ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Forward-Looking Information
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains various forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such statements are based on management’s current beliefs and assumptions, as well as information currently available to management. When used in this document, the words “anticipate”, “estimate”, “expect”, “will”, “may”, “plan,” “believe”, “intend” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Although Nicholas Financial, Inc., including its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) believes that the expectations reflected or implied in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. As a result, actual results could differ materially from those indicated in these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report may include, without limitation: (1) statements about the expected benefits, costs and timing of the Company’s restructuring and change in operating strategy, including its servicing arrangement with Westlake Portfolio Management, LLC (“Westlake”) (including without limitation the servicing and termination fees) and its exit and disposal activities; (2) the continuing impact of COVID-19 on our customers and our business, (3) projections of revenue, income, and other items relating to our financial position and results of operations, (4) statements of our plans, objectives, strategies, goals and intentions, (5) statements regarding the capabilities, capacities, market position and expected development of our business operations, and (6) statements of expected industry and general economic trends. These statements are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that may cause results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in forward-looking statements, including without limitation:
•the risk that the anticipated benefits of the restructuring and change in operating strategy, including the servicing arrangement with Westlake (including without limitation the expected reduction in overhead, streamlining of operations or reduction in compliance risk), do not materialize to the extent expected or at all, or do not materialize within the timeframe targeted by management;
•the risk that the actual servicing fees paid by the Company under the Westlake servicing agreement, which the Company expects to classify as administrative costs on its financial statements, exceed the amounts estimated;
•the risk that the actual costs of the exit and disposal activities in connection with the consolidation of workforce and closure of offices exceed the Company’s estimates or that such activities are not completed on a timely basis;
•the risk that the Company underestimates the staffing and other resources needed to operate effectively after consolidating its workforce and closing offices;
•uncertainties surrounding the Company’s success in developing and executing on a new business plan;
•uncertainties surrounding the Company’s ability to use any excess capital to increase shareholder returns, including without limitation, by acquiring loan portfolios or businesses or investing outside of the Company’s traditional business;
•the risk that the lenders under the Wells Fargo credit facility (“WF Credit Facility”) may declare the Company’s obligations under the agreement immediately due and payable;
•the ongoing impact on us, our employees, our customers and the overall economy of the COVID-19 pandemic and measures taken in response thereto;;
•the ongoing impact on us, our customers and the overall economy of the supply constraints, especially with respect to energy, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine and related economic sanctions;
•availability of capital (including the ability to access bank financing);
•recently enacted, proposed or future legislation and the manner in which it is implemented, including tax legislation initiatives or challenges to our tax positions and/or interpretations, and state sales tax rules and regulations;
•fluctuations in the economy;
•the degree and nature of competition and its effects on the Company’s financial results;
•fluctuations in interest rates;
•effectiveness of our risk management processes and procedures, including the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures;
•demand for consumer financing in the markets served by the Company;
17
•our ability to successfully develop and commercialize new or enhanced products and services;
•the sufficiency of our allowance for credit losses and the accuracy of the assumptions or estimates used in preparing our financial statements;
•increases in the default rates experienced on our automobile finance installment contracts (“Contracts”) or direct loans (“Direct Loans”);
•higher borrowing costs and adverse financial market conditions impacting our funding and liquidity;
•regulation, supervision, examination and enforcement of our business by governmental authorities, and adverse regulatory changes in the Company’s existing and future markets, including the impact of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and other legislative and regulatory developments, including regulations relating to privacy, information security and data protection and the impact of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (the “CFPB”) regulation of our business;
•fraudulent activity, employee misconduct or misconduct by third parties, including representatives or agents of Westlake;
•media and public characterization of consumer installment loans;
•failure of third parties to provide various services that are important to our operations;
•alleged infringement of intellectual property rights of others and our ability to protect our intellectual property;
•litigation and regulatory actions;
•our ability to attract, retain and motivate key officers and employees;
•use of third-party vendors and ongoing third-party business relationships, particularly our relationship with Westlake;
•cyber-attacks or other security breaches suffered by us or Westlake;
•disruptions in the operations of our or Westlake’s computer systems and data centers;
•the impact of changes in accounting rules and regulations, or their interpretation or application, which could materially and adversely affect the Company’s reported consolidated financial statements or necessitate material delays or changes in the issuance of the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements;
•uncertainties associated with management turnover and the effective succession of senior management;
•our ability to realize our intentions regarding strategic alternatives, including the failure to achieve anticipated synergies;
the risk factors discussed under “Item 1A – Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, and our other filings made with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, estimated or expected. All forward-looking statements included in this Quarterly Report are based on information available to the Company as the date of filing of this Quarterly Report, and the Company assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statement. Prospective investors should also consult the risk factors described from time to time in the Company’s other filings made with the SEC, including its reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and annual reports to shareholders.
