World Acceptance Corp (WRLD) 2014 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Good morning and welcome to the World Acceptance Corporation-Sponsored First Quarter Press Release Conference Call. This call is being recorded. And at this time, all participants have been placed on a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the presentation by the Corporation's CEO and his other officers.

Before we begin, the Corporation requested that I make the following announcement. The comments made during this conference may contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act that represents the Corporation's expectations and beliefs concerning future events. Such forward-looking statements are about matters that are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties.

Statements other than those of historical fact, as well as those identified by the words anticipate, estimate, intend, plan, expect, believe, may, will, and should or any variation of the foregoing and similar expressions are forward-looking statements.

Factors that could cause actual results or performance to differ from the expectations expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements include the factors discussed in today's earnings press release and in the risk factor section of the Corporation's most recent Form 10-K/A and other reports filed with or furnished to the SEC from time-to-time. The Corporation does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements it makes.

At this time, it is my pleasure to turn the floor over to your host, Sandy McLean, CEO.

Thank you, Paula and welcome to our first quarter conference call. As you know we have already released our press release and as part of that release, we have also released a summary of our quarterly results. So, at this point in time, I'd like to open the call up to questions. Paula?

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) And our first question will come from Bob Ramsey, FBR.

Hey, good morning.

Hi, Bob.

The first question I had for you was that it seems that the [will] yields were higher this quarter than they have been and I was just curious if there was anything unusual or any reason for the yields to be sort of up a little bit this quarter?

Well, actually, I think if you look, the yields are pretty much level with the same quarter of last year, but I don't want to necessarily imply that that's the case because as our mix continues to shift towards those larger loan balances, we'd expect to continue to see a decline in yield.

But there's one offsetting factor. A great deal of our growth is now coming from Mexico. Mexico now represents about 10% of our offices and about 9% of our total assets, and certainly, I think our growth and balances in Mexico were over 100%. Or no, they -- do you remember 40, 50? Anyway, 40 or 50% and our growth in the US has been slowing.

But in addition to that, as you know, we converted from the cash to accrual method of accounting and that has in fact accomplished what we anticipated. For instance, in the month of April, our total consolidated revenue was $48 million. In the month of May, our total consolidated revenue was $48 million, and then the month June, it was $48.2 million. So there is more consistency in our monthly earnings and we believe we'll see more consistency on our quarterly earnings.

However, last year, for the same three months, April revenue was $42 million, our May revenue was about $45 million, and our June revenue was about 46 and, of course, that variation came from the timing of the days and the months and so forth.

Anyway, the bottom line of all this is that there probably with some quarterly fluctuations in the revenue during the last year that you were aware of and you've been seeing for quite some time. So on a comparative basis, I would say that some of the revenue may not have been reflected on a same timely better way in the last quarter and it may have shifted over into the next quarter.

But anyway, we should see less fluctuations and it's hard to quantify exactly that amount if it's been truly on a comparative basis, but it's somewhere between the million or $2 million. But it's not easy to quantify. So --

And remind me -- Sorry, I was just trying to say remind me how the loan yields in Mexico compared to the US as a whole. And you're saying they vary by state, but just US versus Mexico?

Well, in Mexico the yields are closer to like 80% thereabout, and in the US alone, they are closer to the 50% to 60% range.

Okay, that's helpful.

So that will provide some offset for declining yields that we've seen in the US.

And I guess, similarly, I was surprised that I guess even in absolute dollar terms, the insurance and other fees were down modestly year-over-year but they were down year-over-year. Is that a reflection of more business coming out of Mexico, a geographic shift or more of the large installment loans or is there something else going on that held back the insurance and other fees this quarter?

It's a combination of things, but if you really had to drive it to one particular product, it would be in our motor club. We have actually changed -- offering the product differently in different states and that one product is down more -- I don't know how much it's down, but it's down how much? $250,000. Other than that, the insurance should reflect what's going on in the mix.

Okay and then last question and I'll hop back out. But I know you all when you did file the 10-K talked about evaluating sort of how you're going to treat -- I don't know what the right term is, but small dollar loan renewals, and I was just curious if you can kind of quantify over the last year or in this quarter or in some period in time, how much of your volume is the smaller dollar loan renewals? I'm trying to get a sense of how meaningful that impact is.

That's subject to interpretation. I believe that if you look at our renewals, the percent of renewals that fall into that category of less than 10% is around 15%. Now, there are other parties that may interpret that a little more stricter in how you define what constitutes that loan -- what constitutes the new loan that's being made and that would say it would be somewhere around 25%.

