(1) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

(2) Finance Receivables

Our portfolio of finance receivables consists of small-balance homogeneous contracts comprising a single segment and class that is collectively evaluated for impairment on a portfolio basis according to delinquency status. Our contract purchase guidelines are designed to produce a homogenous portfolio. For key terms such as interest rate, length of contract, monthly payment and amount financed, there is relatively little variation from the average for the portfolio. We report delinquency on a contractual basis. Once a contract becomes greater than 90 days delinquent, we do not recognize additional interest income until the obligor under the contract makes sufficient payments to be less than 90 days delinquent. Any payments received on a contract that is greater than 90 days delinquent are first applied to accrued interest and then to principal reduction.

In January 2018 the Company adopted the fair value method of accounting for finance receivables acquired after 2017. Finance receivables measured at fair value are recorded separately on the Company’s Balance Sheet and are excluded from all tables in this footnote.

The following table presents the components of Finance Receivables, net of unearned interest:

We consider an automobile contract delinquent when an obligor fails to make at least 90% of a contractually due payment by the following due date, which date may have been extended within limits specified in the servicing agreements. The period of delinquency is based on the number of days payments are contractually past due, as extended where applicable. Automobile contracts less than 31 days delinquent are not included. In certain circumstances we will grant obligors one-month payment extensions to assist them with temporary cash flow problems. The only modification of terms is to advance the obligor’s next due date by one month and extend the maturity date of the receivable by one month. In certain limited cases, a two-month extension may be granted. There are no other concessions such as a reduction in interest rate, forgiveness of principal or of accrued interest. Accordingly, we consider such extensions to be insignificant delays in payments rather than troubled debt restructurings. The following table summarizes the delinquency status of finance receivables as of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020:

Finance receivables totaling $3.0 million and $5.4 million at March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, including all receivables greater than 90 days delinquent, have been placed on non-accrual status as a result of their delinquency status.

Allowance for Credit Losses – Finance Receivables

The allowance for credit losses is a valuation account that is deducted from the amortized cost basis of finance receivables to present the net amount expected to be collected. Charge offs are deducted from the allowance when management believes that collectability is unlikely.

Management estimates the allowance using relevant available information, from internal and external sources, relating to past events, current conditions and, reasonable and supportable forecasts. We believe our historical credit loss experience provides the best basis for the estimation of expected credit losses. Consequently, we use historical loss experience for older receivables, aggregated into vintage pools based on their calendar quarter of origination, to forecast expected losses for less seasoned quarterly vintage pools.

We measure the weighted average monthly incremental change in cumulative net losses for the vintage pools in the relevant historical period. For the pools in the relevant historical period, we consider each pool’s performance from its inception through the end of the current period. We then apply the results of the historical analysis to less seasoned vintage pools beginning with each vintage pool’s most recent actual cumulative net loss experience and extrapolating from that point based on the historical data. We believe the pattern and magnitude of losses on older vintages allows us to establish a reasonable and supportable forecast of less seasoned vintages.

Our contract purchase guidelines are designed to produce a homogenous portfolio. For key credit characteristics of individual contracts such as obligor credit history, job stability, residence stability and ability to pay, there is relatively little variation from the average for the portfolio. Similarly, for key structural characteristics such as loan-to-value, length of contract, monthly payment and amount financed, there is relatively little variation from the average for the portfolio. Consequently, we do not believe there are significant differences in risk characteristics between various segments of our portfolio.

Our methodology incorporates historical pools that are sufficiently seasoned to capture the magnitude and trends of losses within those vintage pools. Furthermore, the historical period encompasses a substantial volume of receivables over periods that include fluctuations in the competitive landscape, the Company’s rates of growth, size of our managed portfolio and fluctuations in economic growth and unemployment.

In consideration of the depth and breadth of the historical period, and the homogeneity of our portfolio, we generally do not adjust historical loss information for differences in risk characteristics such as credit or structural composition of segments of the portfolio or for changes in environmental conditions such as changes in unemployment rates, collateral values or other factors. However, we have considered how certain qualitative factors may affect future credit losses and have incorporated our judgement of the effect of such factors into our estimates.

Effective January 1, 2020, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 326, which changes the criteria under which credit losses on financial instruments (such as the Company’s finance receivables) are measured. ASC 326 introduced a new credit reserving model known as the Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”) model, which replaces the incurred loss impairment methodology previously used under U.S. GAAP with a methodology that records currently the expected lifetime credit losses on financial instruments. The adoption of CECL required that we establish an allowance for the remaining expected lifetime credit losses on the portion of the Company’s receivable portfolio for which the Company was not already using fair value accounting. We refer to that portion, which is those receivables that were originated prior to January 2018, as our “legacy portfolio”. To comply with CECL, the Company recorded an addition to its allowance for finance credit losses of $127.0 million. The offset to the addition to the allowance for finance credit losses was a tax affected reduction to retained earnings using the modified retrospective method.