Restructuring and Change in Operating Strategy
Change in Operating Strategy
On November 2, 2022, the Company announced a change in its operating strategy and restructuring plan with the goal of reducing operating expenses and freeing up capital. As part of this plan, the Company is shifting from a decentralized to a regionalized business model, but continues to remain committed to its core product of financing primary transportation to and from work for the subprime borrower through the local independent automobile dealership. The Company intends to scale down Contract originations to focus on certain regional markets and will no longer originate Direct Loans. The Company's servicing, collections and recovery operations will be outsourced. The Company's operating strategy also includes risk-based pricing and a prudent underwriting discipline required for optimal portfolio performance. The Company expects that this plan will reduce overhead, streamline operations and reduce compliance risk, while maintaining the Company’s underwriting standards. The Company further anticipates that execution of this plan will free up capital and permit the Company to allocate excess capital to increase shareholder returns, whether by acquiring loan portfolios or businesses or by investing outside of the Company’s traditional business. The Company’s
18
principal goals are to increase its profitability and its long-term value.
Westlake Servicing Agreement
As part of the restructuring plan, Nicholas Financial, Inc., a Florida corporation (“NFI”) and indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into a loan servicing agreement (the “Servicing Agreement”) with Westlake Portfolio Management, LLC (“Westlake”).
Pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, on or around the “Closing Date” (expected to occur prior to early December 2022), Westlake will begin servicing all receivables held by NFI under its Contracts and Direct Loans, except for charged-off and certain other receivables. Those receivables covered by the Servicing Agreement as of the Closing Date are referred to as the “initial receivables.” NFI expects to add additional Contract receivables to the receivables pool covered under the Servicing Agreement from time to time in the future, but will no longer originate Direct Loans. All receivables remain vested in NFI.
More specifically, Westlake has agreed to manage, service, administer and make collections on the receivables, as well as perform certain other duties specified in the agreement, in accordance with servicing practices and standards used by prudent sale finance companies or lending institutions that service motor vehicle secured retail installment contracts of the same type. Westlake will maintain custody of the receivable files and lien certificates, acting as custodian for the Company.
Under the Servicing Agreement, NFI has agreed to pay Westlake a boarding fee with respect to the initial receivables, and boarding fees based on a percentage of any additional receivables to be added to the pool in the future. In addition, NFI is obligated to pay Westlake monthly servicing fees depending on the aggregate principal balance of receivables, the types of services provided by Westlake and the payment status of the various loans. The Company expects to classify such fees as administrative costs on its financial statements. Estimates of such administrative costs applied to the initial receivables are provided below. Any additional receivables will also be subject to such servicing fees and presented as administrative costs on the Company’s financial statements. Collections of amounts made after accounts have been charged off are split between NFI and Westlake. NFI must also reimburse Westlake for certain expenses specified in the Servicing Agreement.
The Servicing Agreement contains representations and warranties by both parties. It allows Westlake to delegate its duties under the agreement to an affiliate or subservicer with NFI’s prior written consent. If certain events specified in the Servicing Agreement occur (“Servicer Termination Events”), NFI is entitled to terminate Westlake’s rights and obligations and appoint a successor servicer under the agreement.
The Servicing Agreement will become effective after NFI has transferred the relevant receivables files to Westlake and expires upon the earliest to occur of (i) the date on which NFI sells, transfers or assigns all outstanding receivables to a third party (including to Westlake), (ii) the date on which the last receivable is repaid or otherwise terminated and (iii) 3 years from the Closing Date. If NFI terminates the Agreement other than for a Servicer Termination Event, it is obligated to pay Westlake a termination fee if the termination occurs prior to the third anniversary of the Closing Date, which fee, if payable, is expected to exceed $1 million.
Exit and Disposal Activities
As part of the restructuring plan and change in operating strategy disclosed above, the Board of Directors of the Company determined on November 2, 2022 to close 34 of its 36 branches. Consolidation of workforce associated with these closures is expected to impact approximately 173 employees, representing 82% of the Company’s workforce as of such date.
The expected total charges to be incurred by the Company are between $11.1 million and $12.4 million, consisting of cash expenditures between $11.0 million and $12.3 million, and approximately $0.1 million of non-cash impairment charges associated with lease obligations.
Of these expected total charges, the Company estimates incurring, in the first year following implementation of the restructuring plan, between $4.3 million and $4.6 million of administrative costs, between $0.2 million and $0.3 million of employee-related costs, including severance expenses, and between $3.3 million and $3.4 million for lease terminations, and, in the second through fifth year following such implementation, between $3.2 million and $4.0 million of administrative costs in the aggregate. These administrative costs relate solely to the initial receivables described in the previous section and do not include any additional receivables.
The closing of branches and consolidation of the workforce is expected to be completed by January 31, 2023. The Company expects that the majority of lease terminations and employee-related charges will be recorded in the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2023.
The above estimates of charges and timelines could change as the Company’s plans evolve and become finalized. The Company expects significant annual operating cost savings to substantially exceed the upfront costs associated with the restructuring.
Regulatory Developments
As previously reported, Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which
19
became operational on July 21, 2011. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has regulatory, supervisory and enforcement powers over providers of consumer financial products, such as the Contracts and the Direct Loans that we offer, including explicit supervisory authority to examine, audit, and investigate companies offering a consumer financial product such as ourselves. Although the Dodd-Frank Act expressly provides that the CFPB has no authority to establish usury limits, efforts to create a federal usury cap, applicable to all consumer credit transactions and substantially below rates at which the Company could continue to operate profitably, are still ongoing. Any federal legislative or regulatory action that severely restricts or prohibits the provision of consumer credit and similar services on terms substantially similar to those we currently provide could if enacted have a material, adverse impact on our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition. Some consumer advocacy groups have suggested that certain forms of alternative consumer finance products, such as installment loans, should be a regulatory priority and it is possible that at some time in the future the CFPB could propose and adopt rules making such lending or other products that we may offer materially less profitable or impractical. Further, the CFPB may target specific features of loans by rulemaking that could cause us to cease offering certain products. Any such rules could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The CFPB could also adopt rules imposing new and potentially burdensome requirements and limitations with respect to any of our current or future lines of business, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial performance.
