SLM Corp (SLM) 2016 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good morning. My name is Brent and I will be your conference operator today. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the Sallie Mae fourth-quarter 2016 earnings conference call.

(Operator Instructions)

I would now like to turn the call over to Brian Cronin, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Good morning and welcome to Sallie Mae's fourth-quarter 2016 earnings call. With me today is Ray Quinlan, our CEO, and Steve McGarry, our CFO. After the prepared remarks will open up the call for questions.

Before we begin, keep in mind our discussions will contain predictions, expectations and forward-looking statements. Actual results in the future may be materially different from those discussed here. This could be due to a variety of factors. Listeners should refer to the discussion of those factors on the Company's Form 10-Q and other filings with the SEC.

During this conference call we will refer to non-GAAP measures we call our core earnings. A description of core earnings, a full reconciliation to GAAP measures and our GAAP results can be found in the earnings supplement for the quarter ended December 31, 2016. This is posted along with the earnings press release on the Investors page SallieMae.com.

Thank you. I now turn the call over to Ray.

Thanks, Brian, and good morning to everyone and thank you for attending our session. The fourth-quarter results are part of a full trajectory for our Company, and they are on that trajectory which is quite satisfying. So let me just pick out a few numbers as we go through this. Steve also has some review for the quarter as well as for the year. We will talk about the outlook and then we'll entertain questions.

As we would click down the profile of the franchise, our volume is strong, it's 8%. We did hit our goal of $4.7 billion in new originations for the year. Secondarily, volume is always an indicator that needs to be appended with quality indicators, and our credit quality was 90% cosigner rate and average FICO 748 is consistent and consistently high.

The NIM, which comes off the yield minus our cost of funds, naturally, is 5.55%, up seven basis points from the fourth quarter of 2015 and at 5.68% for all of 2016, is of course a very attractive number and also in line with our guidance. Our yields on the portfolio at over 8% continued to be both steady as well as gratifying.

In regard to our operating efficiency and expense management, as I said, on the trajectory. We are at 51% efficiency ratio in 2014, 47% in 2015, 40% in 2016 and, as you can see from the guidance, we will go under 40% in 2017. Credit performance also continues to be on model with our net charge off rate for 2016 under 1% at 0.95% or 95 basis points.

As these assets, which are high quality accumulate on the balance sheet, it has an ongoing both revenue stream as well as a servicing stream for us. As you all know, we had no asset sales in 2016 although we had started 2016 with the announcement that we would start that. That has in fact worked out fabulously well, and our prior student loan portfolio at $14.3 billion on the books is up 35% as balance sheet growth for the year is also very good. It is at 21.8%.

So the revenue producing assets within the balance sheet continue to be a higher proportion and the balance sheet continues to be on a trajectory of being ever more efficient. As we net all these out to EPS, the $0.53 that we had in 2016 is also a gratifying number. Compared to 2015, the 2015 EPS number at $0.59 of course had in it $0.20 of EPS associated with asset sales during that period.

Stripping those out and taking the $0.53 in 2016 in comparison to the ongoing EPS associated with the business in 2015 adds $0.39, we have a 36% increase in ongoing EPS. Our ROE also remains high at over 14%. A backdrop to these results are our relationships with our key regulators. The CFPB, the FDIC and Utah Department of Financial Institutions.

In all three cases we have excellent relationships with our regulators. We're getting good reports. They note are continuous improvement and we are gratified by that. It has also allowed us to have these results, which I am articulating.

Our guidance going forward reflects that same trajectory. EPS guidance at $0.67 to $0.69, if we were to hit $0.68 for the EPS for the year, 2017 versus 2016, would be up over 28%.

Originations are continuing to grow, approximately 5%. We are targeting $4.9 billion. The efficiency ratio as I said from that 51% in 2014, down through the 40%s in 2015 and 2016, will be in the high 30%s, 38%, 39% in 2017.

Some backdrop comments. One is the focus of our franchise is entirely on our customer satisfaction and customer experience. We have had great strides in improving those and it shows up in our customer satisfaction results as well as the lowering of our operating costs associated with fixing things that were mistakes.

And so we continue to improve in that, that will be a journey that never ends and it is our focus and it is the rock on which this franchise is built. There is a case that we continue to improve that both in service as well as in functionality. So the launching of the new Sallie Mae website, the improvement of our mobile app and the ability to actually make your payments on Apple Watch, if any of you are interested, are all signs of our continuing to modernize the Company, to view the competition as the best in the industry and to have as an objective to better them.

