Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) 2026 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the second quarter 2026 FICO earnings conference call. (Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.

各位好，感謝您稍候。歡迎參加 FICO 2026 年第二季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）請注意，今天的會議將被錄音。

I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Dave Singleton. Please go ahead, sir.

現在我想把會議交給今天的發言人 Dave Singleton。先生，請開始。

Good afternoon, and thank you for attending FICO's second quarter earnings call. I'm Dave Singleton, Vice President of Investor Relations, and I'm joined today by our CEO, Will Lansing; our CFO, Steve Weber. Today, we issued a press release that describes financial results compared to the prior year.

各位下午好，感謝您參加 FICO 的第二季財報電話會議。我是投資人關係副總裁 Dave Singleton，今天與我一同出席的有我們的執行長 Will Lansing，以及財務長 Steve Weber。今天我們發布了一則新聞稿，說明與去年同期相比的財務結果。

On this call, management will also discuss results in comparison with the prior quarter to facilitate understanding of the run rate of the business. Certain statements made in this presentation are forward-looking under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

在本次電話會議中，管理團隊也將就與前一季的比較來討論結果，以協助大家理解業務的運行速度（run rate）。本簡報中的某些陳述依據 1995 年《私人證券訴訟改革法》屬於前瞻性陳述。

Those statements involve many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. Information concerning these risks and uncertainties is contained in the company's filings with the SEC, particularly in the risk factors and forward-looking statements portions of such filings.

這些陳述涉及多項風險與不確定性，可能導致實際結果出現重大差異。關於這些風險與不確定性的資訊載於公司向 SEC 提交的文件中，特別是在該等文件的風險因素與前瞻性陳述相關部分。

Copies are available from the SEC, from the FICO website or from our Investor Relations team. This call will also include statements regarding certain non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to the company's earnings release and Regulation G schedule issued today for a reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable GAAP measure.

相關文件可向 SEC、FICO 官網或我們的投資人關係團隊取得。本次電話會議也將包含若干非 GAAP 財務衡量指標的陳述。請參閱公司今日發布的財報新聞稿與 Regulation G 附表，以取得這些非 GAAP 財務衡量指標與最可比 GAAP 指標之間的調節表。

The earnings release and Regulation G schedule are available on the Investor Relations page of the company's website at fico.com or on the SEC's website at sec.gov. And a replay of this webcast will be available through April 28, 2026. We have refreshed our quarterly investor presentation with additional content, which is available on the Investor Relations section of our website. We will refer to this presentation during today's earnings announcement.

財報新聞稿與 Regulation G 附表可在公司網站 fico.com 的投資人關係頁面或 SEC 網站 sec.gov 上取得。本次網路直播的重播將提供至 2026 年 4 月 28 日。我們已更新季度投資人簡報並加入更多內容，可在我們網站的投資人關係專區取得。今天的財報說明將引用該簡報。

I will now turn the call over to our CEO, Will Lansing.

現在我將把電話會議交給我們的執行長 Will Lansing。

Thanks, Dave, and thank you, everyone, for joining us for our second quarter earnings call. We had a very strong quarter and a great start to the first half of our fiscal year. Based on our results and outlook, we are increasing our fiscal 2026 guidance. We reported Q2 revenues of $692 million, up 39% over last year, as shown on Page 5 of our investor presentation.

謝謝 Dave，也感謝各位參加我們的第二季財報電話會議。本季表現非常強勁，為本財年上半年帶來良好開局。基於我們的業績與展望，我們上調 2026 財年的財測指引。我們第二季營收為 6.92 億美元，較去年成長 39%，如投資人簡報第 5 頁所示。

For the quarter, we reported $264 million in GAAP net income. in the quarter, up 63% and GAAP earnings of $11.14 per share, up 69% from the prior year. We reported $297 million in non-GAAP net income, up 54% and non-GAAP earnings of $12.50 per share, up 60% from the prior year. We delivered free cash flow of $214 million in our second quarter.

本季 GAAP 淨利為 2.64 億美元，較去年成長 63%；GAAP 每股盈餘為 11.14 美元，較去年成長 69%。非 GAAP 淨利為 2.97 億美元，較去年成長 54%；非 GAAP 每股盈餘為 12.50 美元，較去年成長 60%。我們在第二季創造的自由現金流為 2.14 億美元。

Over the last 4 quarters, we delivered $867 million in free cash flow, an increase of 28% over the prior 4 quarter period. In Q2, we continued returning capital to shareholders through share repurchases, buying back $605 million or 484,000 shares at an average price of $1,251 per share.

過去 4 個季度，我們創造的自由現金流為 8.67 億美元，較前一個 4 季期間增加 28%。在第二季，我們持續透過庫藏股回購向股東返還資本，以每股平均 1,251 美元的價格回購 6.05 億美元、共 484,000 股。

At the segment level, shown on Page 6, our second quarter score segment revenues were $475 million, up 60% versus the prior year. While B2B scores were the key driver of growth, we also experienced the sixth straight quarter of growth in B2C scores. In our Software segment, we delivered $217 million in Q2 revenues, up 7% over last year. Results included 54% platform revenue growth and a 12% decline in not platform revenue.

以事業部門來看（如第 6 頁所示），我們第二季評分（Score）事業部營收為 4.75 億美元，較去年成長 60%。雖然 B2B 評分是成長的主要驅動力，我們的 B2C 評分也連續第六個季度成長。在軟體（Software）事業部方面，第二季營收為 2.17 億美元，較去年成長 7%。其中包含平台（platform）營收成長 54%，以及非平台（not platform）營收下滑 12%。

Steve will provide additional revenue details later in this call. Last week, we issued a statement on our website in response to the FHFA and FHA update on credit for modernization. We applaud the FHFA and FHA initiative to get FICO Score 10T into the market in the coming months. FICO Score 10T is the most predictive credit score for all borrowers, including first-time home borrowers. FICO Score 10T incorporates rental and utility payment history, enabling more consumers to qualify for mortgages.

Steve 稍後將在本次電話會議中提供更多營收細節。上週，我們在官網發布聲明，以回應 FHFA 與 FHA 關於信用現代化（credit for modernization）的更新。我們讚許 FHFA 與 FHA 推動在未來數月將 FICO Score 10T 導入市場的倡議。FICO Score 10T 對所有借款人（包括首次購屋者）而言是最具預測力的信用評分。FICO Score 10T 納入租金與公用事業費用的付款歷史，使更多消費者能符合房貸資格。

To support the goal of increased homeownership and bring the benefits of increased competition to the marketplace, we updated our FICO Score 10T performance model pricing in the FICO mortgage direct licensing program from $4.95 per score plus $33 funding fee to $0.99 per score plus $65 funding fee. We anticipate the release of FICO Score 10T data and the time line provided by the FHFA and GSEs. In the last quarter, we added 11 more lenders to our FICO Score 10T early adopter program.

為支持提高自有住宅率的目標，並將更充分競爭的效益帶入市場，我們已在 FICO 房貸直接授權（mortgage direct licensing）方案中，將 FICO Score 10T 效能模型（performance model）定價由「每個分數 4.95 美元外加 33 美元資金費（funding fee）」調整為「每個分數 0.99 美元外加 65 美元資金費」。我們預期 FICO Score 10T 數據的發布，以及 FHFA 與 GSEs 所提供的時間表。上一季，我們在 FICO Score 10T 早期採用者計畫中新增了 11 家放款機構。

As a reminder, through this program, FICO Score 10T is made available for free with the purchase of classic FICO. The 55 lenders in the program account for more than $495 billion in annual serviceable originations when evaluated using 2025 HMDA data and more than $1.6 trillion ineligible servicing. We're moving closer to the go-live dates of our next-generation cash flow Ultra FICO score with our strategic partner plat. and the FIFO mortgage direct licensing reseller partners.

提醒一下，透過此計畫，購買經典 FICO（classic FICO）即可免費取得 FICO Score 10T。該計畫中的 55 家放款機構，若以 2025 年 HMDA 數據評估，其年度可服務的放款起源額（serviceable originations）合計超過 4,950 億美元，且符合資格的貸款服務規模（eligible servicing）超過 1.6 兆美元。我們正逐步接近與策略夥伴 plat. 以及 FIFO 房貸直接授權轉售夥伴共同推出下一代現金流 Ultra FICO 分數的上線日期（go-live dates）。

We continue to actively work alongside participants to support testing on both initiatives. As AI adoption accelerates, we recognize the need of stakeholders to weigh the associated opportunities and risks. At FICO, we view AI as a tremendous opportunity that we've committed significant resources to for several years. In the Scores business, AI is limited by strict regulatory requirements on credit underwriting outcome explainability and model governance.

我們持續與參與者密切合作，支援兩項計畫的測試。隨著 AI 採用加速，我們理解利害關係人需要權衡相關機會與風險。在 FICO，我們將 AI 視為重大機會，並已投入大量資源多年。在評分（Scores）業務中，AI 受到嚴格監管要求所限制，包含信用核貸結果的可解釋性（explainability）與模型治理（model governance）。

In addition, our scoring models are supported by proprietary data access, mainly with the credit bureaus and deep ecosystem integration. Across both businesses, FICO has been issued 137 AI-based patents, which include patents and blockchain technology that are helpful for traceable and explainable decision-making. the type of market-leading innovation that will be in high demand as businesses seek ways to safely deploy AI analytics in highly regulated industries.

此外，我們的評分模型仰賴專有數據存取，主要來自與信用局（credit bureaus）的合作，以及與生態系的深度整合。橫跨兩大業務，FICO 已取得 137 項以 AI 為基礎的專利，其中包含區塊鏈技術相關專利，可用於可追溯且可解釋的決策制定。這類市場領先的創新，將在企業尋求於高度監管產業中安全部署 AI 分析時，成為高度需求的能力。

In our software business, as shown on Page 13, FICO platform is architected from the ground up to be agentic by design. That foundation delivers decision grade analytics, deep domain expertise, and an enterprise platform that clients depend on for precision, consistency, explainability and trust. These principles are nonnegotiable for our primary target market, the highly regulated financial services industry.