On October 5, 2017, the CFPB issued a final rule (the “Rule”) imposing limitations on (i) short-term consumer loans, (ii) longer-term consumer installment loans with balloon payments, and (iii) higher-rate consumer installment loans repayable by a payment authorization. The Rule requires lenders originating short-term loans and longer-term balloon payment loans to evaluate whether each consumer has the ability to repay the loan along with current obligations and expenses (“ability to repay requirements”). The Rule also curtails repeated unsuccessful attempts to debit consumers’ accounts for short-term loans, balloon payment loans, and installment loans that involve a payment authorization and an Annual Percentage Rate over 36% (“payment requirements”). The Rule has significant differences from the CFPB’s proposed rules announced on June 2, 2016, relating to payday, vehicle title, and similar loans.
On February 6, 2019, the CFPB issued two notices of proposed rulemaking regarding potential amendments to the Rule. First, the CFPB is proposing to rescind provisions of the Rule, including the ability to repay requirements. Second, the CFPB is proposing to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance date for part of the Rule, including the ability to repay requirements. These proposed amendments are not yet final and are subject to possible change before any final amendments would be issued and implemented. We cannot predict what the ultimate rulemaking will provide. The Company does not believe that these changes, as currently described by the CFPB, would have a material impact on the Company’s existing lending procedures, because the Company currently underwrites all its loans (including those secured by a vehicle title that would fall within the scope of these proposals) by reviewing the customer’s ability to repay based on the Company’s standards. Any regulatory changes could have effects beyond those currently contemplated that could further materially and adversely impact our business and operations. The Company will have to comply with the final rule’s payment requirements since it allows consumers to set up future recurring payments online for certain covered loans such that it meets the definition of having a “leveraged payment mechanism”. The payment provisions of the final rule are expected to go into effect on August 19, 2019. If the payment provisions of the final rule apply, the Company will have to modify its loan payment procedures to comply with the required notices within the mandated timeframes set forth in the final rule.
The CFPB defines a “larger participant” of automobile financing if it has at least 10,000 aggregate annual originations. The Company does not meet the threshold of at least 10,000 aggregate annual direct loan originations, and therefore would not fall under the CFPB’s supervisory authority. The CFPB issued rules regarding the supervision and examination of non-depository “larger participants” in the automobile finance business. The CFPB’s stated objectives of such examinations are: to assess the quality of a larger participant’s compliance management systems for preventing violations of federal consumer financial laws; to identify acts or practices that materially increase the risk of violations of federal consumer finance laws and associated harm to consumers; and to gather facts that help determine whether the larger participant engages in acts or practices that are likely to violate federal consumer financial laws in connection with its automobile finance business. At such time, if we become or the CFPB defines us as a larger participant, we will be subject to examination by the CFPB for, among other things, ECOA compliance; unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAP”) compliance; and the adequacy of our compliance management systems.
We have continued to evaluate our existing compliance management systems. We expect this process to continue as the CFPB promulgates new and evolving rules and interpretations. Given the time and effort needed to establish, implement and maintain adequate compliance management systems and the resources and costs associated with being examined by the CFPB, such an examination could likely have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and profitability. Moreover, any such examination by the CFPB could result in the assessment of penalties, including fines, and other remedies which could, in turn, have a material effect on our business, financial condition, and profitability.
Litigation and Legal Matters
See “Item 1. Legal Proceedings” in Part II of this Quarterly Report below.
20
Critical Accounting Policy
The Company’s critical accounting policy relates to the allowance for credit losses. It is based on management’s opinion of an amount that is adequate to absorb losses incurred in the existing portfolio. Because of the nature of the customers under the Company’s Contracts and Direct Loan program, the Company considers the establishment of adequate reserves for credit losses to be imperative.
The Company uses trailing twelve-month net charge-offs as a percentage of average finance receivables, and applies this calculated percentage to ending finance receivables to calculate estimated future probable credit losses for purposes of determining the allowance for credit losses. The Company then takes into consideration the composition of its portfolio, current economic conditions, estimated net realizable value of the underlying collateral, historical loan loss experience, delinquency, non-performing assets, and bankrupt accounts and adjusts the above, if necessary, to determine management’s total estimate of probable credit losses and its assessment of the overall adequacy of the allowance for credit losses. Management utilizes significant judgment in determining probable incurred losses and in identifying and evaluating qualitative factors. This approach aligns with the Company’s lending policies and underwriting standards.
If the allowance for credit losses is determined to be inadequate, then an additional charge to the provision is recorded to maintain adequate reserves based on management’s evaluation of the risk inherent in the loan portfolio. Conversely, the Company could identify abnormalities in the composition of the portfolio, which would indicate the calculation is overstated and management judgement may be required to determine the allowance of credit losses for both Contracts and Direct Loans.
