Good day ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the fourth quarter 2007 CompuCredit earnings conference call. My name is Audrey and I’ll be your coordinator for today. At this time all participants are in a listen only mode and we will be facilitating an answer and question session at the end towards the end of this conference. (Operator Instructions) I would now like to turn the presentation over to one of your host for today’s call, Mr. Jay Putnam director of investor relations. Please proceed sir.

Good afternoon and thank you for joining us for CompuCredit Corporation's fourth quarter 2007 earnings call. Before we get started I’d like to remind you some of our comments today will be forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include all statements that our plans, beliefs, or expectations for future results or developments including the performance of our credit card receivables, including new account growth, net interest margin, other income ratio and charge off levels, financial performance and gross expectations for all of our business segments, plans for our micro loans segments, acquisitions of portfolios assets or complimentary business, our expected levels of marketing and other expenses, liquidity expectations, capital raising plans, earnings expectations and general economic conditions. For information regarding some of the more important factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking statements that we make today you should read the forward-looking information section and the risk factors in our form 10Q of the quarter ended September 30, 2007. We also encourage you to review updates of these same sections of our 2007 from 10K when it’s filed within the next several weeks. Thanks again for your interest in CompuCredit. Please feel free to contact me if you ever have any questions you’d like to discuss. At this time I will now turn it over to Dave Hanna Chairman and CEO of CompuCredit for his remarks.

Thank you all for joining us. I’ll spend a few minutes reviewing our results from the quarter and provide an update on our business. I’ll then turn things over to J. Paul Whitehead our CFO to discuss our financial results in greater detail. After our prepared remarks we’ll be glad to respond to questions you may have. Also joining us today is Rich House; as most of you know Rich is Co-founder and President of CompuCredit. Today we are going to cover some of the metrics of our credit card assets with more granularity than normal so Rich is here to cover any questions about that area that you may have. Let me start my remarks by commenting a little bit about our philosophy and the general state of specialty financed businesses over the last several months. First and foremost, our approach has always been to manage our business for the long term. That means that we will always attempt to make prudent financial decisions for the long term growth of the capital that has been entrusted to us by our shareholders. Sometimes this approach means sitting on the sidelines and protecting the asset based that has been built rather than trying to always grow the asset base. Several months ago when the liquidity markets first began to freeze up for all sub-prime assets the first thing that we did was to start to look at scenarios that we might take if the securitization market never came back. While we believe that is extremely unlikely I wanted to know what would happen to our portfolio if we could not access the same liquidity markets we had used in the past. I should point out that this is not the first time we have looked at this type of scenario. You…

To recap our results for the fourth quarter we reported GAAP earnings of $15.8 million or $0.33 per share compared to $9.7 million or $0.19 per share in the fourth quarter 2006. Our fourth quarter 2007 GAAP earnings from continuing operations were $25.8 million or $0.54 per share as compared to $16.7 million or $0.33 per share for the fourth quarter of 2006. On a managed basis we reported a net loss of $28.1 million or $0.59 per share compared to earnings of $19.9 million or $0.40 per share in the fourth quarter of 2006. For continuing operations our fourth quarter 2007 managed loss was $18.2 million or $0.38 per share as compared with managed earnings of $26.6 million or $0.53 per share in the fourth quarter of 2006. Our GAAP earnings included $211.1 million of income we recognized through the sale of our lower tier credit card receivables and an off balance sheet securitization transaction. Our off balance sheet securitization of these receivables had the effect of writing our retained interest in these receivables up to their fair value. We should note however that the fair value of retained interest in these receivables is somewhat suppressed by the large vintages of lower tired credit card receivables from the second and third quarters of 2007 that will cycle through peak charge off levels during the first and second quarters of 2008. We expect the fair value of our retained interest to rise fairly significantly at the end of both the first and second quarters of 2008 as these charge offs are realized thereby leaving behind receivables of greater earnings power stability. With our fourth quarter 2007 off balance sheet securitization of our lower tier credit card receivables we know have greater consistency in our accounting treatment of our credit card…

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Sameer Gokhale with KBW. Please proceed. Sameer Gokhale – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: I just wanted some clarification on the closure of your micro lending stores, the ones that you identified. Which states were those closures in? And, specifically, in your view what was contributing to perhaps the underperformance of those particular stores?