在我們的軟體業務中（如第 13 頁所示），FICO 平台（FICO platform）自底層架構起即以「代理式（agentic）」為設計核心。這樣的基礎提供決策等級（decision grade）的分析能力、深厚的領域專業，以及客戶所依賴的企業級平台，以確保精準、一致、可解釋性與可信任性。對我們的主要目標市場——高度監管的金融服務業——這些原則沒有妥協空間。

FICO platform is the world's leading AI decisioning platform for financial services recognized as such as a leader by Gartner, Forrester and IDC. Its agentic architecture power is a real-time, always-on customer profile engine that delivers hyperpersonalized consumer experiences where every interaction can inform and improve the next. There are over 150 clients globally using the FICO platform across multiple connected use cases to power their customer experience, business critical operations, risk management and fraud monitoring and prevention.

FICO 平台是全球領先的金融服務 AI 決策平台，並被 Gartner、Forrester 與 IDC 認定為領導者。其代理式架構的核心動力，是一個即時、常時運作（always-on）的客戶檔案引擎，可提供高度個人化（hyperpersonalized）的消費者體驗，讓每一次互動都能用來告知並改善下一次互動。全球已有超過 150 家客戶在多個相互連結的使用情境中採用 FICO 平台，以支援其客戶體驗、關鍵營運、風險管理，以及詐欺監控與預防。

FICO platform brings together multiple functions within an enterprise in a common operating environment and enables them to operationalize AI at scale to drive real business outcomes. Financially, a substantial majority of our nearly $315 million platform segment annual recurring revenue is driven from FICO platform. Financially, a substantial majority of our Platform segment annual recurring revenue, approaching $350 million and growing rapidly is driven by the FICO platform, reflecting years of proven commercialization.

FICO 平台將企業內多項職能整合於共同的作業環境中，使其能以規模化方式將 AI 落地運營（operationalize）並推動實質業務成果。就財務面而言，我們平台事業部近 3.15 億美元的年度經常性收入（annual recurring revenue）中，絕大多數由 FICO 平台所驅動。就財務面而言，我們平台事業部年度經常性收入中，絕大多數——接近 3.5 億美元且快速成長——由 FICO 平台所驅動，反映多年來已被驗證的商業化成果。

FICO transformed 70 years of proven deep domain knowledge into validated expandable AI that powers the most consequential business decisions with that expertise embedded directly into the agents, models and guardrails that operate on the platform. FICO platform accelerates client innovation by providing clients with the ability to build, test, optimize and monitor decisioning across the enterprise.

FICO 將 70 年經驗累積的深厚領域知識，轉化為經驗證且可擴展（expandable）的 AI，為最關鍵的商業決策提供動力；並將該專業直接嵌入在平台上運作的代理（agents）、模型（models）與護欄（guardrails）之中。FICO 平台透過讓客戶能在全企業範圍內建置、測試、最佳化與監控決策流程（decisioning），加速客戶創新。

With FICO AI-guided operations, clients create a self-reinforcing cycle of value generation, reinvesting outcomes back into the platform by enabling additional use cases, driving further value for their businesses. FICO platforms marketplace and FICO assistant unlock broader capabilities that compound with scale.

透過 FICO 的 AI 引導式營運（AI-guided operations），客戶可建立自我強化的價值創造循環，將成果再投資回平台：啟用更多使用情境，為其業務帶來進一步價值。FICO 平台的市集（marketplace）與 FICO 助理（assistant）可解鎖更廣泛的能力，並隨規模擴大而產生複利效應。

Every new mode, agent and integration from the ecosystem strengthens the customer profile engine and accelerate consumption of proprietary capabilities across the platform. At FICO, AI is already driving meaningful results today while creating significant opportunities that we are well positioned to capture.

生態系統中的每一種新模式、代理與整合，都會強化客戶檔案引擎，並加速在整個平台上對專有能力的採用與消耗。在 FICO，AI 目前已在推動具體且有意義的成果，同時也創造出龐大的機會，而我們具備良好條件加以掌握。

I'll now pass it back to Steve to provide further financial details.

我現在把時間交回給 Steve，請他提供更多財務細節。

Thanks, and good afternoon, everyone. As Will mentioned, our Scores segment revenues for the quarter were $475 million, up 60% from the prior year. As shown on Page 16 of our presentation, B2B revenues were up 72%, primarily attributable to higher mortgage origination scores unit price and a recent volume of mortgage rising. Our B2C revenues were up 5% versus the prior year, driven mainly by our indirect channel partners.

謝謝，各位下午好。如 Will 所提到的，我們本季 Scores（評分）部門營收為 4.75 億美元，較去年同期成長 60%。如簡報第 16 頁所示，B2B 營收成長 72%，主要歸因於房貸核貸評分的單位價格提高，以及近期房貸量回升。我們的 B2C 營收較去年同期成長 5%，主要由間接通路合作夥伴所帶動。

Second quarter mortgage originations revenues were up 127% versus the prior year. Mortgage originations revenues accounted for 72% of B2B revenue and 63% of total stores revenue. Auto originations revenues were up 13%, while credit card, personal loan and other originations revenues were up 6% versus the prior year.

第二季房貸核貸（mortgage originations）營收較去年同期成長 127%。房貸核貸營收占 B2B 營收的 72%，並占 Scores 總營收的 63%。汽車核貸營收成長 13%，而信用卡、個人貸款及其他核貸營收較去年同期成長 6%。

For your reference, Page 17 of our presentation provides 5-quarter trending of our scores metrics. As in the past, our updated guidance assumes conservative score volumes. And to reiterate, we do not anticipate share loss to competition in any vertical.

供各位參考，我們簡報第 17 頁提供了 5 個季度的評分指標趨勢。如同以往，我們更新後的財測假設採取保守的評分量。並再次強調，我們不預期在任何垂直領域會因競爭而流失市占。

Turning to our Software segment. Our software ACV bookings for the quarter were $28 million, as shown on Page 18 of our presentation. On a trailing 12-month basis, ACV bookings reached $126 million this quarter, an increase of 36% from the same period last year. With our strong pipeline, we expect bookings in the second half of the year to exceed the first half of the year.

接著談我們的 Software（軟體）部門。本季軟體 ACV 訂單（bookings）為 2,800 萬美元，如簡報第 18 頁所示。以過去 12 個月（TTM）計算，本季 ACV 訂單達到 1.26 億美元，較去年同期成長 36%。在我們強勁的管線支持下，我們預期下半年訂單將高於上半年。

Our total software ARR, as shown on Page 19, was $789 million, a 10% increase over the prior year. Platform ARR was $349 million, representing 44% of our total Q2 '26 ARR. Platform ARR grew 49% versus the prior year, while non-platform declined 8% to $440 million this quarter. Platform ARR growth was driven by both new customer wins as well as expanded use cases and volumes from existing customers.

如第 19 頁所示，我們軟體總 ARR 為 7.89 億美元，較去年同期成長 10%。其中平台 ARR 為 3.49 億美元，占我們 2026 會計年度第二季（Q2 '26）總 ARR 的 44%。平台 ARR 較去年同期成長 49%，而非平台 ARR 本季下降 8% 至 4.40 億美元。平台 ARR 的成長同時來自新客戶得標，以及既有客戶擴大使用情境與用量。

Platform ARR growth includes the onetime Q1 liquid credit solution migration and Q2 CCS migrations from non-platform to the platform. Excluding those migrations, our platform ARR growth was in the mid-30% range.

平台 ARR 的成長包含一次性的第一季 Liquid Credit 解決方案遷移，以及第二季 CCS 從非平台遷移至平台。若排除這些遷移，我們的平台 ARR 成長約在 30% 中段。

The non-platform year-over-year ARR decline was driven by migrations, end-of-life products and some usage declines. In our CCS business, which contains both platform and non-platform, ARR growth was relatively flat. Our dollar-based net retention rate in the quarter was 109%. Platform NRR was 136%, while our non-platform NRR was 90%. Platform NRR was driven by a combination of new use cases and increased usage of existing use cases.

非平台 ARR 的年對年下滑主要由遷移、產品終止（end-of-life）以及部分使用量下降所致。在我們的 CCS 業務中（同時包含平台與非平台），ARR 成長相對持平。本季以美元計的淨留存率（NRR）為 109%。平台 NRR 為 136%，非平台 NRR 為 90%。平台 NRR 主要由新使用情境與既有使用情境用量提升共同推動。

Second quarter software segment revenue is detailed on Page 20 were $217 million, up 7% from the prior year. Within this segment, our SaaS revenues grew by 19%, driven by FICO platform. Our on-premises revenue declined 4%, year-over-year, our platform revenues grew 54%, driven mainly by the success of our land and expand strategy. non-platform revenues declined 12%, driven mainly by migrations.

第二季軟體部門營收詳列於第 20 頁，為 2.17 億美元，較去年同期成長 7%。在此部門內，我們的 SaaS 營收成長 19%，由 FICO 平台帶動。我們的地端（on-premises）營收年對年下降 4%；平台營收成長 54%，主要受惠於我們「先落地、再擴張」（land and expand）策略的成功。非平台營收下降 12%，主要由遷移所致。

As a reminder, our FY '26 revenue guidance reflects an expectation of lower point in time revenue throughout FY '26 due to fewer non-platform license renewal opportunities compared to the prior year. From a regional point of view, 90% of total company revenues this quarter were derived from our Americas region, which is a combination of both our North America and Latin American region. Our EMEA region generated 7% of revenues and the Asia Pacific region delivered 3%.

提醒各位，我們 2026 會計年度（FY '26）營收指引反映了以下預期：由於相較去年非平台授權續約機會較少，FY '26 全年各期的即時點（point-in-time）營收將較低。以區域來看，本季公司總營收的 90% 來自美洲地區（包含北美與拉丁美洲）。EMEA 地區貢獻 7% 的營收，亞太地區貢獻 3%。

Operating expenses for the quarter, as shown on Page 21, were $289 million this quarter versus $278 million in the prior quarter, an increase of 4% quarter-over-quarter driven by personnel expenses. We expect operating expense dollars to trend modestly upward from the Q2 run rate into the back half of the fiscal year, driven mainly by personnel expenses and marketing for both FICO World and our Scores business.

本季營業費用如第 21 頁所示為 2.89 億美元，較上一季的 2.78 億美元增加 4%，季增主要由人員費用帶動。我們預期營業費用金額將自第二季的水準起，在本會計年度下半年呈現溫和上升趨勢，主要由人員費用以及 FICO World 與 Scores 業務的行銷支出所驅動。

Our non-GAAP operating margin, as shown on Page 22, was 65% for the quarter compared with 58% in the same quarter last year. We delivered year-over-year non-GAAP operating margin expansion of 712 basis points. The effective tax rate for the quarter was 25.7% and we expect a full year operating tax rate of 25% to 26% and an effective tax rate of around 24%. At the end of the quarter, we had $272 million in cash and marketable investments.