In regard to politics, the budget stories, of course we have a new administration being inaugurated tomorrow, lots of talk out there. We are watching things carefully. We will see what happens.

As you all saw, there were some lawsuits filed yesterday in regard to Navient and some servicing issues. We are, as you all know from many of our disclosures over the course of the last 2 3/4 years, not involved in that.

And so as we move on to next year, and we look and try and evaluate and learn from what has happened in 2016, we're gratified it is another good quarter. The results are right on our model so these are not one time event but continuous. We have balanced, good results in all areas.

Our marketplace performance continues to be very good. We continue to be growing faster than the market. Our risk management is consistent and at a very good level.

As I said, with a yield on our portfolio of 8% and a write-off rate of under 1%. We obviously are doing a risk reward trade-off that's quite helpful. The customer experience is both good as well as continuing to improve.

The mix of our funding and yield, as you saw with the 5.68% NIM, continues to be the best -- among the best in the industry, I should say. Expense management, I noted, and we have as an ongoing mantra, continuous improvement. We're blessed with a strong team, good franchise, terrific customers, and as we said before, thank you all for listening to us for a little bit and I will turn things over to Steve.

Thank you very much, Ray. Good morning, everybody. As we commented, I will drill down into a little bit of additional detail on the quarter to help you with your modeling and understanding of what's going on here at the Company and please bear with me if I repeat some of the numbers that Ray has already reported to you.

So net interest income for the fourth quarter was $245 million, $22 million or 10% higher than Q3, and $58 million, or 31% higher than the prior year quarter. The increase from the prior year is driven by growth in our private education loan portfolio. So they increased both the quarter and the prior year grew from our portfolio.

Talk about NIM. The bank's net interest margin on interest in earning assets was 5.55% in the fourth quarter, compared with 5.58% in the prior quarter and 5.48% in the year ago quarter. For the full year, our NIM came in at 5.68%, up from 5.49% in 2015.

The improvement year-over-year is due to the increase in our private student loans as a percentage of the total portfolio. In 2017, we expect the bank's NIM to be very similar to 2016 and demonstrate the same seasonal patterns as well as being very close to the numbers that we saw in 2016. The average yield on our private student loan portfolio in the fourth quarter came in at 8.08% compared with 8% in Q3 and 7.84% in the year-ago quarter.

The increase in both periods was driven primarily by changes in one month LIBOR. The story with our cost of funds is very similar. Cost of funds was 1.4%, flat to the prior quarter and up 22 basis points from the year-ago quarter, which was almost entirely driven by changes in LIBOR over the course of the year.

In 2017, we will continue to execute our funding strategy where we rely on the bank deposit markets for the majority of our funding and access the ABS market opportunistically to diversify and liabilities and extend the duration of our funding book. Right now as we sit here today, the deposit market and the ABS market are currently showing very favorable conditions from a cost of funds perspective and we hope that, that remains the case over course of 2017. Non-interest income for the quarter totaled $13 million, compared with $22 million in the prior quarter and $72 million in the year-ago quarter.

Quite a bit of noise in these numbers. The fourth quarter number is more representative of the fee income this Company will continue to generate. As a reminder, the Q3 fee income included a $9 million increase in other operating income which was related to indemnification for uncertain tax positions, and the prior-year quarter included our final loan sale.

Speaking of taxes, looking at our effective tax rate, in the fourth quarter it came in at 38%, relatively unchanged from the 37.9% in the year ago quarter. The full-year tax rate came in at 39.6%, compared to 37.5%. The increase was the result of an increase in providing for uncertain tax positions. Looking to 2017, barring any major changes, we expect our tax rate for the full year to come in and around 39%.

Let's talk about operating expenses. They came in at $98 million for the quarter, compared with $100 million in the prior quarter and $85 million in the year-ago quarter. We expect Q4 expenses to decline from Q3 as we decrease our marketing expenses at the end of our peak selling season.

The change from the prior year was up 15%. This was driven by a number of factors, starting with a 19% increase in customer accounts and 25% increase in accounts in repayment. But there is a little bit more going on here. Nearly 2% of the 15% increase is attributable to an increase in FDIC fees. This is a line that we recently separated on our income statement to give a little bit more color on what's going on here.

FDIC fees grew 34% in 2016, and they are expected to actually grow more than 50% in 2017. This is a good thing, obviously. It reflects the growth in the Company and the portfolio.