The following table presents the amortized cost basis of our finance receivables by annual vintage as of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020.

The following table presents a summary of the activity for the allowance for finance credit losses for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2021 and 2020:

Excluded from finance receivables are contracts that were previously classified as finance receivables but were reclassified as other assets because we have repossessed the vehicle securing the Contract. The following table presents a summary of such repossessed inventory together with the allowance for losses in repossessed inventory that is not included in the allowance for finance credit losses:

(3) Securitization Trust Debt

We have completed many securitization transactions that are structured as secured borrowings for financial accounting purposes. The debt issued in these transactions is shown on our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as “Securitization trust debt,” and the components of such debt are summarized in the following table:

Debt issuance costs of $10.8 million and $10.6 million as of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, have been excluded from the table above. These debt issuance costs are presented as a direct deduction to the carrying amount of the securitization trust debt on our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

All of the securitization trust debt was sold in private placement transactions to qualified institutional buyers. The debt was issued through our wholly-owned bankruptcy remote subsidiaries and is secured by the assets of such subsidiaries, but not by our other assets.

The terms of the securitization agreements related to the issuance of the securitization trust debt and the warehouse credit facilities require that we meet certain delinquency and credit loss criteria with respect to the pool of receivables, and certain of the agreements require that we maintain minimum levels of liquidity and not exceed maximum leverage levels. As of March 31, 2021, we were in compliance with all such covenants.

We are responsible for the administration and collection of the automobile contracts. The securitization agreements also require certain funds be held in restricted cash accounts to provide additional collateral for the borrowings, to be applied to make payments on the securitization trust debt or as pre-funding proceeds from a term securitization prior to the purchase of additional collateral. As of March 31, 2021, restricted cash under the various agreements totaled approximately $159.4 million. Interest expense on the securitization trust debt consists of the stated rate of interest plus amortization of additional costs of borrowing. Additional costs of borrowing include facility fees, amortization of deferred financing costs and discounts on notes sold. Deferred financing costs and discounts on notes sold related to the securitization trust debt are amortized using a level yield method. Accordingly, the effective cost of the securitization trust debt is greater than the contractual rate of interest disclosed above.

Our wholly-owned bankruptcy remote subsidiaries were formed to facilitate the above asset-backed financing transactions. Similar bankruptcy remote subsidiaries issue the debt outstanding under our credit facilities. Bankruptcy remote refers to a legal structure in which it is expected that the applicable entity would not be included in any bankruptcy filing by its parent or affiliates. All of the assets of these subsidiaries have been pledged as collateral for the related debt. All such transactions, treated as secured financings for accounting and tax purposes, are treated as sales for all other purposes, including legal and bankruptcy purposes. None of the assets of these subsidiaries are available to pay other creditors.

On April 28, 2021 we completed our second securitization transaction of 2021. In the transaction, qualified institutional buyers purchased $240.0 million of asset-backed notes secured by $240.0 million in automobile receivables originated by CPS. The sold notes, issued by CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2021-B, consist of five classes. Ratings of the notes were provided by Moody’s and DBRS Morningstar, and were based on the structure of the transaction, the historical performance of similar receivables and CPS’s experience as a servicer. The weighted average yield on the notes is approximately 1.65%.

(4) Debt

The terms and amounts of our other debt outstanding at March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020 are summarized below:

(5) Interest Income and Interest Expense

The following table presents the components of interest income:

The following table presents the components of interest expense:

(6) Earnings Per Share

Earnings per share for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2021 and 2020 were calculated using the weighted average number of shares outstanding for the related period. The following table reconciles the number of shares used in the computations of basic and diluted earnings per share for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2021 and 2020:

If the anti-dilutive effects of common stock equivalents were considered, shares included in the diluted earnings per share calculation for the three-months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020 would have included an additional 7.5 million and 12.9 million shares, respectively, attributable to the exercise of outstanding options and warrants.

(7) Income Taxes

We file numerous consolidated and separate income tax returns with the United States and with many states. With few exceptions, we are no longer subject to U.S. federal, state, or local examinations by tax authorities for years before 2013.

On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was adopted, providing wide ranging economic relief for individuals and businesses. One component of the CARES Act provides the Company with an opportunity to carry back net operating losses (“NOLs”) arising from 2018, 2019 and 2020 to the prior five tax years. The Company has such NOLs reflected on its balance sheet as a portion of deferred tax assets. The Company has previously valued its NOLs at the federal corporate income tax rate of 21%. However, the provisions of the CARES Act provide for NOL carryback claims to be calculated based on a rate of 35%, which was the federal corporate tax rate in effect for the carryback years. Consequently, the Company has revalued the benefit from its NOLs to reflect a 35% tax rate. The result of the revaluation of NOLs and other tax adjustments is a net tax benefit of $8.8 million, which is reflected in income taxes for the three-month period ending March 31, 2020.