如第 22 頁所示，本季非 GAAP 營業利益率為 65%，去年同期為 58%。我們年對年非 GAAP 營業利益率擴張 712 個基點。本季有效稅率為 25.7%；我們預期全年營業稅率為 25% 至 26%，有效稅率約為 24%。季末我們持有 2.72 億美元的現金及有價投資。

Our total debt at quarter end was $3.64 billion with a weighted average interest rate of 5.5%. This includes the March issuance of $1 billion in senior notes due 2034 which used some proceeds to fund the redemption of $400 million in senior notes that were due in May. As of March 31, 2026, 93% of our debt was held in senior notes. We had $265 million balance on our revolving line of credit, which is repayable at any time. We anticipate interest rate expense dollars to trend modestly upward from the Q2 run rate into the back half of the fiscal year.

季末總負債為 36.4 億美元，加權平均利率為 5.5%。其中包含 3 月發行的 10 億美元、2034 年到期的優先票據（senior notes），並以部分募集資金用於贖回原本 5 月到期的 4 億美元優先票據。截至 2026 年 3 月 31 日，我們 93% 的債務以優先票據形式持有。我們循環信用額度（revolving line of credit）尚有 2.65 億美元餘額，可隨時償還。我們預期利息費用金額將自第二季水準起，在本會計年度下半年呈現溫和上升趨勢。

As Will highlighted, we continue to return capital to our shareholders through buybacks as shown on Page 23. In Q2, we repurchased 484,000 shares for a total cost of $605 million, representing the single largest quarterly repurchase in dollars in FICO history. We continue to view share repurchases as an attractive use of cash. With our recent $1.5 billion Board authorization, strong free cash flow and unutilized revolver, since April 1, we have bought an additional $170 million or 164,000 shares at an average price of $1,040 per share.

如 Will 所強調，我們持續透過回購（如第 23 頁所示）向股東返還資本。第二季我們回購 484,000 股，總成本 6.05 億美元，為 FICO 歷史上單季以金額計最大的回購。我們仍認為股票回購是現金的具吸引力用途。憑藉董事會近期核准的 15 億美元回購額度、強勁的自由現金流以及尚未動用的循環信貸，自 4 月 1 日以來，我們又額外買回 1.70 億美元、約 164,000 股，平均每股價格為 1,040 美元。

And with that, I'll turn it back to Will for closing comments.

接下來我把時間交回給 Will 做結語。

Thanks, Steve. As we approach the start of FICO World 2026, which is going to happen on May 19 through the 22 in Orlando. We look forward to showcasing our continued innovations. The event brings together customers and partners from around the world to explore how real-time scalable decision-making is transforming consumer engagement. We remain focused on enabling deeper customer relationships through always on personalization that drives strong business outcomes.

謝謝，Steve。隨著 FICO World 2026 即將開始（5 月 19 日至 22 日於奧蘭多舉行），我們期待展示我們持續的創新。該活動匯聚全球客戶與合作夥伴，共同探索即時、可擴展的決策制定如何改變消費者互動。我們仍專注於透過「永遠在線」（always on）的個人化，促成更深層的客戶關係並帶來強勁的業務成果。

The conference also provides a form to connect with industry experts, share best practices and advanced initiatives that drive financial inclusion. We had a great first half of our fiscal year, and I'm pleased to report that today, we are raising our full year guidance as we enter the third quarter.

本次大會也提供一個平台，讓大家與產業專家交流、分享最佳實務與推動金融包容的進階倡議。我們在本會計年度上半年表現出色，我也很高興在今天報告：在進入第三季之際，我們將上調全年財測。

As shown on Page 24 of our presentation, revenue guidance is now $2.45 billion, an increase of 23% versus prior year. GAAP net income guidance is now $825 million with GAAP earnings per share of $35.60, an increase of 27% and 34%, respectively. Non-GAAP net income guidance is now $946 million with non-GAAP earnings per share of $40.45, an increase of 29% and 35%, respectively.

如簡報第 24 頁所示，營收指引現為 24.5 億美元，較去年增加 23%。GAAP 淨利指引現為 8.25 億美元，GAAP 每股盈餘為 35.60 美元，分別成長 27% 與 34%。非 GAAP 淨利指引現為 9.46 億美元，非 GAAP 每股盈餘為 40.45 美元，分別成長 29% 與 35%。

With that, I'm going to turn it back to Dave, and we'll open up for Q&A.

接下來我把時間交回給 Dave，我們將開始 Q&A。

Thanks, Will. This concludes our prepared remarks. We're now ready to take questions. Operator, please open the lines.

謝謝，Will。以上為我們的事先準備發言。我們現在準備開始提問。接線員，請開放線路。

Thank you. (Operator Instructions)

謝謝。（接線員指示）

Jason Hass, Wells Fargo.

Jason Hass，富國銀行（Wells Fargo）。

Hey, good afternoon, and thanks for taking my question. I'm curious to start, Will, if you could talk about the philosophy behind adjusting your pricing model going to the $0.99 upfront. I appreciate some commentary.

嗨，下午好，謝謝讓我提問。我想先請教一下，Will，你能否談談把定價模式調整為預付 0.99 美元背後的理念？希望能聽到一些說明。

Thanks.

謝謝。

Yeah. Absolutely. So that's a step and direction we've been talking about now for several years. I mean, we have historically charged upfront for score. That's the historical way we've always charged for our IP, but what that does is it doesn't spread the cost across the rest of the value chain.

是的，完全同意。所以這是一個我們已經討論了好幾年的步驟與方向。我的意思是，我們過去在歷史上一直都是針對評分採取預先收費。這是我們一向對自有智慧財產（IP）收費的歷史方式，但這樣做的結果是，成本無法分攤到價值鏈的其他環節。

And so a lot of the beneficiaries of the IP are not really paying for it. And so we have that cost concentrated upfront. The whole idea we had moving to the performance model is to give us more flexibility so that we could distribute the monetization of that IP over more players across the chain.

因此，許多從這些IP受益的人其實並沒有真正為此付費。於是我們的成本就集中在前端。我們轉向績效（performance）模式的整體想法，是讓我們更有彈性，能把這些IP的變現分攤到鏈條上更多參與者身上。

And so that's really what we've done. In this most recent move to $0.99, plus a $65 funding fee, the idea was to encourage adoption of FICO 10T because we think that the most powerful thing that we can do is really get FICO 10T established. And obviously, it's already established in the non-performing market. But we'd really like to encourage wide use of 10T and so this kind of pricing is designed to encourage that.

所以這正是我們所做的。在最近這次調整到0.99美元、外加65美元資金費（funding fee）的做法中，核心想法是鼓勵採用FICO 10T，因為我們認為我們能做的最有力的事情，就是讓FICO 10T真正建立起來。當然，它在不良（non-performing）市場已經建立起來了。但我們非常希望鼓勵10T的廣泛使用，因此這樣的定價就是為了促進採用。

Great. That certainly makes sense. And then now that Vantage score is available to be used on the conforming mortgage market, do you expect what percentage of lenders do you think would shift fully away from FICO to just using Vantage score?

很好。這確實很合理。那麼，既然VantageScore現在可以在符合規範（conforming）的房貸市場使用，你預期會有多少比例的放款機構會完全從FICO轉向、只使用VantageScore？

Or do you see most lenders if they are going to use Vantage scores, if you see them also pulling FICO during the mortgage process and then submitting the score ultimately that's most favorable to that into the GSEs?

還是你認為多數放款機構即使要用VantageScore，也會在房貸流程中同時拉取FICO，然後最後把對其最有利的那個分數提交給GSEs？

I suppose we'll see how it turns out. But if you think about the decision process for those who purchase scores, if they're after the most predictive score 10T is the answer to that. If they're after price, then I think we have parity 10T at $0.99 is at parity with Vantage at $0.99. And so on both predictability and price, we think we're highly competitive and frankly, don't see good reasons to switch.

我想我們會看看最後會怎麼發展。但如果你從購買評分者的決策流程來看，如果他們追求的是最具預測力的評分，那答案就是10T。如果他們追求的是價格，那我認為我們已經達到同價（parity）——10T以0.99美元的價格，與Vantage的0.99美元同價。因此在預測力與價格兩方面，我們認為我們非常有競爭力，坦白說，也看不出有什麼充分理由要轉換。

Now depending on how the FHFA decides to handle the gaming problem, there may be opportunities for Vantage based on the gaming. And so we'll just have to see how that unfolds. Although our analysis suggests that in a gaming scenario, if there's true consumer shopping for the best rate and the system is going to be gained in that way, that originators and lenders would wind up pulling both scores.

現在，取決於FHFA將如何處理「操弄（gaming）」問題，Vantage可能會因為操弄而出現一些機會。所以我們只能看事情如何演變。不過我們的分析顯示，在操弄情境下，如果確實存在消費者為了拿到最優惠利率而比價、而系統也會因此被操弄，那麼承作機構與放款機構最後會同時拉取兩種分數。

Thank you. Manav Patnaik, Barclays.

謝謝。Barclays 的 Manav Patnaik。

Thank you. Will, for the 10T adoption, obviously, that $0.99 is only available through the direct loan model that you have, TLT model. Can you give us an update on when that's going live, what the feedback right now is with lenders and kind of adoption that you expect there?

謝謝。Will，關於10T的採用，顯然0.99美元這個價格只透過你們的直貸模式（direct loan model），也就是你們的TLT模式提供。你能否更新一下何時會上線？目前放款機構的回饋如何？以及你們預期的採用情況？

Yes, absolutely. So there's a few pieces to getting the direct license program live and they're mostly in place. We're working on the last kind of final details now. So we have three of the top five major resellers signed up, we are in deep discussion with the other two and fully anticipate that all five of the big resellers will be able to provide the direct license program. We also see a great deal of interest from the lender community for this performance-based pricing model.