Another 2% of the 15% increase is driven by what I would classify as non-run rate accounting and legal fees -- legal-related professional fees primarily associated with the situation that we had in the prior quarter with gross [up for our] uncertain tax positions. Finally, an additional 2% is attributable to the year-end incentive payments, basically reflecting the fact that the Company exceeded its corporate goals. Still with this 15% increase, fourth-quarter non-GAAP operating efficiency ratio declined to 38.6% from 42.5% in the prior year.

Total OpEx for 2016 was $386 million compared with $356 million in 2015. The 2015 year included $5 million in reorganization expenses. If you exclude that, our OpEx was up 10% over the prior year, which we think is a very solid result given the significant increase in the portfolio and accounts being service.

The non-GAAP, Ray talked about this already but worth repeating, our efficiency ratio declined to 40.2% from 46.8%, a nice 14% improvement. Ray did give guidance for continued declines in our efficiency ratio over the course of 2017. They will slow down a bit, but we will continue to benefit from the operating leverage that we have at the Company. We are nearly -- well actually in excess of 60% of our expenses are coming in at a fixed basis.

Wrapping up the discussion here, talk about capital. The bank remains very well capitalized. We ended the year at a 13.8% total risk-based capital ratio, well in excess of the 10% required to be considered well capitalized. We will be taking down our target total risk-based capital ratio to 12% from the 13% that we've been talking about.

Our DFAST exercise was demonstrated, but this is a sufficient capital level for our high quality asset even in periods of significant economic stress. We still have ample capital to handle the expected growth over the next couple of years. In fact, despite the fact that we are now targeting 12%, we will probably end the year of 2017 closer to 13% total risk-based capital than 12%, and that does not even include capital that we have at the holding company, which is an additional source of strength for the bank.

Ray talked about originations. The quarter was very solid at $608 million. Originations up 6% and, of course, the full year came in at 8%.

A little bit more detail on credit performance. Loans delinquent 30 days-plus were 2.1%, relatively flat to Q3, and the 2.2% in the year-ago quarter. Loans in forbearance, as anticipated, increased to 3.5% from 3% as our November, December repay wave took place. And the 3.5% is relatively unchanged from the 3.4% in the prior year.

These statistics remains strong and reflect the high quality of our portfolio, as do our default stats. So Ray mentioned already but worth repeating that net charge offs for 2016 came in at 9.95%, up from 0.91% in Q3 -- I'm sorry, Q4 number 0.95%, up from 0.9% in Q3, but down from 1.1% in the year ago quarter.

And we do like to share with you charge offs measured as a percentage of our loans in full P&I. They came in at 2.08% in the quarter, compared with 2.07% in Q3, but they exhibited a big improvement from Q4 2015 when defaults were 2.43% of loans in full P&I.

Ending loans in full P&I totaled $5.1 billion, and this includes the $1.6 billion of loans that entered full P&I in the quarter. And associated with this increase in loans going into full P&I, some analysts have noted, as did we, that -- we saw a pop of loans being consolidated to third parties. This is something that obviously we watch very closely here at the Company and we certainly are not alarmed in the pattern.

We do see a typical pop in the fourth quarter. And I would note that consolidations is very much an interest rate gain and using a three-year swap rate as an example, we have seen that increase from 1% in Q3 on average to 1.50% in Q4 on average. And it's up around 1.70% now as we start 2017.

I think that, that should curtail some of the consolidation activities that we have been seeing while we will certainly continue to pay close attention to that. Again, it is anticipated behavior and it is that kind of activity, certain models in our 2017 numbers.

Wrapping up the discussion here, provision for private education loans was $43 million in the quarter compared with $29 million in the year-ago quarter. For the full year we came in at $160 million, compared with $87 million in 2015, obviously supporting a much larger portfolio.

We ended the allowance -- we ended the year with a very solid allowance of 1.28% of total loans and 1.88% of loans in repayment. Our coverage is a very significant 2.3 times charge offs, and I will just point out that as our portfolio grows and seasons, we will see a little bit of additional growth in our allowance measures in all the different ways that I just reported.

Finally, ROA for the quarter was 1.6%, compared with 1.3% in Q3 and 2.5% in the year ago quarter. Return on common equity came in at 15.4%, compared to 12.2% in the prior quarter and 22.5% in the year-ago quarter. We expect our ROA and ROE to continue to increase in 2017 as we grow earnings and continue to use capital more efficiently.

Okay. That concludes my prepared remarks, and we look forward to taking your questions.

(Operator Instructions)

Michael Tarkan, Compass Point.

Thank you for taking my questions. Just a question on the competitive landscape a bit. I know it's a sort of seasonally low quarter but we did notice your largest competitor had a pretty substantial decline in origination volume. You guys obviously grew. I'm just wondering if you're seeing any disruption out there from competitors? Thanks.

In regard to the competitive frame, as you know over the last three years we have improved our position in the marketplace across the whole country. And during that period of time we've had some new entrants into the business, we've had some other competitors that are not quite as aggressive as they were.

The competitor that you are mentioning is a large, capable organization. We have tremendous respect for them, both in the power their distribution system as well as in their capability as a competitor and we have seen some evidence that the information associated with that situation is, in many people's minds who are customers and schools, but we don't see any major disruption.

Thanks, and then just a follow up on that one. So the $4.9 billion, just wondering if you think there's any kind of conservatism in there from looking at where the ten year is today, it looks like federal student loan rates are going to go up substantially next year. I'm just wondering if you think there will be some pickup from that or just anything else you're seeing out there?

We think that there is a reasonable amount of uncertainty in the business. There's also a reasonable amount of momentum and on balance we are very comfortable with the 4.9%.

Fair enough. And then lastly, we're hearing a lot around the federal government potentially curtailing some graduate school funding. I'm just wondering -- any kind of sense for what percentage of your existing volume currently comes from grad students? And then maybe an estimate for how much -- what percentage of current federal graduate school funding you think would be credit worthy that would meet your credit standards? Thanks.

In this case that the federal program that is extant today is a very attractive program for the borrowers. And so as a result, for all these student lenders who are private, graduate lending is not a high proportion of their overall franchises.

Were the rules to change in that arena, we certainly would evaluate that both carefully as well as quickly, and at that time there may be in opening for more volume. But because of the unlimited nature of the funding available in that sector, very few of the privates have been able to be competitive with the federal offer.

Is there a certain percentage that you can sort of frame for us that would sort of meet your underwriting standards? I'm just curious if we do see some curtailment, how to frame that potential opportunity.

As we have looked at a bunch of the conversations that have taken place mostly casually or in the press in DC, I think that you could say that if there were to be some sort of limit placed on a couple of the PLUS programs, in such a way that the government was still there to provide access and to help economically disadvantaged people, that approximate 50% of whatever would come out of that would be a reasonable target for private.

Thank you very much.

Arren Cyganovich, D.A. Davidson.

Thanks. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the net interest margin expectations for next year? I think you said roughly flat and whether or not there should be any benefit from additional rate hikes and how many rate hikes you have assumed in your model for next year?

Sure, Arren. So when we model out the cost of funds for future periods, we basically operate on the assumption that we are going to have a beta on our retail deposit, so 85% to the extent that the increase in our cost of funds lags the market, there's certainly some room for improvement. The rest of our book of business is for the most part pretty much tied to LIBOR and should basically match any increases in market rates. But we have a significant -- actually we model our expected rate -- LIBOR increase was based on the swap terms, so whatever you see in the market is you have in our 2017 plan.

Okay, thank you. And then in terms of credit quality, could you remind us of what your expectations are for net charge offs over the next year and how the provision growth may move with that? I suppose having -- I don't know if you laid out the amount of loans that will be entering full P&I and the timing of that for 2017.

Sure you know what, I don't want to give you any specific provision guidance but I will give you a couple of guide posts here. So the good news on credit is that she is steady as she goes. So we saw 1% and 2% charge offs this year, loans in repayment and in full P&I.

We pretty much expect to match those numbers in 2017. The provision grew -- I'm sorry, the loan loss allowance grew from, I think it was 1.1% to 1.28%, 1.3% from 2016 to 2017. We would expect to see growth in that loan loss allowance, so it could get up to maybe 1.4% of our total balances over the course of 2017.

We do not expect any major increases in charge offs for the provision over the course of the year. It will pretty much track growth in that book of business.

And then do you have the timing of the loans entering full P&I?

You know what? I do have that handy. We would expect P&I to increase to basically be pretty steady over the first three quarters, get up to about 5.2% by Q3 but then jump to 6.5% in the fourth quarter.

Okay --

Repay wave of $750 [million] in May/June and then a repay wave of basically 1.7[%] in the fourth quarter.

Great, thank you.

Moshe Orenbuch, Credit Suisse.

Great. Thanks. Thanks for taking my question. So first of all, Ray, could you maybe give us an update on the Parent Loan and your plans for that in 2017?

Sure. The Parent Loan, as you know, we launched in April of 2016. We did after extensive consultation with many of our customers at schools. It turned out to be very successful. It is on the recommended list at all the schools, I believe, that have a recommended list for Parent, which I think is a number around 300 or so.

It worked out to be about 2.5% of our incoming applications. The profiles resulted in a little bit higher ticket.

So it's a successful launch, creating some excitement in the marketplace, giving us a reason for having helpful conversations with our targeted audiences and customers. It was very good. We expect to build on that as we go into 2017 and it becomes part of the dashboard.

Great, thanks. And just on the efficiency ratio guidance, given that you did 38.6% in the fourth quarter, that is basically where your guidance is for the full-year 2017 and you are probably going to have near, if not, 20% revenue growth. So I guess -- and then coupling that with the fact that your guidance for this past year was a couple of -- three percentage points higher than where you actually ended up so how should we think about that guidance? Is there something else going on that we should -- that we need to be aware of?

There is seasonality motion in our efficiency ratio, so it's going to increase and then decrease again. Q3, third quarter, it's a lot higher than it is in the fourth quarter, for example, so there is seasonality. We do tend to look at it for the full year and it came in at 40.2%. We expect it to go down to 38.5%. We saw some big improvements in operating efficiency in 2016 associated with the investments that we made in 2015, so things like call volumes and call handle times declined substantially.

We don't expect that to happen again in 2017. Basically we have achieved a lot of our, obviously, scale efficiencies, but there is some room to continue to improve. We think here that a 5% improvement in our efficiency ratio is pretty darn good, all things being equal, as we continue to grow our account service in the 20%-ish plus range.

Got it. Lastly, maybe just a little bit more detail on the funding plan over the course of the next year? I mean, I think you've done a really good job diversifying the funding, you talked a little bit about the ABS. How does that compare now in terms of attractiveness?

Our overall spreads on ABS transactions have dropped substantially from, call it, 1.5% to 1.1%. We are planning to do $1.5 billion of term ABS in 2017. We will be teeing up a deal very shortly because spreads are pretty attractive.

They are around the one spreads are pretty attractive. They are around the 1.10% level. We will so more if the market is cooperating.

But we also will grow our retail deposit base by in excess of $1 trillion and we will continue to source additional core and broker deposits. We talked a lot about the fact that we have been tapping 529 providers and [out] service account providers, which we consider to be core-like deposits and we will continue to access those. Over the course of the year, obviously, we do a lot of term funding. I think our funding needs are in the $4.5 billion to $5 billion zip code for 2017.

Thanks very much.

You're welcome.

Sanjay Sakhrani, KBW.

Thanks, good morning. I guess maybe just some follow-ups to previous questions. The first one is, when I look at your growth for last year and originations versus the industry, how did you track relative to the industry?

So, Sanjay, we think that in 2016 we grew a little bit, a hair faster than the overall industry, so we picked up a very modest amount of market share, maybe a fraction of a percent.

I guess maybe to a previous question, when we think about that 2% growth in originations that you guys are anticipating, you are anticipating the industry growth to slow a bit?

Well just to be clear, $4.9 billion from $4.66 billion is 5% growth. So we look at enrollment and tuition inflation trends and they continue to be fairly low and stable so we think we will grow with a slightly higher than the overall marketplace. And certainly we are turning over every rock and looking in every corner to continue to grow our presence in the private market.

Okay. Fair enough. And then I guess I've got a couple questions just on the opportunity, either competitively or politically, as of those present themselves. When we think about expenses, associated expenses to the extent that opportunities present themselves, have you incorporated that in your efficiency ratio targets?

And then secondly, when we think about capital, I know, Steve, you talked about diluting that ratio with the risk-based capital ratio over time, do you feel like you have the capacity in terms of our capital to grow into that number or would you need to supplement it with other sources? Thanks.

Sure. So taking the OpEx first, our OpEx and efficiency ratio does not take into account any new programs that might come along over the course of the year as the political situation unfolds. We certainly have been having meetings and discussions internally and figuring out what we would need to do in the event that something did come along. The expenses that I have discussed with my IP department and marketing people, for example, are not extraordinary. If something did happen, our efficiency ratio in 2017 would be hurt, but I think we all would agree on this call that, that would be an investment well worth making.