So somewhere in between that, but I believe it's closer to that 15% range and it's something that is a result of our not following that as closely and properly as we have in the past, which did, in fact, contribute to the material weakness that was identified. Then it's something that we will be addressing in detail and make sure we have proper controls surrounding that going forward.

Okay, that is helpful. And then if I think about what the impact would be of doing less of that sort of business, I mean the 25% of originations, I guess would include sort of originating the original or the outstanding loan plus a little bit more. But it's not the 25% of originations is from that small dollars that advance to the customer, right? It's the total to repay the old loan plus the small dollar advance.

That's correct. I mean, none of these we're not talking about new or former borrowers. This is strictly renewals and the way it's measured is the amount of the new loan compared to what you're paying off should be at least greater than that 10% level to qualify as a true renewal under the accounting guidelines.

Okay, and if you discontinue to try this, which I know is one of the options you all are looking at, how will that affect your credit?

I don't believe it would affect the cash flow, but certain people may have run into difficulties and if they're not allowed to renew, it creates a lot of pressure on them and I don't know, whatever I said would be speculative. I'm not sure if it's not something that we have monitored as closely as we should have over a long period of time. I do not believe it will represent a material impact on our operations or results.

Great. Thank you, Sandy. I'll hop back out.

Okay.

And moving on, we'll go to John Rowan, Sidoti & Company.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Sandy, just to kind of clarify what you're talking about as far as the options if you will for those 10% loans, in the amended 10-K that you filed, you talk about an exceptional report? Can you just maybe lay out what the options are for you with regard to the renewals that are sub-10%; whether it's not making the loan or if you just have to create an exception report? I just want to be clear as to what exactly the type of options we're talking about for those specific loans.

I'm going to let Kelly -- I mean, she was more involved in this -- well, we hadn't actually established what procedures and controls and so forth that we ultimately will adopt. But I'm going to let her address some of those various options.

John, this is Kelly. Regarding the exception report, what the intent would be is, one, from an operational standpoint, we determine exactly what we want to do regarding small-dollar renewals. If from a GAAP accounting standpoint they don't need the threshold, those loans will be flagged. That way, I can identify what the dollar amount and the volume are and we can consider any additional accounting treatment that we may need to do for those loans.

Okay, so under that scenario, you still make that loan though, correct?

Under that scenario, yes.

Okay.

Other options are to generate monthly reports that identify these loans and find out if they're less than a certain level, the dollar amounts, and from an operations and procedural standpoint, decide whether or not this is beneficial and if not, we'll discontinue it. We can create programming edits that will make sure that it can kick out and even not allow those type of loans or either allow them under certain supervisory approvals.

I mean, there's quite a few options in the way that we can address this. But like I say, regardless of whichever direction we head, I continue to say, I don't believe it's going to have a significant impact on the overall operations of the company.

Okay. So moving on from this issue. Going back to the change in accounting, obviously you mentioned how it's leveled out your revenues, but was there any effect on the loan portfolio in the quarter?

No.

No, okay. And then one last question. Are you guys getting any closer to moving into any new states?

Yes.

Which ones?

I'm going to wait until we get a license, but we actually visited with the regulators of our next state this past week and we were welcomed by those regulators, and in the process, delivered our first license application and they appeared to welcome us. And we're very excited about the future relationship.

Okay, thank you very much.

(Operator Instructions). Moving on. From Tieton Capital Management, we'll go to Bill Dezellem.

Thank you. That's Tieton Capital Management. I'd like to jump into the charge-offs if we could please and I guess two opposite questions. The first one is what do you believe is driving the Mexican charge-offs downward, and then conversely, here in the States,, what do you believe are driving the charge-offs upward?

Okay, I could answer the one more easily in Mexico because we offer a couple of different products down there. One of the products is the normal installment loan that's being offered through our normal traditional offices. Then another one is a kind of a payroll deduct loans that's offered through certain unions. And the union-related loans, they have a payroll deduct aspect to it and they are generally a lower yielding, but they generally have a little larger balances and they generally have less charge-offs associated with it.

Plus, I believe, we're in Mexico. We were actually down there recently meeting with the managers in our Appreciation Day and the people now are beginning -- every year they get more and more experience and they are more comfortable with the policies and procedures and I think we're just doing a better job down there.