是的，當然可以。要讓直授權（direct license）計畫上線有幾個部分，而大多數都已就緒。我們正在處理最後一些細節。所以我們已經讓前五大主要轉售商（resellers）中的三家簽約，我們也正與另外兩家深入討論，並且完全預期五大轉售商都能提供直授權計畫。我們也看到放款機構社群對這種以績效為基礎的定價模式有非常高的興趣。

So there's a pent-up demand, and we anticipate quite a lot of usage of this model once we get direct up and running. We do still need FHFA final sign-off on having the resellers calculate the score. But we don't anticipate any issues there because the math is identical and the score, we've tested and the score calculated by the resellers is the same score that calculated by the bureau. So it's on the same data, and it's the same methodology. So -- although I can't give you a date, I can tell you that we're closing in on it.

所以市場存在一股被壓抑的需求（pent-up demand），一旦直授權開始運作，我們預期這個模式會有相當高的使用量。我們仍需要FHFA對「由轉售商計算分數」給予最終核准。但我們不預期會有任何問題，因為計算方式完全相同，而且我們已測試過，轉售商計算出的分數與徵信局（bureau）計算出的分數一致。也就是使用相同資料、相同方法論。因此——雖然我無法給出日期，但我可以告訴你，我們已經很接近了。

Okay. And then just in terms of the historical 10T data coming out sometime in the summer, maybe just some help on how that process works? Like will there be another pilot like they're doing now with VantageScore once 10T is out and we're only looking for something realistically in 2027 for both to be ready to go fully live, I guess?

好的。那麼關於歷史10T資料預計在夏季某個時間釋出，能否協助說明一下流程是怎麼運作的？例如，一旦10T資料出來，是否也會像他們現在對VantageScore所做的那樣再進行一次試點（pilot）？而我們是否應該務實地認為，要到2027年兩者才會都準備好全面正式上線？

Well, the FICO 10T data, as you know, is with the FHFA and the GSEs, and it's up to them to decide when to release it. There's certainly a lot of market sentiment for being able to evaluate 10T and Vantage at the same time. And certainly, by the time the GSEs accept truly accept Vantage I think the market would like to be available as well. So there's some market pressure to get this done, but I don't have the time line.

嗯，FICO 10T的資料，如你所知，目前在FHFA與GSEs手上，何時釋出由他們決定。市場確實有很強的情緒希望能同時評估10T與Vantage。而且當GSEs真正接受Vantage時，我認為市場也希望10T同樣可用。因此市場確實有一些壓力希望把這件事完成，但我沒有時間表。

Thank you. Simon Clinch, Rothschild and Redburn.

謝謝。Rothschild and Redburn 的 Simon Clinch。

Hi, everyone. Thanks very much for taking my question. Will, I was wondering if you could just cycle back to the question of investment. I think it was Jason asked about the pricing of 10T and your comments that it's at parity at just. I was wondering if you could talk about the philosophy or like how you think lenders will treat the successfully in that kind of mutation and how we should think about that dynamic in that sort of comparison?

各位好。非常感謝讓我提問。Will，我想回到投資這個問題。我記得是Jason問到10T的定價，以及你提到它只是同價（parity）。我想請你談談背後的理念，或者說你認為放款機構會如何看待在那種變動（mutation）情境下的成功，以及我們應該如何理解在那種比較之下的動態？

Well, I think the beauty of the way we've structured this is that mortgage originators and lenders have a choice. They can continue to buy the score, the way they always have on a per-square basis, or if they prefer they can move to the $0.99 plus funding fee.

我認為我們這樣設計的好處在於，房貸承作機構與放款機構有選擇。他們可以繼續像以往一樣按次（per-score basis）購買分數；或者如果他們偏好，也可以改用0.99美元加上資金費的模式。

And the idea there is that it encourages very widespread use of the score in the prospecting phase, in the customer acquisition phase and figuring out who's qualified for a mortgage. And frankly, with the goal of trying to encourage more housing and more mortgages, making the upfront score cost very low is likely to support that.

這樣做的想法是，鼓勵在開發客戶（prospecting）階段、客戶獲取（customer acquisition）階段，以及判斷誰符合房貸資格的過程中，非常廣泛地使用該評分。坦白說，若目標是促進更多住房與更多房貸，把前端的評分成本壓得很低，可能會有助於達成這點。

And so it really is up to the lenders, which model they prefer, and we leave it to them. we are -- I've said before, we're largely indifferent as between the two models because it's about revenue neutral for us either way. But I think that each model meets the needs of different customers for the score in different ways.

因此最終取決於放款機構偏好哪一種模式，我們把選擇留給他們。我之前也說過，兩種模式之間我們大致上並不特別偏好，因為對我們而言不論哪一種大致上都是營收中性（revenue neutral）。但我認為每一種模式都能以不同方式滿足不同客戶對評分的需求。

Understood. And just as a follow-up to the reseller readiness right now. I mean I understand we're getting close to go live will come to place. The bit I would love to get a bit more color on is just, I guess, what has relative to initial sort of expectations, it feels like it's taking longer than expected. And I was wondering if you could talk about sort of what has been behind some of the prolonged process here?

了解。那再追問一下，目前轉售商的準備情況。我理解我們已經接近上線、也會在某個時間點落地。我更想了解的是，相較於一開始的預期，感覺進度比預想更久。我想請你談談，這個流程拉長背後的原因是什麼？

I think that some of the expectations were a little on the optimistic side. We certainly didn't think it was going to happen in a couple of months. We thought that it would take a while to put this together. It's a pretty complicated program, not a complicated program, but it's -- there's enough moving parts that require validation and testing that we knew it was going to take some time.

我認為有些預期確實稍微樂觀了一點。我們當然不認為會在幾個月內就完成。我們原本就認為需要一些時間來把這件事整合起來。這是一個相當複雜的計畫——也不能說很複雜，但它——有足夠多的環節需要驗證與測試，我們知道這會花一些時間。

This much time, I would say, we actually believe that it would be up and running by now. I would say that we're close and as I said earlier, it's really up to the FHFA to sign off on the calculation of scored by the resellers and then we're pretty much there.

至於花了這麼久，我會說我們其實原本相信現在應該已經上線運作了。我會說我們已經很接近了；如我先前所說，關鍵在於FHFA要核准由轉售商進行分數計算，之後我們基本上就到位了。

Thank you. Surinder Thind, Jefferies.

謝謝。Jefferies 的 Surinder Thind。

Thank you. Will, just following up on the timing of 10T. Just to understand, is there a sequence of dependencies before the FHFA kind of makes it available in the sense of like releasing the historical data. Obviously, you got to have the systems and everything ready. But are there other things that we should be aware of? Or is it just kind of once the systems are ready, they can release it, whether or not the historical data is available?

謝謝。Will，我想追問10T的時程。想確認一下，在FHFA讓它可用（例如釋出歷史資料）之前，是否存在一連串相依性（dependencies）？顯然你們必須把系統等都準備好。但還有其他我們需要注意的事項嗎？還是說只要系統準備好，他們就可以釋出，不論歷史資料是否可用？

No. I would say that there are not a bunch of additional things that no 1 knows about. I think we have to get the 10T data out so that people can test it. and then the GSEs have to accept 10T, and that's it. That's all that's required.

不。我會說，並沒有一大堆只有第 1 號才知道的額外事情。我認為我們必須把 10T 的資料釋出，讓大家可以測試。然後 GSEs 必須接受 10T，就這樣。這就是全部所需要的。

Got it. And then in terms of just switching away. Can you maybe talk a little bit about the outlook for expenses here. I noticed you talked a little bit about incremental scores, marketing expense what should we expect there? And then other than kind of the step-up that's related to the annual FICO World Conference.

了解。那接下來就切換離開這件事而言，你能不能稍微談一下這裡費用的展望？我注意到你提到一些增量分數、行銷費用，我們應該預期什麼？另外，除了與年度 FICO World Conference 相關的那種費用提升之外。

Yeah. I mean it's not all that material. I mean, there will be some expense. I mean, it's that -- I think you can kind of back into it when you look at our guidance numbers, but it's not all immaterial. But we've got some additional personnel expense.

對。我的意思是，影響沒有那麼重大。我的意思是，會有一些費用。我的意思是，那個——我想你看我們的財測指引數字，大概可以推算出來，但也不是完全不重要。不過我們確實會有一些額外的人員費用。

We got expenses around Piper world, there's some other types of marketing we're doing. When you see more growth on the software side, that comes at a 100% margin either, right? There's cost of good solar. So you're going to see some expenses there. But none of it is all material.

我們在 Piper world 方面也有一些費用，還有其他類型的行銷在做。當你看到軟體端有更多成長時，那也不是 100% 毛利，對吧？會有銷貨成本。所以你會看到一些費用，但都不是特別重大。

Thank you. Faiza Alwy, Deutsche Bank.

謝謝。下一位是德意志銀行的 Faiza Alwy。

Yeah, hi. Thank you. So first, I wanted to ask about the very strong growth that you saw in mortgage revenue this quarter, up 127%. I think we know about your pricing but it implies pretty strong volume growth. So I'm just curious if you can talk a little bit more some of the factors there.

是的，嗨，謝謝。首先我想問一下，你們本季房貸收入成長非常強勁，上升 127%。我想我們知道你們的定價，但這也意味著量的成長相當強。所以我很好奇你能不能再多談一些背後的因素。

Yeah. I mean we had decent volume growth. I think it was a pretty good quarter. There was a period of time that where interest rates dropped a little bit. We saw a little bit of an uptick here and I think it's consistent with what you hear from the bureaus as well.

對。我的意思是，我們的量確實有不錯的成長。我覺得這是一個相當不錯的季度。有一段時間利率稍微下降，我們看到一些回升，我想這也和你從徵信機構那邊聽到的情況一致。

So it was a decent volume quarter, probably better than we expected when we gave our guidance. But again, we guide very conservatively because it's really difficult to know what those numbers might be.

所以這是一個量表現不錯的季度，可能比我們在給指引時預期的更好。但同樣地，我們給指引非常保守，因為真的很難知道那些數字會是多少。

Okay. Understood. And then just on the software side of the business, again, pretty strong bookings, really strong ARR growth on the platform side. So again, give us some context in terms of what you're seeing there? Are you seeing higher of notice that you alluded to growth or maybe focusing outside of the services. And I'm curious if you're sort of thinking your approach there at all?

好的，了解。那再談到軟體業務這邊，同樣地，訂單（bookings）相當強，平台端的 ARR 成長也非常強。所以也請你給我們一些背景脈絡：你們看到的是什麼？你們是否看到更高的——我注意到你提到成長，或許是把重心放在服務以外的部分。我也好奇你們是否在思考要調整你們的做法？

I would not say that moving to other verticals is driving the growth. It's really primarily in financial services. And it's across a wide range of use cases, and we continue to have success and the model that we've been experiencing just continues to be strong, which is a financial institution will adopt the platform.