Sameer, it was six different states and basically, based on the number of stores, none of the states represented a big portion of that business. It was just various states where we were not showing very much opportunities for increased profits going forward, some of them were in a loss position and so we went ahead and made the decision in the fourth quarter to exit from there at that time. Sameer Gokhale – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: Can you identify for us specifically which those states were?

Sameer, we are currently in the process of rolling out this data to the affected employee base and it would, for those reasons be premature for us to talk about them specifically right now. Sameer Gokhale – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: Okay. Then you mentioned that you securitized some lower tier receivables . I was just curious, was these securitizations part of an existing facility or did you find new funding for these somehow which given the challenges in the asset backed markets, it would seem somewhat surprising. So, can you just give us some more color on the context around that securitization of your lower tiered receivables?

As you probably recall, we actually increased the capacity under one of our lines. In our last earnings call, we announced that in November. Part in parcel to that effort we began looking at the facilities and the trust arrangement and made some changes to the trust in December to take those assets off that balance sheet. Sameer Gokhale – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: Okay. So this is part of something that you had already arranged for before. Given the challenges in the ABS market, it’s not like you went out and got a new facility by any means. That’s helpful.

Your next question comes from the line Carl Drake with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. Please proceed. Carl G. Drake – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey: J. Paul, I was wondering, the $22 million missed was that on a pre-tax basis or an after tax basis.

Carl, that’s on an after tax. Carl G. Drake – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey: Okay. Does that imply that you’re roughly kind of recurring earnings are around the $0.40 range for the fourth quarter?

Yeah, if you pull those out. The $22 million was basically the $0.40. So, it would have been $0.40 in addition to the – Carl G. Drake – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey: The $0.40 reduction from the guidance of $0.80 to $0.90, right?

Right. Carl G. Drake – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey: Okay. Second question, in terms of the increase in delinquencies you mentioned that you’re not seeing any real degradation by vintage. Is the increase in the delinquencies that we’re seeing from the pressure from the UK and the lower tier mix shift? Or, maybe you could elaborate a little bit on the increase in the 60 day delinquencies.

I’m going to have Rich House answer that question for you Carl.

Actually, what we’re seeing in our aggregate portfolio absent a lower tier segment, we’re basically seeing flat year-over-year delinquency performance. The UK actually has improved quite a bit as far as delinquency goes but, the rest of the portfolio has been roughly flat year-over-year and the delinquency increase that you’re seeing is simply a vintage affect as I think both David and J. Paul touched on. And, for those of you guys who have been with us a long time may remember me on conference calls back in 2001 and 2002 during a similar time period when we had a big marketing effort followed by really reducing our marketing associated with liquidity markets and what that results in is a vintage result at your portfolio level so what you’re seeing in the delinquencies is strictly associated with the lower tier portfolio being tremendously added to in the second and third quarters and now going through at the first half of the year their peak charge off rate. We expect that the charge off rate will increase, as J. Paul on touched on, in the first half of the year and diminished significantly in the second half of the year. That’s supported by our observation that our early stage delinquencies in our lower tier products are roughly 30% lower today than they were in October. Once again, this is not something that suggests the economy is improving or deteriorating it’s simply the mathematics of we put on a large slug of accounts in the summer and the fall and those accounts are going to go through their peak charge off phase in the first half of 08 and therefore going through their peak delinquency phase currently. Carl G. Drake – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey: Do you plan on originating a good mix of near prime cards going forward or is it going to predominantly be the lower tier cards going forward?

I think that moving forward we will continue to be in both the near prime and the lower tiers segments but that is all predicated on the appropriate liquidity. Right now what we’re doing is we slowed down our marketing in both segments in order to insure that we have enough liquidity to protect, as David said earlier, the book value of our enterprise. Carl G. Drake – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey: Are you still marketing at a level to originate 150 to 200 or have you scaled back significantly from that?

We’ve scaled back some from that. Carl G. Drake – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey: Could you give us some kind of range of quarterly market dollars to expect and kind of account additions?

Well, the difficult part Carl is that we are - and the reason I’m going to refrain from giving you that information is that we are as you all know, actively pursuing a lot of different alternatives to enable us to open up those marketing channels. I mean what we do know is that now is a good time to be marketing in the near prime space because we have a lot of our major competitors have pulled back so much. We know now is a good time to be marketing but first and foremost we’re going to make sure that we’re in a very strong cash position to enable us to: one, to ride out a liquidity crunch but two, to have cash to take advantage of portfolios that might come along. Carl G. Drake – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey: And last question on that, Dave in terms of cash position you mentioned you expected it to improve in the near term that’s because of tax refunds and then the stimulus package?