As far as what's going on in the US, it's a whole lot different thing. It's hard to quantify. I don't think we're the only company within this segment that's experiencing some increases in charge-offs, but I don't know that directly because we're one of the few public companies in this space, and as we've said in the remarks, it's the second quarter of year-over-year increases in charge-offs and it's something we're concerned with and monitoring closely. But I cannot offer an explanation as to what's going on. We're also seeing a kind of a decrease or reduction in our loan volume.

So, I don't know whether we've had a drop-off in demand or whether something going on with the economy, but it's hard to put our hands on at this point. But it's something we're monitoring very closely and as time goes on, maybe we'll get a better direction on where this is going.

Thank you.

And next, we'll go to Andrew Shapiro with Lawndale Capital Management.

Hi, thank you. A little bit bigger picture question is if you could help me with is just if you could discuss the regulatory environment and just call out I guess what the regulatory risks or headwinds are in both the United States and Mexico. With respect to the United States, the CFPB finally got an congressionally-approval leader and there's been this media attention -- ProPublica, Marketplace, et cetera -- on your sector.

And then in Mexico where things have been thriving, if you could discuss I guess relative regulatory environment which should be probably currently more the wild west, but I don't know if there are regulatory headwinds or risks that you may be facing?

Let's start with Mexico first. I don't believe that it's -- from a regulatory standpoint, it's very stable and we're not receiving any type of issues developed and so forth. Now, our history down there is certainly not as long as it is in the US and things may change dramatically, but we are not seeing any evidence to that whatsoever at this point.

Okay.

And then as far as the US, obviously the confirmation of Cordray as the Director of the CFPB was a big event. But as stated in the remark, I don't think it's a terrible necessarily an event for world. I mean, we've been acting under the assumption that he may get ultimately confirmed anyway, and thus far, he has not expressed any significant issues with the installment lending industry.

But there is no question that this installment lending industry is one that comes under his authority and supervision and regulations and rulemaking, and I anticipate at some important in the not too near future, whether it's this year or next, that we will probably be visited by that bureau and I would expect that they will determine at that point in time that we're offering a very valuable, fair, transparent, beneficial service to our customers.

You made mention of the ProPublica article. I don't think that was directed towards the industry. I think that was the direct charge and attack on World Acceptance Corporation. And it's unfortunate that organizations such as that say that they don't do an analysis or do some research on a company and have predetermined conclusions.

And within that article, and I go back through this because it was all addressed when this all came out the last quarter and before, but we mentioned that we went to great strides to try to answer some of their questions. And what they did is they reached out to several disgruntled former customers and two or three disgruntled former employees, several of which have been terminated for improper behavior.

And they chose to ignore our responses and draw their conclusions based on these anecdotal elements. So, there's nothing we can do about those articles. We can't fight them in the press, and to do so just delays the length of the time that it's there and we can live with that.

But what becomes especially important is that when people with responsibility and authority then draw conclusions about this company based on the conclusions of a obviously slanted report, then that gives us great deal for concern and hopefully, when it's all said and done, the CFPB will make their decisions not based on anecdotal evidence such as the inflammatory and highly-distorted picture that was painted by this article but that they will do so based on what they see when they come to visit this company.

Okay, and just as a follow-up, to the extent there's restrictions, regulations, you opted to reduce some of the renewals as you kind of discussed here -- I'm not fully cognizant of if it's accounting precepts or its actual operating changes. If the borrower isn't able to go to you, is the traditional method is that they basically go next door to the installment or some other form of subprime lender?

And similarly, your competitors have that same issue where they're not renewing someone. That these people are basically coming down the hallway to you guys and you're making the -- if they pass your cash or credit standards, you're making the loans and so the likelihood of the payoff remains high and it's not going to be an impact on your loan losses?

Well, I'll try to answer the question if I understand it correctly. But if a customer is having difficulty making a payment with us, that means he has some kind of personal economic crisis or challenge that he is faced with. And normally, the process would be for them to come in and visit our office and find out what's going on and how we can work with that customer and so forth.

If he is faced with that economic crisis or challenge at that point in time, the likelihood of him going to another installment lender who also goes through very thorough underwriting standards -- the likelihood of him being able to get a loan from a competitor is not very great.

So the customer would generally be better off -- well, probably his only alternative generally would be to work with us and a lot of our customers go through difficult times all the time and we work with them in any other way. If they need time to make a payment, then we'll certainly work with them. If in fact--

Sandy, could I interject?