If something happened that would all of a sudden increase the market that we play in from $9 billion to $14 billion, as an example, and our market share was even close to being retained, I think that we would probably be in a position where we would need additional capital and I think that our investors would be more than happy to provide it, should that outcome or opportunity present itself.

And as far as your existing capital base, is there any estimation that -- how much incremental you could do? Or maybe a targeted range that you might be able to take that capital ratio to in a scenario where that were to present itself, without raising capital?

So look, you could do the math as easy as I could. I don't want to speculate on the call as to how much additional volume we could do in 2017 or 2018. We do certainly have ample capital to continue to grow our business 5% to 10% a year for the next three years.

In fact, when we look out at our capital plan, all things being equal, we actually start to generate additional excess capital, call it 2.5 years to 3 years from now. So we're in great shape from a current business perspective right now.

All right. Perfect. And one final question, just that Parent Loan product, do we know how large it is today as a percentage of your total loans?

It's quite small. And so, I would say it's in that 1% range right now.

Got it. All right. Thank you very much.

(Operator Instructions)

Mark DeVries, Barclays.

Thanks. Just had another follow-up question on efficiency ratio. As we think out longer term, can you just help us understand the dynamics in terms of the incremental fixed versus variable cost as you grow your portfolio? Just grow your portfolio the size of the same market share and then alternatively if you actually, in this scenario, just discussed the market grew in size by 50% and you're having to originate a lot more on an annual basis?

So in terms of the efficiency ratio and fixed versus variable cost, we basically model out our base operating expenses to run in the low 60%s, high 30%s, fixed variable. And that is true for the next couple of years. We believe that we can continue to make efficiency ratio gains and that it can get down into the mid 30%s.

Going lower than that we don't want to make any big promises, but I think we can all agree that a 35% efficiency ratio is pretty darn good for a financial services company. And I am sorry, Mark, I was looking at my statistics page on OpEx when you asked the second part of that question. Could you please repeat it?

Yes. Sure. How might that calculus change in a scenario where you are now -- the market is larger and you're having to originate potentially more on an annual basis?

As you look at that, there's quite a bit of discussion on, I would say, all aspects of our industry going on in DC. So it's very hard to say, oh, this is the likely scenario, and then to do financial modeling from that. I tried to say that if the basic parameters of a loan structure were to be consistent with the private student lending, which is a closed-end installment loan with forbearance and several other characteristics, dispersed to the school in such a way that if incremental volume were to have been related to a change in the federal program, that would be highly leverage-able.

However, simplicity and items coming out of DC frequently we don't go together in the same sentence. And so if things were to be more complex and/or just different, it would be harder to realize that straightforward leverage. So we're looking at what we think are all be reasonable possibilities.

As Steve said, we're doing some internal analytical work under the heading of what's just volume versus what's different. And so the closer any change would be, that would increase volume but keep the parameters the same, you should be able to assume that, that is highly leverage-able as would be a 10% for 15% increase in homogenous volume in the basic product.

Okay, got it. And just one more question. You guys are obviously a pretty full taxpayer. Are there any nuances we should be aware about in your taxes that would prevent you from fully benefiting from lower taxes as proposed under either the house plan or the Trump Administration's plan?

No, Mark. We would get the full benefit if the federal corporate tax rate was to drop from say 35% to 20%. Our earnings for 2017 would go from, call it, $0.68, which I think is the midpoint of our guidance, to, as we calculate it, like $0.90. So we would see a significant cost --

For the full year?

Yes. That's for the year.

Okay, got it. Thanks.

Michael Kaye, Citigroup.

Do you have any thoughts on the possible reauthorization of the Higher Education Act? And do you think -- what do you view as the chances that the Stafford limits could be increased?

As we have looked at that, higher education as you know, is a couple years overdue for its re-upping. And as has been said here several times, there is lots of conversation in DC about changing the federal program, of course the ramifications for the colleges and their funding and for private student loan providers. And so, we think that the way Congress is currently situated from a calendar standpoint, that they will address new and different first, and the HEA will follow on once those parameters are set.

Okay. And what do you think about the Stafford limits? Could that be increased?

We haven't seen or heard of any initiative in regard to that.

Okay. And I just had one quick question for Steve. It's quite small but I was looking at the average balance sheet. It looks like there is a new category, other loans. So wasn't sure what that was? I don't know if you maybe you bought some personal loans this quarter to kind of test the market. Can you just tell me what that is?