Contracts are purchased from many different dealers and are all purchased on an individual Contract-by-Contract basis. Individual Contract pricing is determined by the automobile dealerships and is generally the lesser of the applicable state maximum interest rate, if any, or the maximum interest rate which the customer will accept. In most markets, competitive forces will drive down Contract rates from the maximum rate to a level where an individual competitor is willing to buy an individual Contract. The Company generally purchases Contracts on an individual basis.
The Company has detailed underwriting guidelines it utilizes to determine which Contracts to purchase. These guidelines are specific and are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the Contracts purchased have common risk characteristics.
Introduction
The Company finances primary transportation to and from work for the subprime borrower. We do not finance luxury cars, second units or recreational vehicles, which are the first payments customers tend to skip in time of economic insecurity. We finance the main and often only vehicle in the household that is needed to get our customers to and from work. The amounts we finance are much lower than most of our competitors, and therefore the payments are significantly lower, too. The combination of financing a “need” over a “want” and making that loan on comparatively affordable terms incentivizes our customers to prioritize their account with us.
For the three months ended September 30, 2022, the dilutive loss per share was $0.44 as compared to dilutive earnings per share of $0.21 for the three months ended September 30, 2021. Net loss was $3.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2022 as compared to net income of $1.6 million for the three months ended September 30, 2021. Interest and fee income on finance receivables decreased 2.6% to $12.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2022 as compared to $12.6 million for the three months ended September 30, 2021. Provision for credit losses increased 538.4% to $8.9 million for the three months ended September 31, 2022 as compared to $1.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2021.
For the six months ended September 30, 2022, the dilutive loss per share was $0.68 as compared to dilutive earnings per share of $0.44 for the six months ended September 30, 2021. Net loss was $4.9 million for the six months ended September 30, 2022 as compared to net income of $3.3 million for the six months ended September 30, 2021. Interest and fee income on
finance receivables decreased 3.4% to $24.3 million for the six months ended September 30, 2022 as compared to $25.2 million
for the six months ended September 30, 2021. Provision for credit losses increased 490.6% to $12.6 million for the six months
ended September 31, 2022 as compared to $2.1 million for the six months ended September 30, 2021.
Non-GAAP financial measures
From time-to-time the Company uses certain financial measures derived on a basis other than generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), primarily by excluding from a comparable GAAP measure certain items the Company does not consider to be representative of its actual operating performance. Such financial measures qualify as “non-GAAP financial measures” as defined in SEC rules. The Company uses these non-GAAP financial measures in operating its business because management believes they are less susceptible to variances in actual operating performance that can result from the excluded items and other infrequent charges.
21
The Company may present these financial measures to investors because management believes they are useful to investors in evaluating the primary factors that drive the Company’s core operating performance and provide greater transparency into the Company’s results of operations. However, items that are excluded and other adjustments and assumptions that are made in calculating these non-GAAP financial measures are significant components to understanding and assessing the Company’s financial performance. Such non-GAAP financial measures should be evaluated in conjunction with, and are not a substitute for, the Company’s GAAP financial measures. Further, because these non-GAAP financial measures are not determined in accordance with GAAP and are, thus, susceptible to varying calculations, any non-GAAP financial measures, as presented, may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of other companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended September 30, (In thousands) |
|
|
Six months ended September 30, (In thousands) |
|
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
Portfolio Summary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average finance receivables (1) |
|
$ |
178,636 |
|
|
$ |
178,873 |
|
|
$ |
178,902 |
|
|
$ |
180,364 |
|
Average indebtedness (2) |
|
$ |
65,824 |
|
|
$ |
72,044 |
|
|
$ |
63,340 |
|
|
$ |
75,611 |
|
Interest and fee income on finance receivables |
|
$ |
12,249 |
|
|
$ |
12,572 |
|
|
$ |
24,313 |
|
|
$ |
25,166 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
975 |
|
|
|
1,121 |
|
|
|
1,543 |
|
|
|
2,309 |
|
Net interest and fee income on finance receivables |
|
$ |
11,274 |
|
|
$ |
11,451 |
|
|
$ |
22,770 |
|
|
$ |
22,857 |
|
Gross portfolio yield (3) |
|
|
27.43 |
% |
|
|
28.11 |
% |
|
|
27.18 |
% |
|
|
27.91 |
% |
Interest expense as a percentage of average finance receivables |
|
|
2.18 |
% |
|
|
2.51 |
% |
|
|
1.72 |
% |
|
|
2.56 |
% |
Provision for credit losses as a percentage of average finance receivables |
|
|
19.94 |
% |
|
|
3.12 |
% |
|
|
14.03 |
% |
|
|
2.36 |
% |
Net portfolio yield (3) |
|
|
5.31 |
% |
|
|
22.48 |
% |
|
|
11.43 |
% |
|
|
22.99 |
% |
Operating expenses as a percentage of average finance receivables |
|
|
16.46 |
% |
|
|
17.70 |
% |
|
|
18.80 |
% |
|
|
18.04 |
% |
Pre-tax yield as a percentage of average finance receivables (4) |
|
|
(11.15 |
)% |
|
|
4.78 |
% |
|
|
(7.37 |
)% |
|
|
4.95 |
% |
Net charge-off percentage (5) |
|
|
12.38 |
% |
|
|
4.88 |
% |
|
|
9.43 |
% |
|
|
4.23 |
% |
Finance receivables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
175,406 |
|
|
$ |
177,013 |
|
Allowance percentage (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.04 |
% |
|
|
2.52 |
% |
Total reserves percentage (7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.84 |
% |
|
|
6.50 |
% |
Note: All three-month and six-month of income performance indicators expressed as percentages have been annualized.