I'm sorry.

Sandy, this is Mark.

Sure, absolutely.

May I interject?

Yes, please.

One thing that we may not have made clear is that South Carolina, one of our oldest states, has operated for the last 15 or 16 years under a restriction on renewals of less than 10% and although we don't disclose state-by-state results necessarily, I will tell you that South Carolina runs the lowest delinquency and the lowest bad debt and charge-off percentages in the company.

So that restriction if applied nationwide, I would assume over time would mirror South Carolina, which means the impact to me once we get our customers used to the process and our individual branch employees used to the process would be negligible. And we've already done it in one of our largest states and oldest states for the last 15 or16 years.

Oh, okay. That's helpful. Thanks.

And moving on we'll go to John Heck with Stephens.

Morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Forgive me if you gave this out, and I'm just interested if you have this handy. Do you have the end of quarter share count available?

This is Kelly, and yes, I do have the end of share count. At June 30, shares outstanding were 11,775,627 shares.

Great, thank you. Just going back a little bit into the credit. I understand, Sandy, it's something you're watching in the charge-off level, but what are you seeing in terms of delinquency rates and then, even a little deeper, delinquency roll rates?

When someone hits 30, do they tend to go to 30 to 60 more frequently than they have before and do you think it's just sort of a seasoning customer base or is there something going on in the economy that's causing a little duress? Or is it just a reversion to the mean because you've been running generally lower than average charge-offs?

I think Mark, you want to bet -- Mark's not here on location with us so that's why he had to interject, and Mark, if you're still there, I think you're in a better position to answer that than I am. Would you do so?

I can. We monitor delinquency roll rates on a daily basis and right now, the general perception is that there is just some weakened demand for borrowers to be renewing their loans for whatever reason and we can't put our finger exactly on it. The reduction isn't dramatic. It's small, but it's noticeable. The delinquency rates have crept up a 0.5% or so across various categories. And, again, you can't put a finger on it. It's not a geographic concentration in any particular area.

It's across the company and I happened to be in an association meeting with a particular state right now with probably 200 lenders like World Acceptance only on a slightly smaller scale, and they're all experiencing roughly the same thing and no one -- I mean the collective brain trust down here is a million years of people with experience in this industry and it's just difficult to determine right now why this is occurring.

And I'd like to add to that Mark. These are not unprecedented high levels. I mean, as we mentioned in the prepared remarks, over the last 10 or 11 years, we've had quarterly charge-off ratios at or above these levels three or four times. So, this is not like we're charting new territory.

Yeah, understood. And last question is, with respect to the material weakness and you guys talked about procedurally what it might mean for certain renewals and so forth but do you have to invest in any new like accounting software systems that we should think about or is this more just you've got the data, you just need to call it and analyze it in different ways?

We have the systems, we have the data, and we just need to determine operationally what is the best way to approach this and from the impact on accounting and so forth. I mean, this situation is well under control.

Okay, thank you guys very much.

And moving on, from Mangrove Partners, we'll go to Brian Steck.

Hi. Thank you guys for taking my call. My first question, Kelly, it's probably better for you. I was just hoping to better understand the reference in your prepared remarks about the 10% cash flow threshold as required for accounting guidelines to qualify as a new loan. Can you just shed a little bit of light so I can better understand exactly what that means?

Yes. The simplest way to explain it is that when a customer renews a loan, they would need to have at least 10% equity in their loan when they renew it. If they have less than 10% equity, then the loan's treated as a modification, and so you would treated it as the life of the loan has just been extended.

And so, if it was a loan that was being rolled at a point in which it was 45 days delinquent and was modified because it had less than 10% equity, would it stay in your delinquencies?

Yes, it would stay in the delinquency.

Okay, and so in your answer to a prior question about these loans potentially being flagged and different accounting treatments being applied to them, is there anything other than a delinquent loan continuing to be categorized as a delinquent loan if in fact there was a modification rather than a renewed new loan?

The only other impact which is not material is if there was a change in the yield in that loan, then you would have to modify the yield amount. However, on these renewals, as you all know, we renew them at the same dollar amount, so therefore, the yield's effectively the same.

Any unearned fees couldn't originated so --

And --

Any remaining unearned initial charges or origination fees, they would not be captured as earnings. They would need to be rolled over into the new loan and amortized over the remaining life of the new loan.

So is that an income recognition issue or is that actually an income change issue?

It would be a recognition, but based on our analysis, it was less than a million bucks.