我不會說轉向其他垂直領域正在驅動成長。主要還是在金融服務。而且涵蓋很廣泛的使用情境。我們持續取得成功，而我們一直在經歷的那個模式仍然很強：也就是金融機構會採用這個平台。

And make it the kind of the heart and soul of the way they interact with their consumer customers and then discover just how powerful it is and then get more utility out of it, the more use cases they put on it. And so it's the land and expand strategy, which we have for that business is working really nicely. And the customers have tremendous satisfaction, and that's driving the growth.

並把它作為他們與消費者客戶互動方式的核心與靈魂，然後發現它有多強大；而且他們把越多使用情境放到平台上，就能從中獲得越多效用。所以這就是我們在該業務採取的「先落地、再擴張」（land and expand）策略，運作得非常好。客戶滿意度非常高，而這正在推動成長。

Thank you. Jeff Meuler, Baird.

謝謝。下一位是 Baird 的 Jeff Meuler。

Yeah, thanks. From an earlier question, it sounds like the answer may be TBD, depending upon what FHFA decides to do. And I don't know, do we have to wait for the selling guidelines. But the question is, what's your understanding?

是的，謝謝。從前面一個問題來看，聽起來答案可能還要再看（TBD），取決於 FHFA 決定怎麼做。我也不確定，我們是否必須等到賣方指引（selling guidelines）。但問題是，你的理解是什麼？

Because I think the language is the enterprises cannot accept scores from multiple models. But have they said anything about if an underwriter can pull scores for multiple models earlier in the process? Or is that waiting for the selling guidelines to know the answer?

因為我認為相關措辭是，這些企業不能接受來自多個模型的分數。但他們有沒有說過，承銷方是否可以在流程較早的階段拉取多個模型的分數？還是說要等到賣方指引出來才知道答案？

I think that's waiting on the selling guidelines. I mean I can't speak for the GSEs on that.

我想那要等賣方指引。我是說，我無法代表 GSEs 發言。

Okay. And then do you have any sense of what went into the approval process of the '21 initially approved lenders for Vantage 4.0, were they asked to apply by FHFA? Is there any sort of like commitment, how intensive of a process it is? Just trying to figure out if that's a meaningful signal or not.

好的。那你是否知道，最初獲准使用 Vantage 4.0 的「21 家核准放款機構」的核准流程包含了什麼？他們是被 FHFA 要求申請的嗎？是否有任何類似承諾的要求？流程有多密集？我只是想判斷這是不是一個有意義的訊號。

We don't really have a lot of detail around that program. Obviously, we weren't invited to be part of it. And so we just don't have the details. it's -- it remains to be seen what happens there. Our understanding is a fairly manual process.

我們對那個計畫其實沒有太多細節。很顯然，我們沒有被邀請參與其中。所以我們就是沒有那些細節。那——接下來會怎麼發展還有待觀察。我們的理解是，那是一個相當手動的流程。

Thank you. Ashish Sabadra, RBC Capital Markets.

謝謝。下一位是 RBC Capital Markets 的 Ashish Sabadra。

Thanks for taking my question. I know you just announced the FICO 10T pricing, but I just wanted to understand what's your pricing strategy over the midterm? Is there still a gap between price and value and as you think about it, how do you think about closing that gap? Would you also consider alternative pricing algorithms, including a percentage of the loan amount for the success fees. So any color there?

謝謝讓我提問。我知道你們剛宣布 FICO 10T 的定價，但我想了解你們中期的定價策略是什麼？價格與價值之間是否仍有落差？當你們思考時，你們會如何縮小這個落差？你們是否也會考慮替代性的定價演算法，包括以貸款金額的一定百分比作為成功費（success fees）？能否分享一些看法？

Thank you.

謝謝。

As you know, we've talked about a lot of different approaches to pricing for our IP. And those are under constant evaluation and study. And the balancing act is, we don't want to shock the market. We don't want to make precipitous changes. In fact, we don't love change.

如你所知，我們談過許多不同的方式來為我們的智慧財產（IP）定價，而這些都在持續評估與研究中。需要拿捏的是，我們不想讓市場受到驚嚇。我們不想做出倉促的改變。事實上，我們不太喜歡變動。

We -- if the market works really well the way it is today, and so we don't like change. That said, there is a case to be made for low pricing upfront. There's a case to be made for shifting around the monetization of the IP across more than just the first purchaser. And so we're always evaluating those kinds of things. Our philosophy has not changed.

我們——如果市場像今天這樣運作得很好，所以我們不喜歡變動。話雖如此，低前期定價是有其道理的；把 IP 的變現方式重新分配到不只是第一個購買者身上，也有其道理。所以我們一直在評估這類事情。我們的理念沒有改變。

What you see is the first couple of steps in the direction of what we've been talking about for several years now.

你所看到的是朝著我們過去幾年一直在談的方向所邁出的前幾步。

That's very helpful color. And then maybe just on the Mantecorp grids, FHFA mentioned that they are taking into account proper credit risk accounting in order to make sure, and that's why those matrices are different compared to FICO. I was wondering based on your experience, what are the key credit risks that they would consider when they are designing these matrices? And why should FICO or FICO 10T get a preference?

這些說明很有幫助。那接著可能想問一下 Mantecorp 矩陣（grids）。FHFA 提到他們在考量適當的信用風險會計，以確保——也因此那些矩陣相較於 FICO 會有所不同。我想請教，依你們的經驗，他們在設計這些矩陣時會考量哪些關鍵信用風險？以及為什麼 FICO 或 FICO 10T 應該被優先採用？

Well, so again, I can't really speak for the way the GSEs are thinking about it. But what we believe is that in these LLPA grids, if you're going to account for risk, there's going to be price differential, there's going to be gaming that goes on. What kind of risks might be accounted for? I don't know how they account for them exactly, but certainly, you could have very different credit default risk for Vantage versus FICO. You could have very different prepayment risk for Vantage versus FICO.

嗯，所以再說一次，我無法真正代表 GSEs 的思考方式。但我們的看法是，在這些 LLPA 費率網格（grids）中，如果你要把風險納入考量，就會出現價格差異，也會出現「套利／鑽漏洞」（gaming）的行為。可能會被納入的風險有哪些？我不確定他們具體如何納入，但可以肯定的是，Vantage 相對於 FICO 的信用違約風險可能非常不同；Vantage 相對於 FICO 的提前還款風險也可能非常不同。

As you know, Vantage only goes -- the Vantage data only goes back to 2013 has never been tested through a full cycle. And so there's a lack of understanding, not for want of trying, but there's -- the data is not there to understand how Vintage will operate through a full cycle. And so I'm not really sure -- what does that mean? It means that downstream investors are going to demand some kind of a premium for the lack of understanding around the prepayment risk and in default risk.

如你所知，Vantage 的資料只回溯到 2013 年，從未經歷完整景氣循環的測試。因此對於 Vantage 在完整循環中會如何表現，存在理解上的不足——不是因為不想嘗試，而是因為資料不存在。所以我不太確定——這代表什麼？這代表下游投資人會因為對提前還款風險與違約風險缺乏理解，而要求某種溢價。

How that gets translated into the LLPA grid, the GPEs, hard to say. And then because the pricing will be different for FICO and Vantage, and we guess that sometimes Vans will have better pricing for a consumer and sometimes FIO have better pricing for consumer. It's going to create some real headaches for the GSEs. So we'll see. We'll just have to see how they solve that problem.

這會如何被轉換到 LLPA 網格、GPEs（原文如此），很難說。然後因為 FICO 和 Vantage 的定價會不同，而我們猜有時候 Vantage 對消費者的定價會更好、有時候 FICO 對消費者的定價會更好，這會給 GSEs 帶來一些真正的頭痛問題。所以我們再看看吧。我們只能看看他們會如何解決這個問題。

Thank you. George Tong, Goldman Sachs

謝謝。高盛的 George Tong。

Hi, thanks. Good afternoon. With the direct licensing program, it sounds like you're awaiting FHFA approval. Are there other implementation hurdles they have to overcome among the top 3 resellers that have signed up so far? And can you talk about why the remaining two out of the top 5 are taking a bit longer to sign up?

嗨，謝謝。下午好。就直接授權計畫而言，聽起來你們正在等待 FHFA 核准。在目前已簽約的前三大轉售商之中，是否還有其他他們必須克服的落地／導入障礙？另外，你能談談為什麼前五大裡剩下的兩家簽約進度會慢一些嗎？

I would say that there are not other factors, nothing meaningful. So we're really just waiting on approval from the FHFA. And then in terms of the 2 that haven't signed, I can't get into the details, but we're very close.

我會說沒有其他因素，沒有任何重大的因素。所以我們真的就是在等 FHFA 的核准。至於那兩家還沒簽的，我不能談細節，但我們已經非常接近了。

Okay. Got it. And then with respect to your outlook, can you elaborate on what assumptions are baked into your full year guide with respect to Vantage score adoption, the timing of the direct licensing model going live and performance fee adoption?

好的，了解。那再就你們的展望而言，你能否更詳細說明一下，你們全年指引中對於 VantageScore 採用、直接授權模式上線時點，以及績效費（performance fee）採用的假設是什麼？

Yeah. We anticipate no loss of volume to Vantage in this fiscal year. That's in our -- that's assumed in our guide. We are -- we are -- as I said earlier, we're in roughly the same place financially, whether they go with the first core model or the performance model. So it's revenue neutral.

可以。我們預期在本會計年度不會因 Vantage 而流失任何量，這已經反映在我們的——也就是我們指引的假設裡。如我先前提到的，不論他們採用第一個核心模式或績效模式，我們在財務上大致處於相同的位置，所以對營收是中性的。

There's a little bit of a timing difference because with the performance model, the funding fee would trail the initial fees. So I mean there's some minor differences. But I would say on balance, it's pretty close to a wash between the two.

會有一點時點差異，因為在績效模式下，資金費（funding fee）會落後於初始費用。所以確實有一些小差異。但我會說整體而言，兩者大致相抵，差不多打平。

So it doesn't really matter when the adoption occurs. I suppose you could argue that if the adoption of the direct license program is delayed that's beneficial to FICO in the very short term from a timing standpoint, but we don't think about it that way.

所以採用發生在什麼時候其實不太重要。我想你可以主張，如果直接授權計畫的採用被延後，從時點角度看，對 FICO 在非常短期內是有利的，但我們不會用那種方式去思考。

Yeah. And we do have some lag built into the guidance based on the assumption that performance model will go live, and we'll have some revenue that's pushed from late this fiscal year and early next fiscal year because again, because the timing cost described.

是的。而且我們在指引中也納入了一些落後效應（lag），基於績效模式將上線的假設；因此會有一些營收因為剛才描述的時點差異，而從本會計年度後段與下個會計年度前段之間做推移。

Thank you. Alexander Hess, JPMorgan.

謝謝。摩根大通的 Alexander Hess。

Hi, everybody. Could you start with the 127% year-on-year growth in mortgage. I understand that your rack rate is widely known, layer on top of that volume assumption is still a bit below. So maybe were there any prior year pricing adjustments have feathered into the present fiscal year. Just anything that might have given that an extra booster is this sort of the rate you guys think you can continue at these volume models?

大家好。能否先從房貸業務年增 127% 談起。我理解你們的牌價（rack rate）市場上廣為人知；在此之上，你們對量的假設仍略低一些。所以想問，是否有任何前一年度的定價調整延續到本會計年度？或是有什麼因素讓成長額外被推升？還是說在這些量的模型下，你們認為可以持續維持這樣的成長率？

Yeah. I mean not really. I mean there might be some difference in the unit cost. I mean there's some without getting to a lot of detail that some people are on a little bit lighter rate last year, and we're up to the full wrap rate this quarter. But it's primarily just the new rate and then the additional volumes we saw.

是的。其實沒有。可能在單位成本上有些差異。也就是說，在不談太多細節的前提下，去年有些客戶的費率稍微低一些，而本季我們已經回到完整的全包費率（full wrap rate）。但主要就是新的費率，以及我們看到的額外量。

Got it. And then maybe shifting to usage of the FICO score overall. I know there were some remarks about stepping up expenses for the Scores business, introducing the new version of Ultra FICO. If you could just talk about your investments in innovation in the Scores business and how that sort of benefits the franchise you guys have there? That would be super helpful.

了解。那再把話題轉到整體 FICO 分數的使用。我知道你們提到會提高 Scores 業務的費用投入，並推出新版 UltraFICO。你能否談談你們在 Scores 業務的創新投資，以及這如何讓你們既有的 franchise（護城河／既有優勢）受益？這會很有幫助。

In the scheme of things, the investments and incremental expense is not large, okay? I mean just to be really clear. That said, we are constantly investing in innovation, developing new scores. UltraFICO is -- although we've talked about it for several years, it is very much on our minds, and we have a plan which we're going to talk about at FICO World next month. But I can't go into the details now. But UltraFICO is likely to be a pretty significant factor in the sports business in the future.

從整體來看，這些投資與增量費用其實不大，好嗎？我想先把這點講清楚。即便如此，我們一直都在投資創新、開發新的分數。UltraFICO——雖然我們談了好幾年——仍然是我們非常關注的重點，而且我們有一個計畫，會在下個月的 FICO World 上談。但我現在不能透露細節。不過，UltraFICO 未來很可能會成為 Scores 業務中相當重要的因素。

Thank you. Kyle Peterson, Needham.

謝謝。Needham 的 Kyle Peterson。

Great. Thanks. Good afternoon, guys. I want to just start off on software. The platform growth remains really impressive. Bookings are really good. I know the non-platform was kind of ran off maybe a little faster than we expected in the second quarter in a row.

很好，謝謝。各位下午好。我想先從軟體談起。平台（platform）成長仍然非常亮眼，訂單（bookings）也很強。我知道非平台（non-platform）業務的流失（run-off）似乎比我們預期更快，且已連續第二季如此。

But I guess should we expect this trend to continue where the platform growth is accelerating, the non-platform is running off? Or do you think it will kind of return to flattish non-platform and historical platform growth? Just I guess, the moving pieces there would be helpful.

但我想問，我們是否應該預期這個趨勢會延續：平台成長加速、非平台持續流失？還是你們認為非平台會回到大致持平，而平台回到歷史成長水準？我想了解其中的變動因素。

It's a good question, Kyle. And we've talked about this in the past. There's -- we have the platform growth, which comes from selling the platform often to customers, generally, the customers we already have, but not necessarily for the same things that they've been doing with us on the legacy side. And so there's new growth in platform, which look like new deals with customers that we know and occasionally with customers we've never met before.

這是個好問題，Kyle。我們過去也談過。平台成長一部分來自於銷售平台，通常是賣給既有客戶，但不一定是用在他們過去在傳統（legacy）端與我們合作的同樣用途。因此平台端有新的成長，看起來像是與我們熟悉的客戶簽新案子，偶爾也會是我們從未接觸過的新客戶。

And then there's a migration from our legacy applications to the platform. And I would tell you there that we are not forcing that migration. We're not even really encouraging that migration because we have our hands full with the growth in the new platform. And so we really leave it to the customer, the customer's choice. If the customer comes to us and wants to renew for three more years, legacy application that is working extremely well for them.

另外還有從我們的傳統應用程式移轉到平台。我可以告訴你，我們並沒有強迫這種移轉。我們甚至也沒有特別鼓勵這種移轉，因為我們光是新平台的成長就已經忙不過來了。所以我們基本上把選擇權交給客戶，由客戶決定。如果客戶來找我們，想把一個對他們運作得非常好的傳統應用續約三年，

We are all for it, and it's highly profitable business for us and it's good. If they're ready to make the move, we're happy to help them make the move, and so we work on that, too. I think there is a balance there. I think there at some level, there's a bit of migration that happens from the legacy business to the platform business.

我們完全支持，這對我們而言是高獲利的好生意。如果他們準備好要移轉，我們也很樂意協助他們移轉，所以我們也會做那部分。我認為兩者之間存在一個平衡。在某種程度上，確實會有一些從傳統業務移到平台業務的移轉發生。

And so that would explain higher growth on the one side means a little bit lower growth -- a loss of business on the legacy side. But I wouldn't say it's a huge factor. I just think that the two are kind of in balance at this level now. We're not pushing it with our thumb on the scale one way or the other. That may change in the future. But for now, we're very happy with the growth on the platform side.

因此，這可以解釋為什麼一邊成長較高，另一邊就會成長較低——或在傳統端出現一些流失。但我不會說這是很大的因素。我只是覺得在目前這個水準上，兩者大致處於平衡。我們沒有刻意用任何方式去偏向其中一邊。未來可能會改變，但就目前而言，我們對平台端的成長非常滿意。

Got it. That's helpful. And then as a follow-up, I wanted to switch over to auto origination Scores revenue. I guess, it did decelerate a little bit this quarter. Obviously, I think the comps are getting tougher, but I want to see at least directionally, if you guys could give a little bit more color on what drove the year-on-year detail between tougher comps, pricing changes in calendar year '26 or any changes in origination volumes or trends that you guys are seeing?

了解，這很有幫助。那追問一下，我想切到汽車放款（auto origination）的 Scores 營收。我想本季確實稍微減速。顯然我認為比較基期變得更具挑戰，但我想至少方向性地請你們多給一些拆解：年增變化主要是來自更難的比較基期、2026 年曆年的定價變動，或是你們看到的放款量／趨勢有任何變化？

It's really the tough comps. The volumes are not growing as rapidly as they were. The pricing is relatively consistent. The '26 price increases is consistent with '25. I think what you see is that the comps are difficult, and there's probably a little bit of a mix shift there in terms of the pricing tiers that some of the lower -- the lower unit cost pricing tiers have gained the volume from those that are higher unit costs. So some of that happening in the auto industry in general.

主要就是比較基期變難。量沒有像之前那樣快速成長。定價相對一致。2026 年的漲價幅度與 2025 年一致。我認為你看到的是比較基期變得困難，另外在定價級距上可能也有一點組合移轉（mix shift）：一些單位成本較低的定價級距，從單位成本較高的級距那邊拿到更多量。汽車產業整體也有一些這樣的情況。

Thank you. Craig Huber, Huber Research Partners.

謝謝。Huber Research Partners 的 Craig Huber。

Great. Thank you. We've talked about this in the past, but can you just update us on your understanding, what the data show you in terms of -- the market share out there is for Vantage score in credit cards, autos, personal loans, and also non-conforming mortgage loans. What's their market share right now and we'll go from there.

很好，謝謝。我們過去談過這個，但能否請你更新一下你們的理解：就你們看到的數據而言，VantageScore 在信用卡、車貸、個人貸款，以及非合規房貸（non-conforming mortgage loans）方面的市占率如何？他們目前的市占率是多少？我們再從那裡往下談。

I guess it all depends on how you measure it because if you ask them, they would tell you they have significant market share and all those things. near as we can tell, nobody is paying for Vantage scores and the bureau send along the Vantage score for free when someone buys a FICO score.

我想這完全取決於你怎麼衡量，因為如果你問他們，他們會告訴你在所有那些領域都有顯著市占。就我們所能判斷的，沒有人在付費購買 Vantage 分數；當有人購買 FICO 分數時，徵信機構（bureau）會把 Vantage 分數免費附帶提供。

So when you see the big Vantage score volumes that Vantage talks about, you should know that they're largely unpaid for. So are they -- is anyone using them? I don't know. Is anyone paying for them? Our sense is not much -- and so it's pretty hard to triangulate on what their market share is. I mean I think it's trivial is what I would say.

所以當你看到 Vantage 所談到的龐大 Vantage 分數量時，你應該知道那在很大程度上是沒有付費的。所以它們——有人在用嗎？我不知道。有人在為它們付費嗎？我們的感覺是不多——因此要從中推算它們的市占率其實很難。我是說，我會說那幾乎可以忽略不計。

And I think you see that in our numbers, right? I mean if there were -- we were losing market share, you'd see it in our numbers, and you don't see any that. We have to report our results or audited. They don't have that same obligation, so there's a lot of sun in what we produce, and we back it up with actual numbers that are verified.

而且我認為你也能從我們的數字看出來，對吧？我是說，如果我們——正在流失市占率，你會在我們的數字裡看到，但你看不到任何那樣的跡象。我們必須揭露我們的結果，而且是經過審計的。他們沒有同樣的義務，所以我們產出的內容是高度透明的，而我們也用經過驗證的實際數字來支撐。

So just to be clear, if you had a ballpark, you think it might be 5%, 10% market share, maybe not even not ballpark.

所以只是要確認一下，如果你要給個大概，你覺得可能是 5%、10% 的市占率，甚至連大概都不到？

I would call it 2%.

我會說是 2%。

Okay. So then on the non-conforming part of mortgages, you're saying probably the same thing, right, roughly that

好。那麼在房貸的非合規（non-conforming）部分，你的意思大概也是一樣，對吧，大致上是那樣——

To be really clear, in the non-conforming market, the lenders use FICO Classic and they use FICO 10T, and they don't use Vantage.

講得非常清楚，在非合規市場，放款機構使用的是 FICO Classic，也使用 FICO 10T，他們不使用 Vantage。

So what -- all the worry out there about AI, put that aside for a second. All the worry out there that Vantage score is going to take significant share just because of the changes from the government standpoint -- the rest of the market here is -- you guys have been Vantage scores to go up against FICO for 20 years, right, in 2006.

所以——外界對 AI 的所有擔憂先放一邊。外界擔心 Vantage 分數會因為政府端的變動而取得顯著市占率——但市場的其他部分是——你們讓 Vantage 分數跟 FICO 對打已經 20 年了，對吧，從 2006 年開始。

You tell me it's roughly 2% market share give or technique -- what's going to change though but what's going to change here on the conforming mortgage side of things here that they're going to get significant market share. I mean, that's the theory out there for a lot of people. What's the case there that you guys possibly see?

你告訴我它大概是 2% 的市占率（上下有些誤差）——那到底會改變什麼？但在合規房貸這一端，接下來會改變什麼，讓他們能拿到顯著市占率？我是說，很多人外界的理論就是這樣。你們這邊看到的可能情境是什麼？

Look, I am not going to make the case for how Vantage takes market share because I think we're competitive on price, we are far more competitive on predictiveness. We have a better score than Vantage. There's not a good reason for them to take any share at all.

你看，我不會替 Vantage 如何取得市占率來做論述，因為我認為我們在價格上具競爭力，在預測能力上更是遠遠更具競爭力。我們的分數比 Vantage 更好。他們其實沒有任何充分理由能拿走任何市占率。

Okay. Let me just -- my final question is why did you lower the upfront fee down to $0.99 from $5 then?

好。我最後一個問題是，那你們為什麼把前端費用從 5 美元降到 0.99 美元？

Two reasons. One is to be competitive with Vantage and to have a low entry point and encourage widespread use of the score and second, to encourage adoption of FICO 10T. a pretty classic approach to launching a new product is to price it so that people use it.

兩個原因。第一是為了在價格上與 Vantage 競爭，並且提供低門檻，鼓勵分數被廣泛使用；第二是為了促進 FICO 10T 的採用。推出新產品一個相當典型的方法，就是把價格訂到讓大家願意用。

But again, you're not worried at all that Vantage is going to take any meaningful share from you on the conforming mortgage side, right? That's what you're saying?

但再確認一次，你完全不擔心 Vantage 會在合規房貸這一端從你們手上拿走任何有意義的市占率，對吧？你的意思是這樣？

That is correct.

沒錯。

Thank you. Ryan Griffin, BMO Capital Markets.

謝謝。BMO Capital Markets 的 Ryan Griffin。

Hey, thank you so much. I'm just wondering if you have any feedback to share from the securitization market in terms of reference in light of all these --

嗨，非常感謝。我只是想知道，就參考（reference）而言，證券化市場那邊在這些——的背景下，你們有沒有任何回饋可以分享？

Everyone has done their own market checks, and we have to -- and I would say that the securitization market is not ready to accept Vantage. It's -- there's some hurdles to be overcome. And so we'll see how that all unfolds. I don't have a lot of insight there. I mean the market is still all FICO.

每個人都做了各自的市場查核，而我們也必須——我會說證券化市場還沒準備好接受 Vantage。這——還有一些障礙需要克服。所以我們就看看後續會怎麼發展。我在那方面沒有太多洞見。我的意思是，市場目前仍然全部都是 FICO。

I think something like 20 mortgages have been securitized with Vantage for paper, which is obviously less than 1%, less than one-tenth of 1% of the most recent securitization. So it's not real yet. We'll have to see how the market reacts.

我想大概只有 20 筆房貸用 Vantage 做成證券化、用於發行（paper），這顯然不到 1%，甚至不到最近一期證券化規模的千分之一。所以目前還不成氣候。我們得看看市場會怎麼反應。

Thank you. And I know we're getting some data released over the summer from the was wondering what you're expecting that relate the tail and how you think it might validate the predictive.

謝謝。而且我知道今年夏天會有一些資料發布，想請問你預期那會如何關聯到尾端（tail），以及你認為它可能如何驗證預測能力（predictive）。

Well, I think that -- I can't give you a date for when the FHFA will lease the FICO 10T data to the marketplace. But we're certainly not standing in the way. We provided the data and we're ready to go. In terms of validating the predictiveness, we have white papers posted on our website that actually analyze FICO 10T versus Vantage and provide insights on print default risk and prepayment risk and the differences. We qualify 5% more borrowers.

嗯，我想——我無法給你 FHFA 何時會把 FICO 10T 的資料釋出到市場的日期。但我們當然沒有在阻擋。我們已經提供資料，也已經準備就緒。至於驗證預測能力，我們在網站上有白皮書，實際分析 FICO 10T 相對於 Vantage，並提供對違約風險與提前清償風險（prepayment risk）以及差異的洞見。我們能讓多 5% 的借款人符合資格。

I mean there's a lot to see there. That's already been done. But then if you don't believe FICO because it's self-serving, I'd encourage you to look to third-party analyses as they come out because I'm sure they will. And you're going to see a lot of analytic work around this topic in the coming weeks and months.

我是說，那裡面有很多內容可看，而且那些工作已經做過了。但如果你不相信 FICO，因為你覺得那是自利的，我會建議你去看第三方的分析，等它們陸續出來，因為我確定會有。接下來幾週到幾個月，你會看到很多圍繞這個主題的分析工作。

Thank you. Owen Lau, Clear Street.

謝謝。Clear Street 的 Owen Lau。

Thank you for taking my question. So the AI disruption narrative hasn't gone away. Could you please talk about why it's very hard for whatever vantage or a third-party AI platform to come in and create a more predictive credit score which will be adopted by lenders and consumers if they can offer a lower price.

謝謝讓我提問。AI 顛覆的敘事還沒有消失。你能否談談，為什麼不論是 Vantage 或第三方 AI 平台，要進來做出一個更具預測力、且能被放款機構與消費者採用的信用分數非常困難——即使他們能提供更低的價格？

Thanks.

謝謝。

Okay. So there are two different things there. One is AI versus the current credit scoring system. And the second is within that more predictive. So first, I would say, with respect to AI displacing the FICO score, we have a really well-defined body of law fair lending laws, which are designed to protect consumers to ensure that there's not discrimination, ensure that consumers are treated fairly.

好。這裡其實有兩件不同的事。第一是 AI 相對於現行的信用評分系統。第二是在這個框架下，所謂「更具預測力」。首先，我會說，就 AI 取代 FICO 分數而言，我們有一套非常明確的法律體系——公平放貸法（fair lending laws），其目的在於保護消費者，確保不會有歧視，確保消費者受到公平對待。

And that requires compliance with all kinds of things that our scores take into account. I mean just one small example would be red lining, which is not allowed in the United States. Is it a predictive factor? Yes, it's predictive back here, but it's not allowed.

而這要求遵循各式各樣的規範，而我們的分數會把這些納入考量。我是說，舉一個小例子就是「紅線劃區」（red lining），在美國是不被允許的。它是預測因子嗎？是的，它在歷史上具有預測性，但它不被允許。

And so you can't use red lining as a factor in a credit score. Well, AI doesn't -- AI would find 100 other ways to get to the same result. And so the regulators are not going to be comfortable with AI making underwriting decisions when they're not explainable when it's a black box when they can't demonstrate that discrimination is not occurring.

因此你不能把紅線劃區當作信用分數的因子。但 AI 不會——AI 會找到 100 種其他方式得到同樣的結果。所以監管機關不會對 AI 在無法解釋、是黑箱、且無法證明沒有發生歧視的情況下做出核貸決策感到安心。

So that's kind of the core problem with using AI and underwriting. I mean, AI is great in a lot of things, but using it in underwriting, the biggest play is that it's going to get around the rules and escalations of the fair lending laws.

所以這就是在核貸中使用 AI 的核心問題。我是說，AI 在很多事情上很棒，但用在核貸上，最大的風險在於它會繞過公平放貸法的規則與限制。

Now, you're probably aware that FICO scores carry with them 32 recent coast. So when consumers turn down for credit, they get a letter and -- or the line is not increased on the request or whatever they get a letter, the letter says, here's why. And that reaches into the FICO score and the recent codes and those recent codes are shared with the consumer.

另外，你可能知道 FICO 分數會附帶 32 個近期原因代碼（reason codes）。所以當消費者被拒絕授信時，他們會收到一封信——或者額度沒有依其申請而提高之類的，他們會收到一封信，信上會寫：原因是什麼。那會對應到 FICO 分數及其原因代碼，而這些原因代碼會提供給消費者。

And so there's a level of comfort with the regulators and with the consumer that they understand what's going on. I would also point out that the experiment with AI in some of the black box underwriting that was undertaken several years ago by upstart ended with the CFPB shutting it down.

因此監管機關與消費者會有一種安心感，因為他們理解發生了什麼。我也要指出，幾年前 Upstart 在某些黑箱核貸上做的 AI 實驗，最後是以 CFPB 介入叫停而告終。

So I think there's some real challenges, not that it will be this way forever. And we are prepared for the day when AI is appropriate in underwriting. We have patents in the area of explainability and ethical AI. And so I think we're in an advantaged position, but I would not hold my breath. I think that's going to take a long time.

所以我認為這裡有一些真正的挑戰——不是說永遠都會如此。而且我們也為 AI 適合用於核貸的那一天做好準備。我們在可解釋性（explainability）與倫理 AI（ethical AI）領域有專利。所以我認為我們處於有利位置，但我不會屏息以待。我認為那會需要很長時間。

And then on predictiveness of the score, I would tell you that our latest and greatest score is more predictive than Vantage and frankly, more predictive than any other score out there. The only asterisk I would put on that is there are lenders who build proprietary scores on top FICO and they leverage their first-party data.

至於分數的預測能力，我會告訴你，我們最新、最強的分數比 Vantage 更具預測力，坦白說，也比市面上任何其他分數更具預測力。唯一我會加註的但書是，有些放款機構會在 FICO 之上建立自有的專屬分數，並運用他們的第一方資料。

And so they have incremental data and they get incremental signal out of that. And so there are some proprietary scores that are really excellent that are most typically developed on top of FICO.

因此他們有增量資料，並從中取得增量訊號。因此有一些專有評分非常出色，通常是在 FICO 之上開發出來的。

Got it. And then maybe quickly on LLPA, -- have you heard of any of these 21 lenders received the updated LLPA grid from FHFA for the pilot? And do you have any expectation that when the new grid will be made public?

了解。那再快速問一下 LLPA——你有聽說這 21 家放款機構中有任何一家已從 FHFA 收到用於試點的更新版 LLPA 費率網格嗎？你是否預期新的網格何時會對外公開？

Thanks.

謝謝。

No idea. I have heard nothing, I encourage you guys to keep asking the questions, what's going on there? I think it's a manual process.

不知道。我什麼都沒聽到；我鼓勵你們繼續追問，那邊到底怎麼回事？我認為那是一個人工流程。

Scott Wurtzel, Wolfe Research

Scott Wurtzel，Wolfe Research

Hey, good afternoon, guys. Just on the guidance, I understand you're still being -- it seems like being conservative on your assumptions regarding volume. Just wondering if there had been any sort of change to your volume assumptions after the last quarter end?

嗨，各位下午好。關於指引，我理解你們在對量的假設上似乎仍然——看起來相當保守。想請問在上季季末之後，你們對量的假設是否有任何變化？

Not really. I mean, again, we tend to be pretty conservative because, obviously, there's a lot happening in the world. And if we get that number wrong, difficult to make that up someplace else, but not really. I think we had a better second quarter volume-wise than we had anticipated when we gave guidance. But we don't necessarily think that's going to continue. So we tend to take the same conservative approach for the rest of the year.

沒有太大變化。我的意思是，再次強調，我們往往相當保守，因為顯然世界上正在發生很多事情。而且如果我們把那個數字估錯了，很難在其他地方把缺口補回來；但基本上沒有。我想我們第二季在量方面比我們給出指引時預期的要好。但我們不一定認為這會持續下去。所以我們對今年剩餘時間仍採取同樣保守的做法。

Got it. And then just on the buyback, I mean the number $600 million in the quarter was great to see along with the incremental buyback this quarter. Just wondering, I mean, how aggressive do you think or would you guys be with the stock at these current levels and given the capacity that you have?

了解。那再談回購，我是說本季 6 億美元的回購金額很高興看到，加上本季額外的回購。想請問，在目前股價水準以及你們可用的回購能力之下，你們覺得會有多積極？

What I can say is what we've said in the past. We're always interested in share repurchase, and we're in the market kind of all the time. And we tend not to be market timers, although we have mean in much more heavily on an opportunistic basis. I would certainly consider our stock at these levels to be an opportunistic time.

我能說的是我們過去一直說的：我們一直對股票回購有興趣，而且我們幾乎一直都在市場上。我們通常不會去抓時點，雖然我們確實更偏向以機會性方式加大力度。我會認為以目前這個價位，我們的股票確實屬於一個機會性的時點。

Thank you. Kevin McVeigh, UBS.

謝謝。Kevin McVeigh，UBS。

Great. Thanks so much. I wonder if you had any thoughts on, given the current shift in the regulatory environment, do you feel like that's pretty much contained at this point? Or is there anything else you're kind of focused on as we think about whether it's FHFA or other parts, do you kind of continue to manage to from a regulatory perspective?

很好，謝謝。我想問的是，考量目前監管環境的轉變，你覺得這在此刻大致已經可控了嗎？或者當我們思考不論是 FHFA 或其他部門時，還有沒有什麼你們仍在關注、並從監管角度持續管理的事項？

You know what? The mortgage market is $13 trillion market, and everyone takes it pretty seriously and no one wants to do things that are reckless there. And so everything that happens in that market, you see coming a mile away. And I think that's kind of where we are. I think we know everything there is to know about the way this is unfolding for now. And so no, I don't really see being blindsided by regulatory or other kinds of things in the market.

你知道嗎？房貸市場是一個 13 兆美元的市場，大家都非常認真看待，沒有人想在那裡做出魯莽的事情。因此那個市場裡發生的每件事，你都能很早就看得出來。我想我們現在就是這樣的狀態。我認為就目前而言，我們已經知道這件事展開的所有資訊。所以不，我不太認為會被監管或市場上的其他事情打個措手不及。

I think we understand how the market is evolving. We understand what the choices are for evaluating credit in the one market. Things will change if the GSEs get out? I mean anybody's guess when and if that happens and will things change. We actually don't think they'll change oat.

我想我們理解市場如何演變。我們也理解在這個市場中評估信用的選項有哪些。如果 GSE 退出會改變嗎？我的意思是，何時、是否會發生，誰也說不準；如果發生，事情是否會改變。我們其實不認為它們會改變太多。

We think that in in a world where the GSEs are private or if they were to lose the guarantee, the emphasis on credit default risk would go up, the interest in credit default risk goes up, and that's advantage FICO because we have the best score for evaluating that. But again, these are more theoretical and down the road kind of things. I don't think there's any surprises ahead.

我們認為在一個 GSE 私有化、或如果它們失去擔保的世界裡，對信用違約風險的重視程度會提高，對信用違約風險的關注也會上升，而這對 FICO 有利，因為我們有評估該風險的最佳分數。但同樣地，這些比較偏理論、也更偏長期。我不認為前方會有任何意外。

Thank you. Curtis Nagle, Bank of America.

謝謝。Curtis Nagle，美國銀行。

Great. Thanks. Most of my questions been taken, but just maybe Well, I guess any fat or detail you could provide in terms of the uptake of 10T within the nonconforming market at this point mortgages?

很好，謝謝。我的問題大多已被問過了，但也許——嗯，我想問你是否能提供一些資訊或細節，關於 10T 在目前非合規房貸市場中的採用情況？

Yeah. I don't have an updated number for you, but it's -- we have underwritten brilliance. Yes. Most of them are running in parallel with plastics because they want to be able to use the latest score and so they run them in parallel with each other. I think the number is $1.2 trillion.

可以。我沒有最新的數字可以給你，但——我們已經承作得很出色。是的，他們大多是與 plastics 並行運行，因為他們希望能使用最新的分數，所以會讓兩者彼此並行。我想那個數字是 1.2 兆美元。

Got it. Any running --

了解。任何並行運行——

I think the number is $1.2 trillion, the latest number.

我想最新的數字是 1.2 兆美元。

Thank you. Sean Kennedy, Mizuho.

謝謝。Sean Kennedy，瑞穗。

Hi, good evening. Thanks for taking my questions. So with Vantage score, I was wondering if you could discuss a bit more about potential adverse selection, how lenders could pull both scores in the beginning of a process that could pick one or the other for the remaining initial result and the implications there for the mortgage market?

嗨，晚安。謝謝回答我的問題。關於 VantageScore，我想請你再多談一點潛在的逆向選擇：放款機構在流程一開始可能同時拉取兩個分數，然後在後續初始結果中選擇其中一個，這對房貸市場可能造成的影響是什麼？

Yeah, it's a good question. I think -- and of course, we don't know how this is going to unfold. I mean it's really in the interest of the GSEs and the FHFA to prevent gaming to not have a gaming situation. That said, in the two score system, it's almost inevitable. It's kind of structural that one score or the other is going to be more beneficial to the consumer at all times.

是的，這是個好問題。我想——當然，我們也不知道這會如何發展。我的意思是，GSE 與 FHFA 的利益在於防止被「鑽漏洞」，避免出現可被操弄的情況。話雖如此，在雙分數制度下，幾乎不可避免；從結構上來說，某一個分數在任何時點都會對消費者更有利。

And so in a world where the systems are in place to use both scores and barring other unforeseen things, there will be some people who pull both scores. And so it may unfold that way. I think to the extent that, that happens, that's not -- I mean, it is technically share loss for FICO, but it's not volume loss.

因此在一個系統已建置、可以同時使用兩個分數的世界裡，且不考慮其他不可預見的因素，確實會有一些人同時拉取兩個分數。所以它可能就會那樣發展。我認為在那種情況下，這並不是——我的意思是，技術上對 FICO 來說是市占流失，但不是量的流失。

What you're really doing is expanding the market by the second full. And so it's conceivable advantage could get some share that way if they don't solve the gaming problem. But I don't -- again, I don't see volume loss for FICO.

你真正做的是透過第二個分數把市場擴大。因此如果他們沒有解決被操弄的問題，Vantage 可能會以這種方式拿到一些市占，這是可以想像的。但我——再次強調，我不認為 FICO 會出現量的流失。

Great. And then I was also wondering just with the auto in card loan growth. If you saw any volume weakness later in the corner -- and if you're asking any consumer weakness there?

很好。另外我也想問，關於汽車與信用卡貸款成長：你是否在本季後段看到任何量的疲弱——以及你是否看到那裡有任何消費者疲弱的跡象？

Yeah. I mean auto tends to be pretty stable unless there's like a really disruption in the economy. A lot of the volume on the card side is really the banks that are marketing. And if they want to market more, they'll find consumers that will take it off. So and that can vary quarter-to-quarter.

是的。我的意思是，汽車端通常相當穩定，除非經濟出現非常大的擾動。信用卡端的量很大一部分其實取決於銀行的行銷；如果他們想多做行銷，他們就會找到願意接受的消費者。所以這可能會在季度之間波動。

But so far, we haven't really seen any significant weakness on the volumes. They've actually been pretty good. There's been a little bit of a falloff in the subprime but it's been picked up throughout the rest the prime and super prime. So we haven't really seen it.

但到目前為止，我們並沒有看到量有任何顯著疲弱；實際上表現相當不錯。次級市場有一點回落，但其餘的優質與超優質客群把它補上了。所以我們並沒有真的看到疲弱。

Thank you. This does conclude today's question-and-answer session. Ladies and gentlemen, this also does conclude today's conference call. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.

謝謝。今天的問答環節到此結束。各位女士、先生，今天的電話會議也到此結束。感謝各位參與，現在可以掛線。

Everyone, have a great day

各位，祝大家有美好的一天。