(1)Average finance receivables represent the average of finance receivables throughout the period. (This is considered a non-GAAP financial measure).
(2)Average indebtedness represents the average outstanding borrowings under the Credit Facility. (This is considered a non-GAAP financial measure).
(3)Portfolio yield represents interest and fee income on finance receivables as a percentage of average finance receivables. Net portfolio yield represents (a) interest and fee income on finance receivables minus (b) interest expense minus (c) the provision for credit losses, as a percentage of average finance receivables. (This is considered a non-GAAP financial measure).
(4)Pre-tax yield represents net portfolio yield minus operating expenses (marketing, salaries, employee benefits, depreciation, and administrative), as a percentage of average finance receivables. (This is considered a non-GAAP financial measure).
(5)Net charge-off percentage represents net charge-offs (charge-offs less recoveries) divided by average finance receivables outstanding during the period. (This is considered a non-GAAP financial measure).
(6)Allowance percentage represents the allowance for credit losses divided by finance receivables outstanding as of ending balance sheet date.
(7)Total reserves percentage represents the allowance for credit losses, purchase price discount, and unearned dealer discounts divided by finance receivables outstanding as of ending balance sheet date.
Analysis of Credit Losses
The Company uses a trailing twelve-month charge-off analysis to calculate the allowance for credit losses and takes into consideration the composition of the portfolio, current economic conditions, estimated net realizable value of the underlying collateral, historical loan loss experience, delinquency, non-performing assets, and bankrupt accounts when determining management’s estimate of probable credit losses and adequacy of the allowance for credit losses. By including recent trends such as delinquency, non-performing assets, and bankruptcy in its determination, management believes that the allowance for credit losses reflects the current trends of incurred losses within the portfolio and is better aligned with the portfolio’s performance indicators.
If the allowance for credit losses is determined to be inadequate, then an additional charge to the provision is recorded to maintain adequate reserves based on management’s evaluation of the risk inherent in the loan portfolio. Conversely, the Company could
22
identify abnormalities in the composition of the portfolio, which would indicate the calculation is overstated and management judgement may be required to determine the allowance of credit losses for both Contracts and Direct Loans.
Non-performing assets are defined as accounts that are contractually delinquent for 61 or more days past due or Chapter 13 bankruptcy accounts. For these accounts, the accrual of interest income is suspended, and any previously accrued interest is reversed. Upon notification of a bankruptcy, an account is monitored for collection with other Chapter 13 accounts. In the event the debtors’ balance is reduced by the bankruptcy court, the Company will record a loss equal to the amount of principal balance reduction. The remaining balance will be reduced as payments are received by the bankruptcy court. In the event an account is dismissed from bankruptcy, the Company will decide based on several factors, whether to begin repossession proceedings or allow the customer to begin making regularly scheduled payments.
Beginning March 31, 2018, the Company allocated a specific reserve for the Chapter 13 bankruptcy accounts using a look back method to calculate the estimated losses. Based on this look back, management calculated a specific reserve of approximately $145 thousand and $118 thousand for these accounts as of September 30, 2022 and September 30, 2021, respectively.
The provision for credit losses increased to $8.9 million for the three months ended on September 30, 2022, from $3.6 million for the three months ended on June 30, 2022, due to a substantial increase in the net charge-off percentage. The net charge-off percentage increased by approximately 91% to 12.4% for the three months ended on September 30, 2022, from 6.5% for the three months ended on June 30, 2022, and from 4.9% for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, primarily resulting from increased delinquencies and loan defaults. (See note 5 in the Portfolio Summary table in the “Introduction” above for the definition of net charge-off percentage). Management attributes these increased delinquencies and loan defaults primarily to the fact that the beneficial impact of the government’s prior COVID-19-related assistance to the Company’s customers had subsided at a time when those customers began facing increased inflationary pressures affecting their cost of living, and expects that the net charge-off percentage will remain, for the foreseeable future, at levels higher than those experienced in prior years for the same reasons.
The delinquency percentage for Contracts more than twenty-nine days past due, excluding Chapter 13 bankruptcy accounts, as of September 30, 2022 was 11.2%, an increase from 7.6% as of September 30, 2021. The delinquency percentage for Direct Loans more than twenty-nine days past due, excluding Chapter 13 bankruptcy accounts, as of September 30, 2022 was 7.3%, an increase from 3.3% as of September 30, 2021. The changes in delinquency percentage for both Contracts and Direct Loans was driven primarily by market and economic pressure and its adverse impact on consumers. The delinquency percentages were exceptionally lower across the industry, current delinquency trends return to the pre-pandemic levels.
In accordance with our policies and procedures, certain borrowers qualify for, and the Company offers, one-month principal payment deferrals on Contracts and Direct Loans.