And then, Sandy, you had estimated that this impact was somewhere between 15% and 25%. Was that of total renewal volume or was that of total loan origination volume?

That is total -- it's based on the number of renewals, not loan volumes per se. It's number of renewals.

So it's a percentage of your total renewal volume. That's helpful.

That's correct.

And then one last question. In looking at the amended 10-K, I noticed that the average life of the loan was disclosed in fiscal 2013 to be eight months. I know that it had been four months going back over a decade. What's prompted that change?

What prompted that change was first of all taking into consideration that a certain percentage of our loans would need to be treated as a modification. The second item is related to the fact that we've been going into states that we offer larger loans, and therefore, the contract term of those loans are longer and therefore the life of those loans are longer.

And the original estimate was based on total loan volume divided by your average loans outstanding to come up that basically the portfolio was turning roughly three times a year, and therefore, if the loans were turning roughly three times a year, then that would imply that the life of those loans were somewhere around four months.

Well, one of the difficulties we faced once this weakness was identified and one of the reasons that it took so long between when we were supposed to initially file and when we ultimately filed is we had to do a great deal of programming to go in and actually calculate on an average basis the true life of these loans including the impact of if this is a new loan and it didn't meet the 10% test, then you had to go back to a previous point in time and move forward. And there was a great deal of complicated programming that it had to be written and tested and embedded. And that was one of the largest things that created the delay in this process.

So, I think to answer your question -- it is a combination of the change in mix and so forth, but to answer your question, it was before. It was an estimate based on logical assumptions and ultimately it became a truly accurate assessment of the actual facts based on the loans outstanding at a particular point in time.

I noticed that but that seeing the change from four months to eight months surprised me and so I went and did a calculation very similar to what I think you just described by looking at the total loan origination volume for the year and dividing it by average balances for the year and came up with something like 4.3 months for 2013. So perhaps offline, Kelly, we could catch up later and if you could help me, can understand how I can back into that number as now represented at eight month, that would be great.

Okay.

Those are my questions. Thank you.

I will also add to that. A great deal of time and effort went into the programming and I think that we'll need to continue to look at all aspects of that programming because this was done based on the loans outstanding at a given point in time, and if you look at loans at various points in times, that average may turn out to be different and depending on whether -- there's a lot of factors that go into it and Kelly will be happy to discuss that in further detail.

(Operator Instructions). Moving on, we'll go to Doug Smith with North Run Capital

Hi. Thank you. Good morning. My question is, was there any change this year that prompted the auditors to flag the material weakness in documentation for the allowance? Or in other words, why did this crop up as an issue?

As you know, we've had the same auditors for roughly, I don't know, over 20 years and maybe 40 if you go back through a long period of time and as the result of the PCAOB doing a -- we were audited by -- I mean, they were reviewed by the PCAOB a couple of years ago and everything went fine and then they came back in for a follow-up audit, and I think at that point in time, there was some question as to whether our documentation was satisfactory.

And after a lot of looking at it, we recognized that we had this weakness that we had to address, and once it was addressed, we had to follow through with the process to come to prove to ourselves as well as everyone else that this did not cause a material misstatement in our financial statements, which ultimately turned out to be the case.

Okay and can you talk about how much effort is involved in the remediation plans that the 10-K describes? It sounds like it's going to take several quarters, but it was unclear to me if you're saying that you've remediated the problem and you just need several quarters to confirm that or if it's going to take --

Well, I think --

-- a few more quarters to figure it out?

I think we could establish the programming immediately to the go in and say the system will allow certain types of renewals and so forth, but operationally, that may not be the best approach. So I think given that we have this weakness that we've got to address, we want to address it in a comprehensive manner to make sure it doesn't have an impacts on either our operations or on our customers.

Okay and are you comfortable that the allowance is accurate today or is the ongoing work -- may the ongoing work --

If we were not comfortable that the allowance was correct, we would not be issuing our quarterly financials nor would we have issued our fiscal year financials without recording any changes.

Okay, and just lastly, can you help us understand why you do these less than 10% cash out renewals? It sounds like it doesn't have --

It has not been a conscious decision to do so or not to do so. Generally, we make a renewal when a customer comes in and requests a renewal. I mean, it could be that his need at that point in time is not that large but that amount of money is very important to him at that particular point in time, and we will go through that renewal process at our customer's request.

