World Acceptance Corp (WRLD) 2014 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good morning and welcome to the World Acceptance Corporation sponsored fourth-quarter press release conference call. This call is being recorded. At this time, all participants have been placed on a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the presentations by the Corporation's CEO and other officers.

Before we begin, the Corporation has requested that I make the following announcements. The comments made during the conference call may contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21-E 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 Factors 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, Kathy, and good morning, everyone. Fiscal 2014, as I stated in the narrative issued along with press release, was a challenge in many ways. However, I felt like we made many accomplishments. I hope that all of you all had a chance to see the press release and the narrative. And with that being said, I'd be more than happy to open the floor up to questions. Kathy?

(Operator Instructions.) Bob Ramsey, FBR Capital Markets.

I wanted to talk first a little bit about loan growth. Obviously, loan growth does continue to decelerate, and I know you mentioned in the prepared remarks that system changes to discourage small dollar renewals did have some impact on loan balances and overall yields. And I was just wondering if you could quantify that a little bit.

I think I can elaborate. I'm not sure I can quantify it as to your satisfaction. But there's a couple of things going on that have had an impact on both the loan growth as well as the yields. And to a certain extent, these have been going on throughout the year. As you know, we stated our number-one priority and our number-one concern is loan growth and loan volume in the US. And we have been experiencing a decline in our new customer loans throughout the year. And we've mentioned it in all of the conference calls and so forth. And while we saw a slight improvement in that during the most recent quarter, we still, year to date, our loans to new borrows was down about 5.7%. And that is an area of extreme focus.

Combined with that, we have also continued to see a shift in our mix between our smaller group of loans and our larger group of loans. In Mexico, for instance, which is the payroll deductibles, which we now consider in the large category, that's our highest-growing group of loans at this point. And they grew by somewhere around 70% on a year-over-year basis. And those are still fairly high yielding, and that growth is greatly appreciated. But they now have raised from 2% of our overall portfolio to 3.3%.

Additionally, our average loan made in overall gross loans made has risen from 2013 to 2014 from $1,246 to $1,330, which is a 6.8% increase. And basically, all of our growth of a year-over-year basis came from increase in average balances, and we were pretty much flat on the number of loans outstanding.

Now, the other thing that's been taking place is ever since we became aware of the accounting issues surrounding the less-than-10% loans at the end of last year, we have been addressing that and making sure that certain offices and so forth were pushing these type of renewals and so forth. But to the extent -- almost all renewals are as a result -- I mean, all renewals are the result of the customer wanting to get additional funding and so forth.

But, to more better monitor this, we've decided to make some system changes that went into effect at the beginning of this quarter, whereby we would no longer -- well, let's back up for one second. On our receipt statements and other type of paper that is given to the customer, the amount of money that's available to that customer in the event that they would like to refinance a loan to show them what they would get back under that transaction, this has been there for quite some time, and it shows up on the screen so that our finance personnel can tell them if they would like to renew it at any point in time, that this was the amount of money they'd get back if they had the same transaction. We decided to suppress that information until such time as that amount that they could get back exceeded that 10% threshold.

Now, we anticipated that this would have an impact on volume, and as it turned out, it had a fairly substantial impact on the volume in the fourth quarter. We also anticipate, going forward, that this is not necessarily a disruption to the relationship we have with the customers, but it will, at least in the fourth quarter, some of those renewals will probably get pushed back a month or so. And we do not believe that the impact on an ongoing basis will be as dramatic as it was during the fourth quarter. However, it is extremely hard to quantify the impact of these type of changes.

But we are assured by our Senior Vice Presidents in the field that they're very comfortable with what we're doing, and it's been well received at the branch level. And I think it will be of benefit to the customers, that when they do renew, that they'll get more money back. But should they choose to want to renew sooner and it's less than 10%, we will certainly accommodate them, because it can still be less than 10%, but a significant amount of money for that individual.

So I hope that wasn't rambling too much, but there's a lot of things impacting what took place in the fourth quarter. And we've had a lot of changes during the course of the year. And, to a certain extent, there's been some confusion in the field that is beginning to now settle down. And I think that we'll see things settling down as we go forward into fiscal 2015.