So the other loan category pretty much captures the RA investments that we have on the balance sheet, very small portfolio.

Okay. Thank you.

Rick Shane, JPMorgan.

Thanks, guys. You have done a great job answering questions this morning. Just wanted to delve in one last little bit on the efficiency ratio and the fixed expenses. Steve, when loans move into full P&I when you think about them on a per account basis, what sort of increase, percentage-wise, would you expect in terms of servicing costs?

You know what, Rick, that is a great question and I have asked my FP&A department to give me a breakdown of what it costs to service a loan in school versus in repayment versus delinquent. So there is obviously a vast increase in cost of servicing when it goes from in school where you are just pretty much sending out statements to in repayment where you are processing payments and potentially dealing with people on the loan to dealing with a delinquent account.

So the overall cost of servicing an account is somewhere in that $8 level, but to service a loan that is in delinquency you are talking many, many multiples of that $8. If I had to ballpark it, I'm going to say it costs maybe $1 to service a loan that is not in repayment and I don't know, obviously, more towards $8 to service a loan that is in repayment. When FP&A department completes their assignment, I will report out to you. (Multiple Speakers)

Steve, one follow up to that. When you talk about the 60% of expenses be fixed, roughly, is the growth in originations -- when we think about the 40% that is variable, is there a sort of 1 to 1 correlation in terms of growth in originations and then the remainder of variable costs are the increase in servicing as the portfolio grows?

No. It's not going to go up in lock step. Obviously, so that the fixed costs are equipment, facilities, our overhead departments and the core of the management team of the servicing business, our sales force, et cetera.

There's going to be, obviously, marginal hurdles where when we increase our accounts and payment from 1 million to 1.2 million we have to add jobs at a certain point in time. But most of our variables costs are in servicing centers and they are basically people costs. And there are fees that we pay our processors per account that are also variable costs. Ray, did you want to add?

Thank you very much.

Paul Miller, FBR.

Yes, thank you very much. Can you talk a little bit about your asset -- your deposit growth? Your deposit growth grew about $500 million in the quarter. I didn't see the breakout, if it is I apologize, between what was brokered and what was retail?

So in the fourth quarter we brought on some big, chunky, what we consider to be core deposits, basically health savings account deposits. Very good new business that we are doing that comes in at a very advantageous spread to LIBOR.

So you're saying what? These are health savings deposits?

Yes. So we are the recipient of health savings accounts that obviously the big aggregators take in and they look for outlets for the cash, and we are one of the happy recipients of that type of business.

Is that considered a broker deposit or a regular core deposit?

That is considered to be a core deposit.

And so that was the chunk of the deposit growth in the quarter?

Yes. That's right Paul. Technically --

Can you tell -- So of the $6.3 billion, how much of it is health savings deposits?

So we have on our books now about $3 billion of HSA and 529 deposits. And that is a business that we will continue to focus on growing because the funding is very sufficient and, to your point, it is core and not [brokered in] the process. And it does come in on long term agreements. So these are multi-year deposits that we take them.

And then when you talked about earlier in the call about your core deposits, or your retail lag rate hikes by about, you said 85%? Is that what this product does too?

No. This deposit is -- we agreed to a year, a fixed cost that we swap or we agree to pay a spread to LIBOR deposits. The 85 basis point data is on our true retail slash Internet deposits that we raise on SallieMaebank.com, bankrate.com, et cetera.

Okay and that's roughly about $3 billion?

That's correct.

Okay. Guys, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

(Operator Instructions)

John Hecht, Jefferies.

Thanks, guys. Most of my questions have been asked so maybe I will ask a couple obscure ones. I know you guys certainly prefer retaining loans and going to balance sheet and getting all the benefits associated with that. You did mention the spreads in the ABS market have tightened considerably.

I assume that means gain on sale would be also stronger. What threshold would you consider selling and where are we in the context of that right now?

Sure. And we've discussed this over the course of the last year and a half or so. And the numbers, I think, from a notional standpoint are quite straightforward. That is, it's on a pretax basis, we are making roughly 200 basis points on assets for a particular asset that is held on the books.

And if someone were to come along and offer you an 8% also pretax premium associated with that, about four years of earnings starts to sound like something you might consider because it takes all the uncertainty out and you maintain servicing stream anyway. Having said that though, our great preference and our plan is to retain all the accounts and dollars that we originate in perpetuity. And so it is the case that we are not thinking about selling assets at this time.