Now, if it turns out that it did not meet these 10% guidelines, it has never been that much of an issue except in the State of South Carolina where they had that prohibition. Granted that we did not properly address the accounting aspects of that, we will not have to do so.

And if I could interject. This is Mark Roland again. It's difficult, I guess, at some income levels to understand what's going on at other levels.

But, if you would think about a $1,200 net loan and somebody has paid interest sufficiently to borrow $150 and the immediate need is two front tires on the primary vehicle so somebody can get to work, that it is greater or less than 10% is not entering that borrower's mind and therefore has not really been a factor in our decision either. It's $150 that the borrower has paid in sufficient equity to borrow that money just as if he had a MasterCard and he had $150 left on a $1,200 credit limit.

We will work -- Kelly, Sandy and I -- together to determine the appropriate operational procedures to mitigate that circumstance and whatever that maybe, again, as I indicated, South Carolina already has these prohibitions in place and we know we can deal with it.

Great. Thank you very much.

And we do have a follow-up from Bob Ramsey with FBR.

Thanks for taking the follow-up. I just wanted to ask real quickly to what extent repurchase activity in the second quarter may or may not have been affected by the non-timely filing? I wasn't sure if that affected your ability to buy back stock or not.

Bob, we were already in a blackout because of the normal quarterly blackout. And so, during that timeframe, we were not purchasing stocks.

Okay. And then, once you come out of your normal quarterly blackout, there would be nothing that would prevent you from doing whatever you chose to do anyway?

Once we are not blacked out, then we will evaluate repurchasing stocks.

Okay, great. And then, Sandy, I know you mentioned that growth has sort of been slower and we talked about that last quarter as well, and obviously, you didn't see the reacceleration coming out of the tax refund pay downs you are hoping for. Just curious if you had any insight as we roll the quarter forward in terms of why borrowers aren't borrowing as much or just any thoughts around growth?

Bob, that's all around growth as we need it, but as far as anything, I would not give it. I'm sorry, I really can't provide any.

Yeah. Okay, in the immediate term then, is thinking of growth and sort of 9% to 10% year-over-year pace, this sort of the right ballpark?

Bob, we can't give that kind of guidance, but certainly based on what we've been doing the last two quarters, it wouldn't be unreasonable.

All right, thank you very much. I appreciate the follow-ups.

And moving on, we'll have a follow-up from Andrew Shapiro with Lawndale Capital Management.

Yes, hi. Forgive me if this was in your initial script because I missed the first part of the call. What is the current buyback authorization that the Board has given, if it's in terms of dollars or shares and what that amount is that's left? And do your loan covenants contain certain barriers and to what extent or how much room do you have left under your current balance sheet and income statement with respect to those covenants?

This is Kelly and we currently have approximately $30 million remaining under the authorization, and based on our loan covenants, we have sufficient room for that authorization.

However, the covenants are somewhat restricted, and I think the bank group is taking a look at some of those restrictions and hopefully by the end of August there will be some relief in those going forward. But there could be no assurance that that will take place but it's the large bank group.

Right. And what particular -- you have many covenants. What particular covenants are the ones that seem to handcuff expanding the buyback? What are the covenants that you are at risk of bouncing up against with respect to buyback activity?

This is an asset-based facility; therefore, our outstandings cannot exceed a certain percent of our eligible net loans receivable, and then above and beyond that, there is a requirement that we have a minimum of excess availability. And that's the part that we're working with.

Okay. But it's not any debt-to-equity or any other kind of net worth ratio?

They are also, but that is not restrictive at this point in time.

Okay, great. Thank you.

And with that, there are no further questions. I'll turn it back over to our presenters for any additional or closing comments.

All I want to say is thank you for your interest in World and your interest in our first quarter results, and I hope everybody has a good day. Paula, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you and thank you for your participation. Before concluding this morning's teleconference, the Corporation has asked to again remind you that the comments made during this conference may contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act that represents the Corporation's expectations and beliefs concerning future events.

Such forward-looking statements are about matters that are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. Statements other than those of historical fact as well as those identified by the words anticipate, estimate, intend, plan, expect, believe, may, will and should or any variation of the foregoing and similar expressions are forward-looking statements.

Factors that could cause actual results or performance to differ from the expectations expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements include the factors discussed in today's earnings press release and in the risk factor section of the Corporation's most recent Form 10-K/A and other reports filed with or furnished to the SEC from time-to-time. The Corporation does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements it makes.

This concludes the World Acceptance Corporation quarterly teleconference.