Great. Do you know, Sandy, roughly what percent of originations are small dollar renewals after you all have implemented these changes as compared to before?

It's dropped dramatically. It's somewhere around -- it depends on if you look at number or dollars. And we measure it a month at a time on a rolling basis, and it's dropped down to the 7% or 8% range from the 20% range that we announced last year. So it's dropped down dramatically.

Great. And then I'm curious, too. I know you said that the big impacts for this quarter and less of an impact on a go-forward basis is, when you put together all of these moving pieces, is your expectation that loan yields fall on a year-over-year basis as we go through 2015, just given the ongoing shift mix and larger loans? Or do you still get a little bit of tail impact from the fee structure changes in Texas and Georgia that could mitigate that?

Well, the fee structure changes that we anticipated did in fact take place. It was just offset by the impact of the reduced loan volume and the change in mix and so forth. We have seen a continuing decline in our yields on a slightly year-over-year basis for quite some time, but that's historically been offset somewhat by reduction in our losses. And I hope that we'll get back to a similar type arrangement going forward.

But the impact of reduced loan volume, to a certain extent, was somewhat of a surprise to us. But it's something that we're monitoring and addressing from an operational basis. And I certainly don't believe it will be as dramatic as we saw fourth quarter last year compared to the fourth quarter this year.

Okay. And then last question, and I'll hop back out in the queue. But I know you've said that loan growth is an area of extreme focus for you guys at World and that the pace of lending to new borrowers, while still is a challenge, maybe is not as bad as recent quarters. I'm just curious what you guys are doing to try and stimulate a little bit better loan demand.

We are looking at additional products to offer through our marketing programs. We're looking at different solicitation methods. We're hopefully going to become, use technology to a further extent -- well, not further extent, because technically, we really hadn't used technology for solicitation purposes in the past. But we hope to be moving in that direction just as quickly as we can. And once you start utilizing the technology that's available -- granted, World has been slow to move in that direction -- but we believe once we move in that direction, it will be a tremendous benefit to all areas of operation.

Okay, great. Thank you, Sandy.

Okay.

John Hecht, Stephens.

Just a little bit more on volumes. I guess I'd be interested in your commentary on what you see going on with consumer demand. You've mentioned for a couple of quarters or more that getting new customers has been challenging. Do you think that this is a changing competitive environment? Is there lower need or lower desire at this consumer level for borrowing?

I really can't give you a very good answer. I know that some of our competitors are doing extremely well in growth and so forth. And others, from what I've talked to, are experiencing some of the same problems that we're having. So I certainly believe that the competition in certain areas where we operate is getting greater. But we're continuing to move into new areas, and I believe there's still a tremendous amount of opportunity going forward. So we're not discouraged with the outlook whatsoever.

Okay. And then just to get a sense for the transitional impact of not refinancing somebody who hasn't paid 10% of their principal down, at what time, or how many months does it take on average for a small-dollar loan, for someone to hit that 10% threshold?

I can't answer that. It depends on the state, the size of the loan, the term. I don't know. It would be two months or three months, or on a real, real small dollar loan, you probably could get there in act of the second payment or something.

Okay, that's helpful. In terms of just the credit, when you exclude the changing loan volumes and the changes with the refinancings, how would you describe credit trends?

You know, loan volume dropped dramatically, and our loss ratios relative to the previous three quarters improved dramatically also. Thank goodness there doesn't appear to be a direct correlation between the two.

So is it, in your opinion, is it generally stable credit trends, or any reversion to the mean? Or how do you just think about the environment as we go through this year?

For the first three quarters, our annualized quarterly charge-off ratios were up from the prior-year quarter. They were up also at the fourth quarter, but only up a couple of basis points, or maybe 10 -- what was it, Johnny? Three points?

13.7% to 13.9%.

13.9% versus 13.7%, which is a dramatic improvement from what we've seen in the previous three quarters. Now, we would expect, and we would hope, going forward, that we would return to the trend of 16 quarters that we had in a row, up until this year, of having year-over-year declines. Because as you change mix and you get into a larger loan situation, then you should expect lower loss ratios.

But we've had a lot of transitions to this Company. We've addressed collection procedures as a result of our customer complaint resolution system that we put into place. We recognized certain things that we needed to improve on. We've had changes in management. There's been quite a few things going on at World. So there's been some distractions. But hopefully, we can get some of these distractions behind us and get back to the Company that we've been for many, many years.

Okay, and then the last question. I know you're very limited in what you can talk about, but with respect to the Civil Investigative Demand, can you tell us if they're ongoing information requests, or are you just giving them all the initial requests? And then, do you have -- I'm sorry?

I have been provided an answer that I'm supposed to give to that question, so if you'll bear with me --

Okay.

Ever since the creation of the CFPB, we have publicly and repeatedly discussed the expansive scope of its regulatory powers over consumer financial transactions and the possibility that the Bureau might exercise those powers in a way that directly or indirectly affects our Company in its business. Though it was not completely a surprise that the CFPB has decided to take a look at our operations, we have attempted to cooperate fully with the Bureau in response to the CID and recently provided them with all of the information we believe that they had asked for, and that's where we stand. At this point, we have not heard anything back to our submission of the information provided on the deadline that we provided it.

Okay, thanks. And then last question, you mentioned going into a new state. Are you able to tell us what state that is?

I think it probably would not be appropriate today to do so, because before we enter any state, we make a point of going to visit with the regulators to make sure that we are welcomed in that state and that they will happily provide us licensing and so forth, and we have not done that yet.

Okay. Thanks very much for the color.

Okay.

John Rowan, Sidoti and Company.

Why was the allowance ratio down on a sequential basis?

As you know, we go through an analysis every single quarter as part of the quarter-end process. And at the end of the third quarter, because of the trend of rising losses and so forth -- I mean, in the second quarter -- thanks, John. We added an additional $1.5 million to the allowance, and then as we saw the reversal of the trends and so forth, the model indicated that it was appropriate to reverse that $1.5 million.

Okay, so the reversal is actually a positive commentary on your outlook for credit, then?

That is correct.

Okay. When you look at the states where there has been a change in the fee structure, can you give us an idea of what percentage of the loans in that state are now operating under higher yields because of the fee structure? And then secondarily to that question, now you're gaining some experience with the new fee structure, has there been any change in the credit performance within those states?

I would say, given that we started doing this in the middle of -- we implemented these new fees in the middle of September -- that most of the loans in those states have renewed or come into the office as a new borrower or former borrower and were subject to the new fees. Now, that doesn't mean they're recognized, because they're recognized over the life of the loan. To my knowledge so far, I can't answer with 100% certainty, because I'm not looking at the loss ratios by product and by state. But it appears that they have not dramatically changed.

Okay, thank you very much.

(Operator Instructions.) David Horn, Kiron Advisors.

So you discussed a little bit, I just want to go through the mention of the loans, the 10% loans that -- I guess, so if there's a $1,000 loan, they haven't paid down 10% of it, they can't get refinanced, correct?

They can. And that's not the way you'd measure it. It is the proceeds to the customer in the new transaction has to exceed 10% of the loan that's being paid off with the proceeds of the new loan. And no, we do not prohibit them. We just do not make the amount known and so forth. As I said, if in fact that customer has a need that a lesser amount would be beneficial to them, then certainly, we will accommodate that need. There's no prohibition against making these types of loan anywhere. There's just an accounting impact of which we are in 100% full compliance with all accounting rules and regulations surrounding these type loans.

Okay. And then can you repeat, you said what percentage of refis did this sort of rule affect?

It's a lowering percentage. As of March, it was like 7% of them.

Okay, you said it used to be 20%. And so what's the loss rate on these loans, the ones that do not refi?

Same as the loss rate otherwise. We can't identify the loss rate on that much detail of a loan. I don't know the answer to that question.

Okay. And I guess the challenge people have, or some of the scrutiny that your business comes under, is because three-quarters -- if you make 100 loans, 75 of them come back in and refinance. So how can you know what the loss rate would be if they didn't refinance? How do you assess that?

It's very difficult to assess that. We're dealing with 1 million customers that have different behaviors. Some of them refinance more frequently; others pay us off in the entirety. So that is the challenge that we work with our auditors on a quarterly basis, and especially at year end, to determine that our allowance is adequate based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the behavior and the performance of our portfolio.

But you had a material weakness in this, I guess, starting last year. And so what have you changed? Have you changed the assumptions at all based on the material -- I mean, I guess I was thinking the material weakness said you're not doing a sufficient job of measuring this.

That is not exactly what the material weakness said. It consisted of multiple things that, combined, the auditors felt rose to a level of a material weakness. Number one, it said that we were not properly accounting for those loans with proceeds of less than 10%. Although we've proved that it did not have a material impact on our financial statements, we have since put procedures into place to monitor these loans and to make sure that they are properly accounted for.

The second area of that weakness dealt with the documentation of our allowance. They felt that although we had documented this allowance in the same way for the past 30 years, they came to the conclusion that that documentation was not sufficient. That, combined with our not detailing the impact on our losses from renewals and so forth, which we had been doing the same for the last 20-plus years, also -- that, combined with the other two factors, they felt rose to a level of a material weakness. And those things have been addressed.

And where are we on that now, the material weakness?

Well, we can't speak for KPMG, but finance has been through the process of testing, and we feel we have addressed those issues.

We cannot speak for our accountants, but we believe that everything has been addressed and that we will not have a material weakness when these financial statements are issued. But that is not officially decided until the accountants sign off on our financial statements.

Okay, so I guess I'll find out when the K is filed. Thanks. And then, you give insurance as a percentage of revenue. How much of net income is a function of -- what falls to the bottom line, and what are the margins on insurance and other income?

I don't know the answer right off the bat. Let me check with John. All right, it's not going to be exact but, David, for the year, $75 million represented insurance and other income. Roughly half of that is insurance commissions itself. Therefore, about 5% of our revenue comes from insurance and other income. And because there's not a lot of incremental cost associated with that, a great deal of that falls to the bottom line. Does that answer the question?

Okay. Yes, no, that does. Thank you. I appreciate it. And then you mentioned the debt level. In your comments, I guess, 1.64 to 1 -- obviously, you're buying back a lot of stock and you're taking on some leverage to do it. What's your appetite for this?

We believe that a level of 2 to 1, debt to equity, is certainly not inappropriate for this Company. However, we have to work with our banks and we have a lot of seasonal needs and so forth. So whatever level we get to has to allow us to access the credit markets from November and December when our loan demand is the greatest. But then it's paid back dramatically between the end of December and March. So we're certainly very comfortable at this level, and we will continue to repurchase shares from cash flow and additional debt going forward until we reach some level as the Board will determine.

Okay, because I guess because loan growth is slowing to some degree, you're really getting all of your EPS growth from share buybacks. And because it's not from free cash flow, because it's from leverage, I guess, do you have any concerns that you'll -- you know, your stock is still near multiyear highs. I mean, with levels reached within, say, the last year, that you can put yourself in a position like some other companies, where you overspend and then the loan growth continues to decline, you're in a tough position with too much leverage. Is there any concern for that, or not at this time?

There's always concern of all aspects of your financing arrangements and everything else. But as I've stated, I hope very much that we can reverse the trend of slowing loan growth. We're entering new states, and we have lots of opportunities in Mexico, and we're looking at a lot of different things from a marketing standpoint. I don't believe that this Company is now a has-been company that's going to just no longer increase its loan growth and so forth. I believe the opportunities going forward are very positive.

But that being said, we're certainly not going to put ourselves in a position of over-leverage where we can't meet our financial obligations.

Well, and then I guess that's what I was asking. I'd understand if from one point from free cash flow and business that you didn't have to -- money that you didn't have to reinvest in the business. But in doing that, I guess the question's in the taking on the debt. I mean, what's the urgency to buy back stock and to take on debt in the off-off chance that even if the business flat-lines, that leverage becomes a problem?

It hasn't come to that point, and it's something we'll be monitoring as we go forward.

Okay.

And I believe the benefit of buying back the stock now is while you say it's at an all-time high, I think it's extremely inexpensive at this point in time to where it could and should be in the future, possibly.

How do you think about that? When you buy back stock, whatever, you can think of all the things you can do with your free cash flow. So how do you define cheapness with your stock? Or how do you think about it versus other alternatives?