We also think that the portfolios are cash positive under our current forecasted plan with that reduced marketing over last year. So even without the speculative impact of a economic stimulus plan, we expect our cash position to improve. We believe that stimulus plan will be helpful because we’ve always seen it empirically at tax season it’s always been helpful. We saw back in 2002 when there was stimulus plan that was helpful, but we’re not counting on that to increase our cash position. We believe the nature of running our business as we’re running it currently will provide us appropriate liquidity to move forward.

Your next question is actually a follow-up from the line of Sameer. Please proceed. Sameer Gokhale – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: Yes I had a question on the portfolio acquisition opportunities I mean it seems like in talking to some of the companies in the space it’s been a little surprising that even performing portfolios don’t seem to have come out in the market just yet. Now there are a couple of big ones that some of the sellers want to go ahead and market but you know given the increased consolidation in the market place compared to say the last economic cycle when you had some of these sub-prime guys selling portfolios I mean is there anything unusual you’re seeing in that part of the business? I mean do sellers not want to carve out and sell parts of their sub-prime portfolios? Is consolidation in the industry just going to, is it just reduced the opportunities in the business? Can you just talk about your thoughts on that part of the business and opportunities there?

My expectation is that there are numerous potential sellers and we have also heard rumblings of several potential portfolios that might be coming to market. You are right Sameer the last time there were specifically some sub-prime issuers but there were also other issuers who just made the decision in an economic downturn that a book of business that had maybe not been created as a sub-prime asset class but had migrated down to a sub-prime portfolio, that’s the kind of things we think we might have an opportunity for this time. Where somebody put on a prime account, due to mortgage related issues or otherwise may have fallen down into sub-prime categories and if you’re a prime issuer you really don’t have the where with all too now how to handle that type of portfolio. So we still think that prime issuers who have pieces of portfolios that have turned into sub-prime portfolios are probably going to look to divest during the next six, 12, 18 months. Furthermore, as you point out there have been a few large portfolios of performing assets and some in sub-prime not some in the prime area that have sort of hit the market and have kind of been pulled back so we actually think there’s probably a little less competition today in any type of portfolio purchasing, just now there’s that many people out there looking to engage in portfolio purchasing activity.

I would also add we are now confident in our ability to purchase portfolios in the UK. We’ve had great success with our portfolio we purchased earlier this year and are very comfortable with our service platform there. Notable the UK has not gone through a recession in a long, long time and as they begin to struggle on the consumer front and their credit card industry is larger than it ever has been, we believe that there’s opportunity to buy portfolios in the UK and that we are one of the few buyers there. Sameer Gokhale – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: Okay thank you for that color. In the Jefferson Capital part of your business I mean clearly it seems like prices seem to have fallen you know say maybe for fresh stuff 25 to 30% maybe more than that on the older classes of paper which is defiantly positive but it seems like collections may be weakening in that part of the business. So as you look at pricing on those portfolios vis-à-vis collections on those portfolios and do you still think that s an attractive market to jump back into with both feet? Or do you still want to hold off until you really ramp up in the business until later on perhaps in 2008?

We think it is attractive today if you’re buying the right portfolio. Sameer you make a good point in that what has happened with some of the collection rates is that a collection tool that is often times used by charge off buyers is to get somebody to get a second mortgage on their home. Obviously, that tool is crimped if not taken away completely in today’s environment. When you take out the recoveries based on second home mortgage payments and look just at the average payments coming in from borrowers you see that we haven’t seen really a down tick in performance on the collections on those types of accounts. So it is one where you have to be careful, so I wouldn’t necessarily say we’re going to jump in with both feet. But having been in the bad debt buying business on and off since 1990 we believe we actually have a pretty good knowledge base as to when the appropriate time is to go back in and like I say it won’t necessarily be jumping in with both feet but we do think it’s going to be an attractive area.

Your next question comes from the line of Moshe Orenbuch with Credit Suisse. Please proceed. Moshe Orenbuch – Credit Suisse First Boston: You said that you have a certain amount of liquidity for purchasing the portfolios, could you expand on that? And, I think you referred to ability to raise outside money, could you kind of expand on that as well?

I think that probably in September or October last year liquidity even to purchase portfolio was probably as tight as we have ever seen it. So to fund even a good transaction was very tight and would be difficult to get. We have had several discussion with some of our previous lenders who are somewhat enthused to get back into that market now, so we feel pretty good about being in the market to go after those. When we talked about the equity and the lending piece part of why we’re trying to add some to our cash position is such that we won’t have to use much of equity partners because obviously that’s where most the return is on these things, and we can get attractive rates on pretty much just a singular lending piece. But if we have a very large portfolio in which case we might need some additional equity we feel real comfortable about getting some folks to come in alongside of us on that type of thing too.

To add just a bit of color on that motion I think what you’re finding in this particular liquidity market at least the flavor we’re getting is that we have a track record, I think we’ve purchased 10 distressed portfolios, as I think we already talked about earlier, over $6 billion in face value. We’ve done more of that of anybody else in the US or anywhere else and so I believe that what you find is that the liquidity provider can get comfortable with our expertise A; and B you have a amortizing pool. In this particular liquidity environment obviously people are looking at where can they distribute the debt over time and as you have an amortizing pool you at least have a kind of an amortizing view such as its not growing. So we’re seeing a little more appetite if you will for someone to partner with us on a portfolio purchase then you would think is the case just given the general liquidity environment.

Your next question comes from the line of David Hochstim with Bear, Stearns. Please proceed. David Hochstim – Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.: Can you talk about what’s happening with the bank regulators and your bank partners, and you alluded to some changes in the fourth quarter and I’m wondering what’s happening there in terms of regulatory reviews or the potential restrictions?

The changes in the fourth quarter were similar to changes that most credit card operators around the country have made as it pertains to negative amortization issues with fees and almost all credit card companies have instituted similar policies. So that didn’t really have a lot, it had to do with the regulatory agency but not necessarily in particular with us. We continue to have discussions and think that we are making some progress with the regulatory agencies towards a resolution that will solve any of their concerns and allow us to continue to run our business as we have in the past. David Hochstim – Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.: Can you just remind us what the changes you made in terms of accruing fees after 90 days earlier in the year? That was also intended to reduce negative am or eliminate neg am wasn’t it?

Yes. David Hochstim – Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.: So then what was different in the fourth quarter?

The fourth quarter there’s an issue of if somebody makes a payment and the payment does not add up to their fees and interest than you either have to put that person into a delinquency status or you have to waive some of those fees. We think it’s important to keep those people as paying customers so we keep them in the current status and we look to waive that relatively small level of fees that they may not have hit with their minimum payment. David Hochstim – Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.: Can you give us a sort of order of magnitude in term so what kind of available lines there is on those cards and how much they would have accrued that kind of pushed them over the edge? And how much open to buy they would have after you reversed that, if any?

A lot of the lower tiered customers have limited open to buy. Typically what happens is somebody opens the card, they use up a lot of their open to buy pretty quickly in the first six to eight months and then what happens is as that customer performs and pays over time we graduate the customer to more and more credit line. Now we cap those out after a while because we think someone that comes in at a $400 or $500 credit line can still be a great customer up to $1,000 or $1,200 but never, well I should say never but, we rarely take that customer up to $1,500, $2,000 or $3,000 because we’ve seen other issuers in this space have problems with that in the past. So, we monitor that closely and we try to take customers who are good customers with us and continuously graduate them up. So it’s hard to give you an exact, this is what the profile of the person, the open to buy and the like is but that’s sort of the overall approach we take with that lower tier customer. David Hochstim – Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.: Can you just give us a sense of how much the number of accounts might decline over the next couple of quarters as you reduce marketing and you still have some attrition?

We don’t have that drawn out here. We’re actually looking more at the receivables base which we think will moderate some but we don’t think it’s going to drop in a significant amount. David Hochstim – Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.: But should it drop and the balances should drop in the first quarter and then maybe start growing a little bit?

I would say that it is likely they will drop a little bit in the first half of the year and grow in the second half of the year. I would expect that we will see sort of yearend receivables probably a little above where we ended the year.

Your next question comes from the line of Rich Shane with Jefferies & Company. Please proceed. Richard B. Shane, Jr. – Jefferies & Company: A couple of questions; last quarter when you were asked the question about net portfolio growth in terms of number of accounts you expected modest portfolio growth, I think those were exactly your words, modest account growth. Instead, you saw about 3 or 4% decline in accounts and that accounted for a, by your estimations, a $22 million after tax variance. Does that really make sense? Is that the way we should be looking at this? That, that slight a tweak in terms of the account growth number would have that big of an impact?

It’s not just the account growth number. It’s also the purchase rate. One of the things, and we saw this really with all the big retailers as well as a lot of prime credit card issuers, what we saw in the fourth quarter was not negative performance by our customer base in terms of delinquency issues but, we did see them take what is arguably the rational actions of lowering their spend. So, we did see the overall consumers, at least of our several million customers, slow down their purchase activity some in the fourth quarter. So, it’s not just the number of accounts which was lower than what we forecasted, it is also a lower level of purchase activity on our customer base. Richard B. Shane, Jr. – Jefferies & Company: And when in the quarter did you actually sort of start to identify that trend?

Well really in the fourth quarter especially, you really don’t know that until after you go through Thanksgiving and the first couple of weeks of December. As most people know, the lion’s share or big percentage of overall purchases for the year are in that kind of 30 to 40 day period of time. So, we had not seen through the end of October, we had not seen performance that gave us a concern that it was going to be weaker in the fourth quarter. But then once we started seeing the purchase activity come in from Thanksgiving and Christmas and the like, coming in a fair amount lower than what we would have originally thought.

As David said, that’s consistent with our other credit card peers. Richard B. Shane, Jr. – Jefferies & Company: And when did you guys make the decision to close the businesses? To close the 106 micro lending branches?

That would have been during the fourth quarter, during December. Richard B. Shane, Jr. – Jefferies & Company: I guess the question is, given by January 1 you know all this and you had outstanding guidance, why not tell people that this was coming? I mean, we’re sitting here looking at these numbers, pretty surprised by them. All of that, you guys had to be aware of by Jan 1, why not tell people, “These are things that are coming through the numbers.”

Our approach throughout our history has been one of we’re going to run the business for what we believe to be in the best long term interest of the shareholders, we’re going to have quarterly calls and discussions and report the results of all the activity that we took. We have not historically taken an approach of trying to mid quarter announce a lot of things. What we try to do is spend our time and effort running the business and making the right decisions and to have a chance to discuss those on a quarterly basis. Richard B. Shane, Jr. – Jefferies & Company: Right. And again, on one hand I think there’s a lot that went on here that was good. Closing down businesses that aren’t hitting hurdle rates and being willing to take charge offs to do that, I think is a good way to create long term value, I don’t disagree with that. I think that there are many companies who are not willing to take that decisive action but, at the same time it’s clearly material, I think that’s a word you guys used to describe what was going on and it just seemed surprising that given the materiality of that, that you wouldn’t communicate that to shareholders in some sort of pre-announcement given that again, there are business things that vary within the quarter within normal variances that I think people expect. But, when you’re shutting down 106 branches, when there is a $22 million after tax variance on your core business that strikes me as the kind of stuff that you should tell people.

Our conclusion with respect to the discontinued store front operations and if you really look at the details in the line and the numbers and you’ll see those when we file our 10K, that particular decision and the charges related to that decision were indeed in material. The more material charges were the charges associated with goodwill impairment on ongoing operations. So, that’s kind of how we had looked at that issue. They weren’t really charges in and of themselves associated with our desire to defray a lot of the R&D efforts that we were taking within our other segment. There were clearly assets that we looked at that can we continue to use these assets in our credit segment? Are some of these assets that we feel we no longer have any utility for? But, in terms of the actual discontinued operations and the direct charges, we didn’t find those and believe those to be material. Richard B. Shane, Jr. – Jefferies & Company: Got it. I appreciate you guys taking the questions in the spirit in which they’re asked. Last thing, last quarter you basically say that given the current liquidity position you felt that you could continue to modestly grow the portfolio. Again, I think the number was 150 plus gross new accounts and modest net account growth. The liquidity position has not changed, you basically said even if things stayed status quo last quarter you would target that. I’m not sure why I understand the difference now given that you had no assumptions back then, from my understanding, that liquidity would improve.

