the increase in the average loan size is primarily a mix issue with purchase loans generally being larger, or is it actually something else that's more related to the type of vehicle being bought and the extended term that allows the consumer to afford it on a monthly basis?

I think the average loan size is up slightly in both segments. And then the mix accounts for the rest of it.

Got it. Got it.

And another question and this is more qualitative, but I'm wondering do you have any insights into just general discussions of dealer health lately? This is more of an industry macro question for you; if you don't want to comment that's fine.

But as we read more about used car values obviously declining, signs that the consumer may be losing a little bit of steam. As you gauge the overall health and profitability of your dealer network particularly those independents which are two thirds or more. Any sense that we may see more attrition over the next few quarters as some of the dealers run into more profit constraints, or is it too early to tell?

No. I don't think that's a question I have much insight on.

You don't. Got it.

And then lastly, we obviously have the unit volume metrics in the commentary in October. I'm curious, what about overall application volume. Meaning are you seeing a change in the -- is the decline in applications being submitted commensurate with the increases and decreases in October of the actual unit volumes you're closing, or are you finding that your approval rates are changing?

Speaking just for October, the application volume was -- grew, but not as quickly as it had prior, but I think it's more a function of the number of applications that we're converting into deals.

So your underwriting is conforming to the environment and tightening a bit in October. Got it. Thank you very much.

Daniel Smith, Teton Capital.

I wanted to clarify, your most recent collection estimates, do they incorporate the higher rate of depreciation that you called out in collateral values?

Yes.

Okay thank you.

Randy Heck, Goodnow Investment Group.

First, just want to say very nice quarter.

Pretty much say that every quarter. First question I have is, the ABS deal you guys announced last week, what was the all-in cost was -- I don't know what it was, 3%? There's three tranches. But how does the cost of that compared to recent -- the prior one that you did earlier this year or last year, is it comparable?

It was the all in rate including issuance fees was 2.9%. That was about 30 basis points less than the deal we did in May of this year.

Less okay. Because I thought the cost -- okay, the cost of capital had been going up so this was even lower. Okay.

There was a period early in the year where rates had gotten wider, but in recent months the opposite has occurred.

Okay. And then there were a couple questions earlier about purchase loan versus dealer loans and I'm not quite sure what the confusion was about. But it says it right here on the press release your advanced rate for purchase loans was roughly $0.49 on the dollar versus your dealer loans at $0.42 on the dollar, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the only difference is -- or the major difference is purchase loans, you're just not -- you don't have to share the backend with the dealers. So therefore you pay more up front, but you get to keep everything you collect.

Correct.

Is that essentially correct? And perhaps Brett or Doug you can share with us why some dealers prefer a purchase loan where they are probably in the end getting lower economics than the dealer loan. Other things being equal. Why they choose to sell you a loan.

Sure. So I think the primary reason and the reason we identify this as a separate channel is there are dealers out there who are just not as interested in our traditional program. They want all their money up front. Typically large dealer groups and the largest dealers in the country, typically what happens is you run into profits in the dealership that just don't allow our traditional program to work.

Sometimes it's accounting related if they're public publicly traded they don't want to deal with the contingent payment at the end. Other times it's just the process that a large dealership or the commission structure the way they pay their salespeople is an obstacle.

Over the years we've tried to overcome those obstacles and stick with the traditional portfolio program. In more recent times we've decided to say okay if the dealer doesn't want our traditional program, if there still a way we can get some business done with that dealership. And so that's really was the genesis of the purchase program. And what we found out there is there's a pretty large group of dealers, primarily franchised dealers, primarily larger franchise dealers that are interested in our purchase program, and, like I said earlier, we just had a lot more success with it this year and the latter part of last year than we would've expected.

Okay. And how many years have you been doing these purchase loans?

We've been doing them for over 10 years.

Okay. And it's gone pretty well so far. Is that a fair conclusion?

I think it's gone pretty well. We like our traditional program. We like the alignment of interest. We like to share in the proceeds from the loan with the dealer. We think that creates a good relationship and aligns everyone's motivation.

So we really like that program but we have to be realistic as well. I mean we're having trouble growing that program right now, that shows up in the numbers. The purchase program -- it is a different program for us. We been doing it a long time it's been at times a significant portion of our business and at other times a lower portion. We'd love to be able to grow both programs, but for right now the purchase loan program is the one that we're having more success with.

Okay. All right. Thanks so much.

With no further questions in the queue, I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Busk for any additional or closing remarks.

We would like to thank everyone for their support and for joining us on our conference call today. If you have any additional follow-up questions, please direct them to our investor relations mailbox at IR@creditacceptance.com. We look forward to talking to you again next quarter. Thank you.

Once again, this does conclude today's conference. We thank you for your participation.