Three months ended September 30, 2022 compared to three months ended September 30, 2021
Interest and Fee Income on Finance Receivables
Interest and fee income on finance receivables, which consist predominantly of finance charge income, decreased 2.6% to $12.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2022, from $12.6 million for the three months ended September 30, 2021. The decrease was primarily due to a 8.6% decrease in finance receivables to $175.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2022, when compared to $177.0 million for the corresponding period ended September 30, 2021. The decrease in finance receivables was primarily the result of a reduction in volume of Contracts purchased, average discount, and average APR. While the reduction in volume continued a trend established under prior management, the decline in average discount and average APR is primarily the result of Company's operating strategy to stay competitive while maintaining conservative underwriting practices.
The gross portfolio yield decreased to 27.4% for the three months ended September 30, 2022, compared to 28.1% for the three months ended September 30, 2021. The net portfolio yield decreased to 5.3% for the three months ended September 30, 2022, compared to 22.5% for the three months ended September 30, 2021. The substantial erosion in net portfolio yield was primarily caused by the significant increase in the provision for credit losses, as described under “Analysis of Credit Losses”.
As part of the Company’s restructuring and change in operating strategy disclosed above, management expects that operating expenses will decline as the Company transitions its servicing and collections activities to Westlake under the Servicing Agreement, although the effects of this decline will likely not begin materializing until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2023. The Company estimates that administrative costs with respect to the initial pool of receivables serviced by Westlake will be as disclosed above under “Restructuring and Change in Operating Strategy—Exit and Disposal Activities.”
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses decreased to $7.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2022 compared to $7.9 million for the three months ended September 30, 2021. The decline in operating expenses was primarily attributed to a reduction in salaries and
23
employee benefits expenses. Similarly, operating expenses as a percentage of average finance receivables, also decreased to 16.5% for the three months ended September 30, 2022 from 17.7% for the three months ended September 30, 2021.
Provision Expense
The provision for credit losses increased to $8.9 million for the three months ended September 30, 2022 from $1.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2021, largely due to an increase in the net charge-off percentage to 12.4% for the three months ended September 30, 2022 from 4.9% for the three months ended September 30, 2021.
Interest Expense
Interest expense was $1.0 million for the three months ended September 30, 2022 and $1.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2021. The following table summarizes the Company’s average cost of borrowed funds:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended September 30, |
|
|
Six months ended September 30, |
|
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
Variable interest under the Line of Credit facility |
|
|
2.14 |
% |
|
|
1.00 |
% |
|
|
1.41 |
% |
|
|
1.00 |
% |
Credit spread under the Line of Credit facility |
|
|
2.25 |
% |
|
|
3.75 |
% |
|
|
2.25 |
% |
|
|
3.75 |
% |
Average cost of borrowed funds |
|
|
4.39 |
% |
|
|
4.75 |
% |
|
|
3.66 |
% |
|
|
4.75 |
% |
SOFR rates have increased to 2.50%, which represents the daily SOFR rate as required under our Wells Fargo Line of Credit, as of September 30, 2022 compared to 0.1%, which represents the one-month LIBOR rate as required under our Line of Credit, as of September 30, 2021. For further discussions regarding interest rates see “Note 5. Credit Facility”.
On October 20, 2022, the Company received a letter from the agent of its lenders notifying the Company that it is instituting the default rate of interest of 2.5% imposed effective as of August 31, 2022 in connection with an event of default that occurred by virtue of the Company failure to comply with Section 6.3(a) of the Loan Agreement (EBITDA Ratio) for the calendar month ending August 31, 2022. The effect of the imposition of the default rate of interest was an additional interest expense of approximately $130 thousand for the quarter ended September 30, 2022.
Income Taxes
The Company recorded an income tax benefit of approximately $958 thousand for the three months ended September 30, 2022 compared to income tax expense of approximately $536 thousand for the three months ended September 30, 2021. The Company’s effective tax rate decreased to 23.4% for the three months ended September 30, 2021 from 25.1% for the three months ended September 30, 2021.
Six months ended September 30, 2022 compared to six months ended September 30, 2021
Interest Income and Loan Portfolio
Interest and fee income on finance receivables, decreased 3.4% to $24.3 million for the six months ended September 30, 2022 from $25.2 million for the six months ended September 30, 2021. The decrease was partly due to a lower average discount and a 0.8% decrease in average finance receivables to $178.9 million for the six months ended September 30, 2022 when compared to $180.4 million for the corresponding period ended September 30, 2021. The decrease in average finance receivables was primarily due to Company's commitment to maintaining its conservative underwriting practices, that typically allow more aggressive competitors to purchase a contract from a dealer.
The gross portfolio yield decreased to 27.2% for the six months ended September 30, 2022 compared to 27.9% for the six months ended September 30, 2021. The net portfolio yield decreased to 11.4% for the six months ended September 30, 2022 compared to 23.0% for the six months ended September 30, 2021, respectively. The substantial erosion in net portfolio yield was primarily caused by the significant increase in the provision for credit losses, as described under “Analysis of Credit Losses”.
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses increased to approximately $16.8 million for the six months ended September 30, 2022 from approximately $16.3 million for the six months ended September 30, 2021. Operating expenses as a percentage of average finance receivables increased to 18.8% for the six months ended September 30, 2022 from 18.0% for the six months ended September 30, 2021. The
24
increase in the percentage is attributable to an increase in administrative expense and a decrease in the average finance receivables balances.
The disclosure on future operating expenses under "Three months ended September 30, 2022 compared to three months ended September 30, 2021—Operating Expenses” is incorporated herein by reference.
Provision Expense
The provision for credit losses increased to $12.6 for the six months ended September 30, 2022 from $2.1 million for the six months ended September 30, 2021, largely due to an increase in the net charge-off percentage to 9.4% for the six months ended September 30, 2022 from 4.2% for the six months ended September 30, 2021.
Interest Expense
Interest expense was $1.5 million for the six months ended September 30, 2022 and $2.3 million for the six months ended September 30, 2021.
Income Taxes
The Company recorded an income tax benefit of approximately $1.6 million for the six months ended September 30, 2022 compared to income tax expense of approximately $1.1 million for the six months ended September 30, 2021. The Company’s effective tax rate decreased to 24.4% for the six months ended September 30, 2022 from 25.4% for the six months ended September 30, 2021.
Contract Procurement
As of September 30, 2022, the Company purchased Contracts in the states listed in the table below. The Contracts purchased by the Company are predominantly for used vehicles; for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, less than 1% were for new vehicles.
The following tables present selected information on Contracts purchased by the Company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of September 30, |
|
|
Three months ended September 30, |
|
|
Six months ended September 30, |
|
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
State |
|
Number of branches |
|
|
Net Purchases (In thousands) |
|
|
Net Purchases (In thousands) |
|
FL |
|
|
8 |
|
|
$ |
3,878 |
|
|
$ |
2,798 |
|
|
$ |
8,627 |
|
|
$ |
6,232 |
|
OH |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3,219 |
|
|
|
2,885 |
|
|
|
6,202 |
|
|
|
6,138 |
|
GA |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
1,928 |
|
|
|
2,403 |
|
|
|
4,687 |
|
|
|
5,417 |
|
KY |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1,120 |
|
|
|
1,135 |
|
|
|
2,621 |
|
|
|
2,798 |
|
MO |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1,159 |
|
|
|
1,332 |
|
|
|
2,549 |
|
|
|
2,785 |
|
NC |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1,910 |
|
|
|
1,827 |
|
|
|
3,750 |
|
|
|
2,958 |
|
IN |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1,008 |
|
|
|
1,071 |
|
|
|
2,118 |
|
|
|
2,079 |
|
SC |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
977 |
|
|
|
1,242 |
|
|
|
2,318 |
|
|
|
2,212 |
|
AL |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1,460 |
|
|
|
964 |
|
|
|
2,526 |
|
|
|
1,783 |
|
MI |
|
- |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
513 |
|
|
|
514 |
|
|
|
1,303 |
|
NV |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
535 |
|
|
|
656 |
|
|
|
1,103 |
|
|
|
1,194 |
|
TN |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
619 |
|
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
915 |
|
|
|
964 |
|
IL |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
952 |
|
|
|
746 |
|
PA |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
466 |
|
|
|
372 |
|
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
|
732 |
|
TX |
|
- |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
328 |
|
|
|
594 |
|
|
|
663 |
|
WI |
|
- |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
344 |
|
|
|
520 |
|
ID |
|
- |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
335 |
|
|
|
374 |
|
UT |
|
- |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
231 |
|
AZ |
|
- |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
KS |
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Total |
|
|
36 |
|
|
$ |
19,082 |
|
|
$ |
18,880 |
|
|
$ |
41,436 |
|
|
$ |
39,185 |
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended September 30, (Purchases in thousands) |
|
|
Six months ended September 30, (Purchases in thousands) |
|
Contracts |
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
Purchases |
|
$ |
19,082 |
|
|
$ |
18,880 |
|
|
$ |
41,436 |
|
|
$ |
39,185 |
|
Average APR |
|
|
22.7 |
% |
|
|
23.0 |
% |
|
|
22.8 |
% |
|
|
23.1 |
% |
Average discount |
|
|
6.4 |
% |
|
|
6.7 |
% |
|
|
6.5 |
% |
|
|
6.9 |
% |
Average term (months) |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
Average amount financed |
|
$ |
11,964 |
|
|
$ |
11,061 |
|
|
$ |
11,758 |
|
|
$ |
10,745 |
|
Number of Contracts |
|
|
1,595 |
|
|
|
1,707 |
|
|
|
3,530 |
|
|
|
3,654 |
|
Direct Loan Origination
The following table presents selected information on Direct Loans originated by the Company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct Loans |
|
Three months ended September 30, (Originations in thousands) |
|
|
Six months ended September 30, (Originations in thousands) |
|
Originated |
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
Purchases/Originations |
|
$ |
6,527 |
|
|
$ |
7,040 |
|
|
$ |
14,742 |
|
|
$ |
12,777 |
|
Average APR |
|
|
30.3 |
% |
|
|
30.0 |
% |
|
|
30.8 |
% |
|
|
30.1 |
% |
Average term (months) |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
Average amount financed |
|
$ |
4,574 |
|
|
$ |
4,433 |
|
|
$ |
4,351 |
|
|
$ |
4,396 |
|
Number of loans |
|
|
1,427 |
|
|
|
1,588 |
|
|
|
3,417 |
|
|
|
2,904 |
|
Liquidity and Capital Resources
The Company’s cash flows are summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended September 30, (In thousands) |
|
|
|
2022 |
|
|
2021 |
|
Cash provided by (used in): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities |
|
$ |
(970 |
) |
|
$ |
1,474 |
|
Investing activities |
|
|
(1,279 |
) |
|
|
6,722 |
|
Financing activities |
|
|
(1,023 |
) |
|
|
(18,322 |
) |
Net decrease in cash |
|
$ |
(3,272 |
) |
|
$ |
(10,126 |
) |
The Company’s primary use of working capital for the quarter ended September 30, 2022 was funding the purchase of Contracts, which are financed substantially through cash from principal and interest payments received, and the Company’s line of credit.
On November 5, 2021, NFI and its direct parent, Nicholas Data Services, Inc. (“NDS” and collectively with NFI, the “Borrowers”), entered into a senior secured credit facility (the “WF Credit Facility”) pursuant to a loan and security agreement by and among the Borrowers, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as agent, and the lenders that are party thereto (the “WF Credit Agreement”). The Ares Credit Facility was paid off in connection with entering into the WF Credit Facility.
Pursuant to the WF Credit Agreement, the lenders have agreed to extend to the Borrowers a line of credit of up to $175 million. The availability of funds under the WF Credit Facility is generally limited to an advance rate of between 80% and 85% of the value of eligible receivables, and outstanding advances under the WF Credit Facility will accrue interest at a rate equal to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) plus 2.25%. The commitment period for advances under the WF Credit Facility is three years (the expiration of that time period, the “Maturity Date”).
Pursuant to the WF Credit Agreement, the Borrowers granted a security interest in substantially all of their assets as collateral for their obligations under the WF Credit Facility. Furthermore, pursuant to a separate collateral pledge agreement, NDS pledged its equity interest in NFI as additional collateral.
The WF Credit Agreement and the other loan documents contain customary events of default and negative covenants, including but not limited to those governing indebtedness, liens, fundamental changes, investments, and sales of assets. If an event of default
26
occurs, the lenders could increase borrowing costs, restrict the Borrowers’ ability to obtain additional advances under the WF Credit Facility, accelerate all amounts outstanding under the WF Credit Facility, enforce their interest against collateral pledged under the WF Credit Facility or enforce such other rights and remedies as they have under the loan documents or applicable law as secured lenders.
If the lenders terminate the WF Credit Facility following the occurrence of an event of default under the loan documents, or the Borrowers prepay the loan and terminate the WF Credit Facility prior to the Maturity Date, then the Borrowers are obligated to pay a termination or prepayment fee in an amount equal to a percentage of $175 million, calculated as 2% if the termination or prepayment occurs during year one, 1% if the termination or repayment occurs during year two, and 0.5% if the termination or prepayment occurs thereafter.
On October 20, 2022, the Company received a letter from the agent of the lenders under the WF Credit Facility notifying the Company that the agent is instituting the default rate of interest of 2.5% effective as of August 31, 2022 in connection with an event of default that occurred by virtue of the Company’s failure to comply with Section 6.3(a) of the Loan Agreement (EBITDA Ratio) for the calendar month ended August 31, 2022. The effect of the imposition of the default rate of interest was an additional approximately $130 thousand in interest for the quarter ended September 30, 2022. The Company expects that an additional approximately $118 thousand in interest will be incurred per month while the default rate remains in place. For the calendar months ended September 30, 2022 and October 31, 2022, the Company also failed to comply with the EBITDA Ratio under the WF Credit Facility. The Company is working with Wells Fargo to address the default, and is also negotiating a refinancing opportunity with an alternative source. There can be no assurances that the Company will be successful in addressing the default or entering into a successor agreement on favorable terms or at all.
The Company will continue to depend on the availability the WF Credit Facility, together with cash from operations, to finance future operations. The availability of funds under the WF Credit Facility generally depends on availability calculations as defined in the WF Credit Agreement. See also the disclosure in Note 5. Credit Facility in this Form 10-Q, which is incorporated herein by reference.
On May 27, 2020, the Company obtained a loan in the amount of approximately $3.2 million from a bank in connection with the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP Loan”). Pursuant to the Paycheck Protection Program, all or a portion of the PPP Loan may be forgiven if the Company uses the proceeds of the PPP Loan for its payroll costs and other expenses in accordance with the requirements of the Paycheck Protection Program. The Company used the proceeds of the PPP Loan for payroll costs and other covered expenses and sought full forgiveness of the PPP Loan. The Company submitted a forgiveness application to Fifth Third Bank, the lender, on December 7, 2020 and submitted supplemental documentation on January 16, 2021. On December 27, 2021 SBA informed the Company that no forgiveness was granted. The Company filed an appeal with SBA on January 5, 2022. On May 6, 2022 the Office of Hearing and Appeals SBA (OHA) rendered a decision to deny the appeal. The Company subsequently repaid the outstanding principal balance of $3.2 million plus accrued and unpaid interest of $65 thousand on May 23, 2022.
The Company has begun its restructuring process to substantially decrease operating expenses and is developing a strategy with respect to its long-term use of cash. The related disclosure contained in “Restructuring and Change in Operating Strategy” is incorporated herein by reference.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
The Company does not engage in any off-balance sheet financing arrangements.
27