Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

B. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission for interim financial statements. Accordingly, our interim statements do not include all of the information and disclosures required for our annual financial statements. In the opinion of our management, the condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary for a fair presentation of these interim results. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. The results for the six months ended June 30, 2012, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full year ending December 31, 2012.

The balance sheet at December 31, 2011, has been derived from the audited financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Segment Reporting

We operate in one industry segment that leases and rents “microticket” equipment and provides other financing services. All of our operations are located in the United States. Accordingly, we believe we have a single reportable segment for disclosure purposes.

Allowance for Loan Losses and Credit Quality of Loans

We maintain an allowance for credit losses on our investment in leases, service contracts and rental contracts at an amount that we believe is sufficient to provide adequate protection against losses in our portfolio. Given the nature of the “microticket” market and the individual size of each transaction, we do not have a formal credit review committee to review individual transactions. Rather, we developed a sophisticated, multi-tiered pricing model and have automated the credit scoring, approval and collection processes. We believe that with the proper pricing model, we can grant credit to a wide range of applicants provided we have priced appropriately for the associated risk. As a result of approving a wide range of credits, we experience a relatively high level of delinquency and write-offs in our portfolio. We periodically review the credit scoring and approval process to ensure that the automated system is making appropriate credit decisions. Given the nature of the “microticket” market and the individual size of each transaction, we do not evaluate transactions individually for the purpose of developing and determining the adequacy of the allowance for credit losses. Contracts in our portfolio are not re-graded subsequent to the initial extension of credit and the allowance is not allocated to specific contracts. Rather, we view the contracts as having common characteristics and maintain a general allowance against our entire portfolio utilizing historical collection statistics and an assessment of current credit risk in the portfolio as the basis for the amount.

We have adopted a consistent, systematic procedure for establishing and maintaining an appropriate allowance for credit losses for our microticket transactions. We estimate the likelihood of credit losses net of recoveries in the portfolio at each reporting period based upon a combination of the lessee’s bureau reported credit score at lease inception and the current delinquency status of the account. In addition to these elements, we also consider other relevant factors including general economic trends, trends in delinquencies and credit losses, static pool analysis of our portfolio, trends in recoveries made on charged off accounts, and other relevant factors which might affect the performance of our portfolio. This combination of historical experience, credit scores, delinquency levels, trends in credit losses, and the review of current factors provide the basis for our analysis of the adequacy of the allowance for credit losses. In general a receivable is uncollectable when it is 360 days past due or earlier, if other adverse events occur with respect to an account. None of our receivables are placed on non-accrual status as accounts are charged off when deemed uncollectible. Historically, the typical monthly payment under our microticket leases has been small and as a result, our experience is that lessees will pay past due amounts later in the process because of the relatively small amount necessary to bring an account current.

We segregate our lease portfolio between TimePayment Corp. and Leasecomm Corp. to perform the calculation and analysis of the allowance for loan losses. Each company consists of a single portfolio segment – microticket equipment. Leases of microticket equipment are made to businesses and individuals and are generally secured by assets of the business or a personal guarantee. Repayment is expected from the cash flows of the business or individual. A weakened economy, and resultant decreased consumer spending, may have an effect on the credit quality in this segment.

Each period the provision for credit losses in the income statement results from the combination of an estimate by management of credit losses that occurred during the current period and the ongoing adjustment of prior estimates of losses occurring in prior periods. To serve as a basis for making this provision, we maintain an internally developed proprietary scoring model that considers several factors including the lessee’s bureau reported credit score at lease inception. We also consider other relevant factors including general economic trends, trends in delinquencies and credit losses, static pool analysis of our portfolio, trends in recoveries made on charged off accounts, and other relevant factors which might affect the performance of our portfolio. The combination of historical experience, credit scores, delinquency levels, trends in credit losses, and the review of current factors provide the basis for our analysis of the adequacy of the allowance for credit losses.

We assign internal risk ratings for all lessees and determine the credit worthiness of each lease based upon this internally developed proprietary scoring model. The LeaseComm portfolio is evaluated in total with a reserve of 50% of the outstanding amount greater than 90 days plus 25% of the amount outstanding from 1 to 89 days. The TimePayment scoring model generates one of nine acceptable risk ratings based upon the credit worthiness of each lease or it rejects the lease application. The scores are assigned at lease inception and these scores are maintained over the lease term regardless of payment performance. To facilitate review and reporting, management aggregates these nine scores into one of three categories with similar risk profiles and delinquency characteristics identified as Gold, Silver or Bronze.

• Leases assigned a gold rating represent those transactions which exhibit the best risk rating based on our internal credit scores. They are considered of sufficient quality to preclude an otherwise adverse rating. Gold rated leases are typically represented by lessees with high bureau reported credit scores for personal guarantors at lease inception or are supported by established businesses for those transactions which are not personally guaranteed by the lessee.

• Leases assigned a silver rating fall in the middle range of the nine acceptable scores generated by the scoring model. These transactions possess a reasonable amount of risk based on their profile and may exhibit vulnerability to deterioration if adverse factors are encountered. These accounts typically demonstrate adequate coverage but warrant a higher level of monitoring by management to ensure that weaknesses do not advance.

• A bronze rating applies to leases at the lower end of the nine acceptable scores generated by the scoring model whereby the lessee may have difficulty meeting the lease obligation if adverse factors are encountered. Bronze rated transactions typically have lower reported credit scores at lease inception and will typically have other less desirable credit attributes.

See Note C for details of our allowance for credit losses and the aged analysis of past due financing receivables based upon our internally-developed proprietary lease scoring model.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Accounting for fair value measurements involves a single definition of fair value, along with a conceptual framework to measure fair value, with fair value defined as “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an order transaction between market participants at the measurement date.” The fair value measurement hierarchy consists of three levels:

Level 1 - Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2 - Inputs other than Level 1 that are observable, either directly or indirectly, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3 - Unobservable inputs developed using estimates and assumption which are developed by the reporting entity and reflect those assumptions that a market participant would use.

We apply valuation techniques that (1) place greater reliance on observable inputs and less reliance on unobservable inputs and (2) are consistent with the market approach, the income approach and/or the cost approach.

The carrying values of cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, other assets, accounts payable and other liabilities approximate their fair values due to the short maturity of these instruments, valued using Level 3 inputs, as described above. The fair value of the amounts outstanding under our revolving line of credit, evaluated using Level 2 inputs as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, approximate the carrying value. We have elected not to mark the amount outstanding under this facility to market.

Stock-based Employee Compensation

We have adopted the fair value recognition provisions of FASB ASC Topic 718 Compensation—Stock Compensation. FASB ASC Topic 718 requires us to recognize the compensation cost related to share-based payment transactions with employees in the financial statements. The compensation cost is measured based upon the fair value of the instrument issued. Share-based compensation transactions with employees covered by FASB ASC Topic 718 include share options, restricted share plans, performance-based awards, share appreciation rights, and employee share purchase plans.

Net Income Per Share

Basic net income per common share is computed based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per common share gives effect to all potentially dilutive common shares outstanding during the period. The computation of diluted net income per share does not assume the issuance of common shares that have an antidilutive effect on net income per common share.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

We consider all highly liquid instruments purchased with original maturities of less than three months to be cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are stated at cost, which approximates fair value.

Concentration of Credit Risk

We deposit our cash and invest in short-term investments primarily through national commercial banks. Deposits in excess of amounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are exposed to loss in the event of nonperformance by the institution. The Company has had cash deposits in excess of the FDIC insurance coverage.