As of March 31, 2021, and December 31, 2020, we had no unrecognized tax benefits for uncertain tax positions. We do not anticipate that total unrecognized tax benefits will significantly change due to any settlements of audits or expirations of statutes of limitations over the next 12 months.

The Company and its subsidiaries file a consolidated federal income tax return and combined or stand-alone state franchise tax returns for certain states. We utilize the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes, under which deferred income taxes are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to the differences between the financial statement values of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred taxes of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.

Deferred tax assets are recognized subject to management’s judgment that realization is more likely than not. A valuation allowance is recognized for a deferred tax asset if, based on the weight of the available evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. In making such judgments, significant weight is given to evidence that can be objectively verified. Although realization is not assured, we believe that the realization of the recognized net deferred tax asset of $27.5 million as of March 31, 2021 is more likely than not based on forecasted future net earnings. Our net deferred tax asset of $27.5 million consists of approximately $16.2 million of net U.S. federal deferred tax assets and $11.3 million of net state deferred tax assets.

Income tax expense was $2.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2021, representing an effective income tax rate of 35%. Income tax benefit was $7.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2020, which includes net tax benefits of $8.8 million. Excluding the tax benefit, income tax expense would have been $1.1 million, representing an effective income tax rate of 36%.

(8) Legal Proceedings

Consumer Litigation. We are routinely involved in various legal proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and practices, both continuing and discontinued. Consumers can and do initiate lawsuits against us alleging violations of law applicable to collection of receivables, and such lawsuits sometimes allege that resolution as a class action is appropriate.

For the most part, we have legal and factual defenses to consumer claims, which we routinely contest or settle (for immaterial amounts) depending on the particular circumstances of each case.

Wage and Hour Claim. On September 24, 2018, a former employee filed a lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, alleging that we incorrectly classified our sales representatives as outside salespersons exempt from overtime wages, mandatory break periods and certain other employee protective provisions of California and federal law. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorney fees and interest. The plaintiff purports to act on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees and ex-employees. As of the date of this report, no motion for class certification has been filed or granted.

We believe that our compensation practices with respect to our sales representatives are compliant with applicable law. Accordingly, we have defended and intend to continue to defend this lawsuit. We have not recorded a liability with respect to this claim on the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

In General. There can be no assurance as to the outcomes of the matters described or referenced above. We record at each measurement date, most recently as of December 31, 2020, our best estimate of probable incurred losses for legal contingencies, including the matters identified above, and consumer claims. The amount of losses that may ultimately be incurred cannot be estimated with certainty. However, based on such information as is available to us, we believe that the total of probable incurred losses for legal contingencies as of March 31, 2021 is immaterial, and that the range of reasonably possible losses for the legal proceedings and contingencies we face, including those described or identified above, as of March 31, 2021 does not exceed $3 million.

Accordingly, we believe that the ultimate resolution of such legal proceedings and contingencies should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. We note, however, that in light of the uncertainties inherent in contested proceedings there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our income for that period.

(9) Fair Value Measurements

ASC 820, "Fair Value Measurements" clarifies the principle that fair value should be based on the assumptions market participants would use when pricing an asset or liability and establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the information used to develop those assumptions. Under the standard, fair value measurements would be separately disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy.

ASC 820 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy for disclosure of fair value measurement and enhances disclosure requirements for fair value measurements. The three levels are defined as follows: level 1 - inputs to the valuation methodology are quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets; level 2 – inputs to the valuation methodology include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, and inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the financial instrument; and level 3 – inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement.

Effective January 2018 we have elected to use the fair value method to value our portfolio of finance receivables acquired in January 2018 and thereafter.

Our valuation policies and procedures have been developed by our Accounting department in conjunction with our Risk department and with consultation with outside valuation experts. Our policies and procedures have been approved by our Chief Executive and our Board of Directors and include methodologies for valuation, internal reporting, calibration and back testing. Our periodic review of valuations includes an analysis of changes in fair value measurements and documentation of the reasons for such changes. There is little available third-party information such as broker quotes or pricing services available to assist us in our valuation process.

Our level 3, unobservable inputs reflect our own assumptions about the factors that market participants use in pricing similar receivables and are based on the best information available in the circumstances. They include such inputs as estimates for the magnitude and timing of net charge-offs and the rate of amortization of the portfolio of finance receivable. Significant changes in any of those inputs in isolation would have a significant effect on our fair value measurement.

For the period ended March 31, 2021, the Company evaluated of the appropriate fair value and future earnings rate of existing receivables compared to recently acquired receivables and our assessment of potential additional future net losses on the portfolio of finance receivables carried at fair value and recorded a mark down to that portfolio of $4.4 million.

The table below presents a reconciliation of the finance receivables measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs:

The table below compares the fair values of these finance receivables to their contractual balances for the periods shown:

The following table provides certain qualitative information about our level 3 fair value measurements: