1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2013

Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Description of Business

We were formed in California on March 8, 1991. We specialize in purchasing and servicing retail automobile installment sale contracts (“automobile contracts” or “finance receivables”) originated by licensed motor vehicle dealers located throughout the United States (“dealers”) in the sale of new and used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans. Through our purchases, we provide indirect financing to dealer customers for borrowers with limited credit histories, low incomes or past credit problems (“sub-prime customers”). We serve as an alternative source of financing for dealers, allowing sales to customers who otherwise might not be able to obtain financing. In addition to purchasing installment purchase contracts directly from dealers, we have also (i) acquired installment purchase contracts in four merger and acquisition transactions, (ii) purchased immaterial amounts of vehicle purchase money loans from non-affiliated lenders, and (iii) lent money directly to consumers for an immaterial amount of loans secured by vehicles. In this report, we refer to all of such contracts and loans as "automobile contracts."

Basis of Presentation

Our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, with the instructions to Form 10-Q and with Article 8 of Regulation S-X of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and include all adjustments that are, in management’s opinion, necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods presented. All such adjustments are, in the opinion of management, of a normal recurring nature. Results for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2013 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results to be expected for the full year.

Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America have been condensed or omitted from these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reported periods. Specifically, a number of estimates were made in connection with determining an appropriate allowance for finance credit losses, valuing finance receivables measured at fair value and the related debt, valuing residual interest in securitizations, accreting net acquisition fees, amortizing deferred costs, valuing stock options and warrants issued, and recording deferred tax assets and reserves for uncertain tax positions. These are material estimates that could be susceptible to changes in the near term and, accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.

Other Income

The following table presents the primary components of Other Income for the three-month and nine-month periods ending September 30, 2013 and 2012:

	Three Months Ended September 30,					Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2013		2012			2013		2012
	(In thousands)					(In thousands)
Direct mail revenues	$	1,691	$	1,617		$	5,418	$	4,468
Convenience fee revenue		720		715			2,235		2,237
Recoveries on previously charged-off contracts		49		67			153		312
Sales tax refunds		–		59			84		186
Other		444		(93	)		394		278
Other income for the period	$	2,904	$	2,365		$	8,284	$	7,481

Stock-based Compensation

We recognize compensation costs in the financial statements for all share-based payments based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of ASC 718 “Stock Compensation”.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, we recorded stock-based compensation costs in the amount of $2,939,000 and $801,000, respectively. As of September 30, 2013, unrecognized stock-based compensation costs to be recognized over future periods equaled $13.5 million. This amount will be recognized as expense over a weighted-average period of 3.6 years.

The following represents stock option activity for the nine months ended September 30, 2013:

	Number of			Weighted		Weighted Average
	Shares			Average		Remaining
	(in thousands)			Exercise Price		Contractual Term
Options outstanding at the beginning of period		8,652		$	1.58	N/A
Granted		3,040			7.43	N/A
Exercised		(1,116	)		1.52	N/A
Forfeited		(151	)		4.64	N/A
Options outstanding at the end of period		10,425		$	3.25	6.63 years
Options exercisable at the end of period		5,769		$	1.95	4.90 years

At September 30, 2013, the aggregate intrinsic value of options outstanding and exercisable was $32.5 million and $23.3 million, respectively. There were 1,116,000 options exercised for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 compared to 356,000 for the comparable period in 2012. There were 4.0 million shares available for future stock option grants under existing plans as of September 30, 2013.

Purchases of Company Stock

During the nine-month period ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, we purchased 323,674 and 320,154 shares, respectively, of our common stock, at average prices of $7.68 and $1.36, respectively.

Reclassifications

Some items in the prior year financial statements were reclassified to conform to the current presentation. Reclassifications had no effect on prior year net income or total shareholders’ equity.

Derivative Financial Instruments

We do not use derivative financial instruments to hedge exposures to cash flow or market risks. However, from 2008 to 2010, we issued warrants to purchase the Company’s common stock in conjunction with various debt financing transactions. At the time of issuance, five of these warrants issued contained "down round," or price reset, features that are subject to classification as liabilities for financial statement purposes. These liabilities were measured at fair value, with the changes in fair value at the end of each period reflected as current period income or loss. Accordingly, changes to the market price per share of our common stock underlying these warrants with "down round," or price reset, features directly affected the fair value computations for these derivative financial instruments. The effect was that any increase in the market price per share of our common stock would also increase the related liability, which in turn would result in a current period loss. Conversely, any decrease in the market price per share of our common stock would also decrease the related liability, which in turn would result in a current period gain. We used a binomial pricing model to compute the fair value of the liabilities associated with the outstanding warrants. In computing the fair value of the warrant liabilities at the end of each period, we used significant judgments with respect to the risk free interest rate, the volatility of our stock price, and the estimated life of the warrants. The warrant liabilities were included in Accounts payable and accrued expenses on our consolidated balance sheets. On March 29, 2012 we agreed with the holders to amend three of the five warrants that contained the “down round” features, removing those specific price reset terms. On the date of the amendment, we valued each of the three warrants using a binomial pricing model as described above. The aggregate value of the three amended warrants of $1.1 million was then reclassified from Accounts payable to Common Stock. On June 25, 2012 we agreed with the holder to amend one other warrant that contained the “down round” features, removing those specific price reset terms. The $250,000 aggregate value of this amended warrant was reclassified from Accounts payable to Common stock on the date of the amendment. The fifth warrant with the “down round” feature was exercised on February 22, 2013. The $583,000 intrinsic value of this warrant was reclassified from Accounts payable to Common stock on the date of the exercise. As of September 30, 2013 all five of the warrants issued that previously contained price reset features have either been amended or exercised and are no longer subject to quarterly valuations.

Financial Covenants

Certain of our securitization transactions, our warehouse credit facilities and our residual interest financing contain various financial covenants requiring minimum financial ratios and results. Such covenants include maintaining minimum levels of liquidity and net worth and not exceeding maximum leverage levels. As of September 30, 2013, we were in compliance with all such covenants. In addition, certain securitization and non-securitization related debt agreements contain cross-default provisions that would allow certain creditors to declare a default if a default occurred under a different facility.

Finance Receivables and Related Debt Measured at Fair Value

In September 2011 we purchased approximately $217.8 million of finance receivables from Fireside Bank. These receivables and the related acquisition debt are recorded on our balance sheet at fair value. There are no level 1 or level 2 inputs (as described by ASC 820) available to us for measurement of such receivables, or for the related debt. Our level 3, unobservable inputs reflect our own assumptions about the factors that market participants use in pricing similar receivables and debt, and are based on the best information available in the circumstances. The valuation method used to estimate fair value may produce a fair value measurement that may not be indicative of ultimate realizable value. Furthermore, while we believe our valuation methods are appropriate and consistent with those used by other market participants, the use of different methods or assumptions to estimate the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in different estimates of fair value. Those estimated values may differ significantly from the values that would have been used had a readily available market for such receivables or debt existed, or had such receivables or debt been liquidated, and those differences could be material to the financial statements.

Gain on Cancellation of Debt

In April 2013, we repurchased the outstanding Class D notes from our first 2008 securitization for a cash payment of $6.1 million and a new 5% note for $5.3 million due in June 2014. The Class D notes were held by the same related party that holds our senior secured debt. On the date we repurchased the Class D notes, the Class D note holder owned 10.5% of our outstanding common stock and warrants to purchase an additional 1.9 million shares of common stock. We subsequently exercised our “clean-up call” option and repurchased the remaining collateral from the related securitization trust. The aggregate value of our consideration for the Class D notes was $10.9 million less than our carrying value of the Class D notes at the time of the repurchase. As a result of the repurchase of the Class D notes and the termination of the securitization trust, we realized a gain of $10.9 million.

Provision for Contingent Liabilities

During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, we recognized $9.7 million in contingent liability expenses to either record or increase the amounts we believe we may incur related to various pending litigation. The amount was allocated in part to a long running case we refer to as the Stanwich litigation, and also to more recent matters including two California class action suits where we are the defendant, and a governmental inquiry, in which the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has informally proposed that the we refrain from certain allegedly unfair trade practices, and make restitutionary payments into a consumer relief fund.