I think our best alternative for excess funds, whether it be internally generated or with external debt, is to fund new loans and go into new locations and so forth. But our limit to growth has never been the funding of those, but it's having good, qualified people to go in and open these offices and run them in a manner that we're expecting, going forward. So that being said, if in fact we cannot utilize those funds to that extent and the cash flow is such that we begin to see leverage, I think it would be more appropriate to continue to repurchase shares than delever the Company.

Right. And again, I understand -- I guess, what's the math when you take out further debt, what's the math in your head that says it's worthwhile to -- for example, if we woke up tomorrow and the stock was at $250, is that too expensive? Would you not buy stock there?

I'm not going to discuss the individual models and thoughts and so forth. We've been very prudent in this process over a long period of time, and we will continue to do so going forward. And that's about all I've got to say on that.

Okay, great. Well, I appreciate your answering the questions. Thank you very much.

Bill Dezellem, Tieton Capital Management.

A couple of questions. First of all, would you please discuss the timing issues with the loans in Mexico, please, that you referenced in the commentary?

Sure. Because these are payroll deduct loans and they are with unions down in Mexico, the unions actually collect the payments on our behalf. And sometimes the timing of these payments can cross over month end, and it's happened in the past, and then we expect it to happen going forward, especially when there may be times when we won't get a payment for two months when school's out and the unions are on vacation or whatever. But the good thing is the likelihood of receiving payments without a great deal of collection effort is extremely high, and the expected loss rates on these loans are substantially lower than other groups of loans.

And given that we're now in April, may we presume that you've already received those payments that slipped past the end of March?

We have.

Thank you. The next question is you'd mentioned in response to a previous question that you have indicators that you're seeing that tell you that credit trends are improving. And I apologize that I don't believe that I had enough time this morning to analyze the release to fully grasp what you might be referring to there. So would you please highlight those improving credit trends and the indicators that you're looking at?

The primary trend that we look at is the current quarter annualized charge-offs as a percent of average net loans outstanding, and you compare that to the same quarter the prior year. As Johnny just told us, it was 13.7% for the March of 2013 quarter. It was 13.9% for the March of 2014 quarter, which represents only a 0.2% increase, which is dramatically better than the previous four quarters.

Understood. And given what you're seeing, would it be your expectation, or did we hear you correctly earlier that your expectation is that that comparison in the June quarter actually would be down, meaning lower in Q1 of fiscal 2015 versus Q1 of 2014?

No, you did not hear that correctly. I said generally speaking, as we grow and our mix changes to a mix that contains more larger loan balances that are better credit, that you would expect that these year-over-year charge-offs would continue to decline, as they did for 16 quarters in a row up until the December of 2012 quarter. And we have not continued to experience that year-over-year improvement the last four or five quarters, but it appears to be leveling off. I don't know what's going to happen in the June quarter or the September quarter.

Thank you for the time.

Jordan Hymowitz, Philadelphia Financial.

I'm just wondering, are your employees incented in any way to make a refinance?

All employees, to a certain extent, are incentived for refinancing, because it's very important that we maintain relationships with our customers and so forth. But there's only one employee level anywhere that has any direct impact from refinancings, and that's the CSR, who does get some small dollar bonus on a monthly basis for encouraging renewals. Because encouraging renewals is a very important part of our business, just like credit cards want people to pay the minimum, because we want to maintain balances and we want to maintain relationships with these customers. But no other incentives are geared towards that.

So if I'm a CSR and you're my client, and I encourage you to renew or you, on your own, review, I do get some sort of additional compensation?

Not on a per-loan basis, no.

Okay, thank you.

Clifford Sosin, CAS Investment Partners.

I wanted to ask just a couple of questions about the change in marketing refinancing to your customers. When did you make the system change?

In February.

And I can imagine that if people came to the store and they didn't see that they could refinance, they might not be aware it was available, and so they wouldn't do it. And so it probably was, you seem to have described an immediate drop-off in the level of smaller cash-back refinancings. As some customers who might not have had the amount they could refinance on their receipt last quarter, had that amount -- as the months have gone by into March and then April -- have you seen, I guess for lack of a better term, a recovery in the year-on-year level of gross origination by the branches that were impacted by this?

Sorry, I'm not sure what the question was.

So presumably, you made this change, and there were immediately some portion of customers who wouldn't be aware that they could refinance. And so there was a drop-off.

That's correct.

And then my question is, if the change was in February, you've been able to watch it through the month of February, March, and now into April; and what I'm asking is as those customers have made more payments, and now they do get a number on their receipt that says what they can refinance because it's more than 10%, have you seen a recovery in dollar volume originated, sort of subsequent to the initial change?

Got it. At this point, I would say we have not, but I believe that that will be the case, because in many instances, the customer's just delaying for a month, and they'll get additional funds back.

Got it. And just historically, on a different topic, historically, you guys have provided an estimate for your store count growth for the next year. Is that something you're still going to do?

Sure. And I think it may have been in the script, but --

I apologize.

That's no problem. It's 50 offices in the US and 20 in Mexico, and plus acquisitions have not been as significant in the past, but we continue to look for potential acquisitions. But they have just not been available lately.

Thank you guys very much.

(Operator Instructions.) Bob Ramsey, FBR Capital Markets.

I just was wondering, do you have the end-of-period remaining share repurchase authorization handy, by any chance?

Yes, one second.

And I sort of roughed into it, and it looked like you guys hadn't done much with the most recent authorization in mid-March. I'm curious as well how blackout periods may have affected your activity over the last month or month and a half.

First of all, we have around $52 million left from the authorization, the current authorization.

You said $52 million?

$52 million, yes.

And then the question about blackout periods -- I just can't remember when your blackout periods around earnings began. But was it pretty soon after that authorization was announced?

It started on March 20.

Okay. And then I know you all mentioned, in the release as well, that debt to equity is somewhat in line, or closer to in line, with Company targets now. As we think about the pace of repurchases this year and the year ahead, will it, I guess, more closely match free cash flow than it did last year? I know you have got some flexibility on leverage, but just curious if it's going to be closer this year than last.

It should, right. So the loan ratio is higher than it was historically, so as we get closer to 1, obviously, the amount we use as an increase in leverage, then that amount will go down. So yes, in theory, it will follow free cash flow.

Okay, fair enough. And then last question. Just curious -- you guys obviously had the terms of your revolver recently amended. I'm curious if you could share any color of how your lenders are thinking about either the CID or the slowing growth or leverage or, obviously, they're comfortable amending the terms, but just how those discussions with your lenders went.

We have a great relationship with our lenders, and if they were having those concerns, they would not have been as flexible in adjusting those covenants as they did.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

Calvin Hotrum, Sterne Agee.

I was wondering if you can give any color behind the drop in SG&A, and specifically with compensation.

I can't quantify it, but the combination of the reversal of some long-term equity compensation that Mark and Kelly forfeited when they left, combined with a very substantial reduction in management bonuses this year, would account for most of that.

Got you, got you. Okay, thank you. That's all I had.

Bill Dezellem, Tieton Capital Management.

I actually want to expand on a question from a couple of participants ago. When do you expect the renewals to show that that anticipated improvement, just given what you know about the loan pay-down process?

We're experiencing something I've never experienced before, so I can't really tell you exactly how this is going to play out. We knew we would see a reduction in renewal volume when we started monitoring, and not necessarily discouraging, but not making it overly easy to have these less-than-10% renewals. So to a certain extent, we're learning as we go along. And that's certainly a big part of what our operational management is, to assess what's going on and adapt accordingly.

Allow me to phrase the question slightly different. Would you anticipate, by the next quarter's conference call, that you would have seen initial signs of that improvement?

Bill, I don't know. We believe that all we've done -- I mean, I believe that we'll continue to have refinancing activity, because our customers rely on this credit to meet those unanticipated needs. So if they don't renew this month, then they may choose to pay us out in full, or they may choose to renew next month. I don't know, so all I can say is we will, obviously, monitor this on an ongoing basis. But I think it's too early to tell exactly what level of impact this is going to have on an ongoing basis.

Great, thank you.

It appears that there are no further questions at this time. Mr. McLean, I'd like to turn the conference back to you for any additional or closing remarks.

I really don't have any, except I appreciate your interest and support of World Acceptance Corporation, and we'll continue to do as good as we can on behalf of our shareholders. Thank you and have a great day.

Thank you for your participation. This concludes the World Acceptance Corporation quarterly teleconference.