Okay. And then second question is, there was a couple references to the personal loan product. Maybe you could just give us an update on some of the new products?

Sure. We, as you know, have a private label agreement with Barclays which is helpful to the franchise, although not significant from a financial standpoint. And we are in the process of looking at our own personal loan, which will we expect to pilot at the very end of 2017.

Thanks very much, guys.

Jordan Hymowitz, Philadelphia Financial.

Hey, guys, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

I have a question. I'm just looking at the Wells Fargo balance numbers year-over-year versus yours and they have almost no balance growth year-over-year versus your 35%. So I'm curious how you guys haven't seen more share as a result? Did everybody else make up for that gap and[ enter sales] the same?

Let's first get the metrics down, so when people talk about share what variable they are discussing. And so, when we discuss share and when Wells Fargo thinks about it as well, we're talking about new originations in the field. Whether they hold items on balance sheet or whether they have other assets that were mixed in with those that either ran off or sold, that is a function of internal financial management at each of our competitors.

We have a very clean relationship between the balance build and disbursements, but whatever is on any competitors balance sheet is not in a discussion of market share. We're thinking that the market has $10 billion of new originations, let's just measure everybody's -- everyone share of that, and then how they handle that, that's up to them.

Okay, do you know what the -- their total originations were in the year? I don't think it was disclosed. So there's no --

We don't know that number yet. It tends to come in at a lag. We were at $4.6 billion. I'd say roughly speaking to your ballpark standpoint, we had approximate 15% share, so you might think between 9% and 10%.

So my question, I guess if I could phrase this a different way, were there any other competitors that dramatically increased their presence because, in the absence of that, you would [commute the, a the] market were smaller and your share was bigger, or they lost share to other competitors.

Let's remember, one that -- first off, let me answer your question categorically. There's nothing dramatic that happened in the market place and competitive frame in 2016. Secondarily, in looking at our largest competitor, that competitor, while had it a 6% drop off in new disbursements in the fourth quarter, actually increased disbursements year-on-year, 3% in the third quarter, which as you know is a busy season equivalent to the Christmas rush for retail as people get prepared to pay tuition in September.

And so, it is the case that they increased their originations. The fact that their balances on a balance sheet declined is a function of a series of other variables which we don't necessarily have a clean line of sight on. And so there wasn't any dramatic change.

The market, we believe, did grow at approximately 4% or 5%. We believe that our market share increased marginally, as Steve said before. And that's pretty much the story.

Okay, thank you very much for clarity.

Jordan, one other thing. So the fourth quarter's obviously a very quirky quarter. It comes right after the peak lending season. And I will give you a fact that you might be able to make some interpretation of.

So in Q4, 2015, right? That was a year that we grew 6%. Our originations in the fourth quarter were up 3%. In 2016, the year in which we grew 8%, our originations were actually up a pretty strong 6%. So I guess what I'm saying is, it is very difficult to glean at this point if we're taking market share from anybody, but there might be a hint that, that did in fact occur in the fourth quarter of the year. But I think we've covered that one adequately.

Thank you. We have no further questions in the queue at this time. I'd like to turn the call back over to Mr. Quinlan for any closing remarks.

Okay, thank you. Thank all the attendees for both their attention as well as for the questions. Just to close things out, as we watch the fourth quarter of 2016 fade into history, it was another good quarter. It is important to note that it was not unusual from the standpoint of our financial model and we are right on our long term trajectory.

It is the case that the results are extremely well-balanced. We had good performance in the market, great performance on risk management, we continue to enhance customer experience, our funding and yields are at industry-leading levels. The expense management, as you've see with the efficiency discussion, continues to improve.

And we are on about the business of ongoing continuous improvement and investing in improving the customer experience for both new as well as existing customers. We do have great customers, both in the schools as well as in the students borrowing and their families, we have a great franchise. The EPS continues to grow at extraordinary levels.

We are up 36% on an ongoing basis. In 2016, we'll be up 28% again on top of that in 2017. The efficiency ratio as a backdrop over the course of two or three years has dropped from 51% to the high 30%s.

And we continue to have high ROEs with the 14% being the posted number in 2016, which we expect to maintain as we go into 2017. So it's a pleasure to report these results. We have a terrific team that is delivering them and we expect to continue that momentum into 2017. Thanks for your attention.

Great. Thanks for your time and questions today. A replay of this call and the presentation will be available on the investors page of SallieMae.com.

If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me directly. This concludes today's call.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.