I think that our impression was that we were going to by now have seen a light at the end of the tunnel which we have not yet seen in the liquidity environment. We didn’t necessarily think that by February 13th the liquidity markets were going to be back open but, my expectation when we last talked in November was that there was a reasonable chance that after the beginning of the year that we would have seen some improvement in the securitization markets and we would have seen some of the traditional securitizers back out in the market in a more robust nature than what we have seen. We monitor that pretty closely, we go to various meetings, we talk to a lot of investors and we’re not seeing anything right now that would indicate that the light at the end of the tunnel of the securitization market is going to be turned on any time quickly. So, that is why you’re hearing a little bit of a different sentiment from our today than you heard when we talked in November. Because, we had kind of been, really since mid August, in a very, very tight liquidity situation. So, that has gone on from basically three months and our expectation would have been that the entire tightness probably would have only been six months and here we are six months, seven months after the fact and we’re not seeing a lot of positive signs in the tradition securitization market. One of the areas that we have been focusing on is looking at liquidity that comes outside of the traditional securitization market. There is liquidity in the system, there’s not a liquidity in the traditional ABS world that we have operated in the past, no.

Additionally, the very phenomena that David speaks of which is restricting us from growing at the rate we want to grow at is also restricting everyone else and our view of available portfolios to buy is more favorable than it was back when David last spoke to you in November. So, we are rashly looking at how we deploy our capital and as David has mentioned before we have a long term view. We believe the market is there, we know if we have liquidity we can grow at a very rapid and profitable pace. But, it makes sense to us at this point in time to grow at a more measured pace, preserve our liquidity and put ourselves in a situation potentially to take advantage of other people who might be in liquidity crisis as well.

Your next question comes from the line of John Hecht with JMP Securities. Please proceed. John Hecht – JMP Securities: Just going line by line in your managed earnings and related to your charges, should we put down the goodwill write offs, the software right offs and the dealership intangible right offs in the operating expense line and then the $6.9 million of CDO write downs and the $3.6 million in the net charge off line in order to normalize those? Or, is there another way to allocate that?

If you’re looking at the managed statistics, now you’re talking about the charges related to continuing operations? John Hecht – JMP Securities: Yeah.

I think the challenge John is that some of the impairment related charges relate to continuing operations and some of the impairment charges relate to discontinued operations in so far as the bucket of expense related items or charges. As to the charge off items that you mentioned, clearly yeah, those would go into the charge off buckets. John Hecht – JMP Securities: So the $6.9 and $3.6 [inaudible] you would take out of the $139?

The $6.9 million, that’s at the other income line item. John Hecht – JMP Securities: Then there’s a larger portion in the operating expense of some amount devoted to below the operating line or the ongoing operating line?

Right, that’s correct. John Hecht – JMP Securities: Okay. Then, J. Paul you gave us some good ideas for the trends on a ratio perspective. Just looking I guess at the three primary ratios, trying to get a sense for what we should be expecting on a modeling perspective, on the adjusted charge off rate on one level we have positive seasonal trends with respect to credit, on the other you have the key charge off cycle, but given you add the most net new accounts on an organic basis in the third quarter, should expect the first quarter to show an increase over the fourth quarter? And then the second quarter to show an increase over the first quarter before starting to come down? Or, would it be the reverse of that?

I think what we’re looking at is a relatively consistent level of adjusted charge offs in the first and second quarters of next year and they will be appreciatively higher than they are this quarter. This also gets to Carl’s question that he asked before on the delinquencies. Notable, given affect to Rich’s and all of our comments about the vintage affect, we are sitting at the absolute zenith of delinquency rates that we see in our 60 plus day delinquency category and that coming down significantly throughout 2008 as these vintages actually flow through and start to charge off, as I said at a roughly constant rate in the first and second quarters of next year. John Hecht – JMP Securities: We understand the product mix shift, can you tell us, just to give me a sense of how to quantify the potential jump, what are key charge offs in just the low FICO credit card accounts? Can you give us a rate to expect just so that we can get a sense for the magnitude of expected jump?

When we publish our 10K in a couple of weeks here we’re going to provide the usual table that we provide that shows what our gross charge offs are for the entire business and I think using historical data, looking at some of our acquired portfolios and originate portfolios you should be able to come up with some estimation of what that charge off rate should be. John Hecht – JMP Securities: But, you can’t give us anything right now in terms of maybe the variances in those two products?

[Inaudible]. John Hecht – JMP Securities: And the net interest margin, if I remember it, expect a decline as well for the first couple of quarters and then, is that expected to increase or just stabilize at some new steady state? I guess, the same question with the other income ratio.

They would both increase in the latter half. John Hecht – JMP Securities: Okay

In the latter half of the year. And, as you point out John, you’re finance charge and late fee charge offs are netted against your net interest margin and your fee charge offs are netted against your other income ratio. We see those ratios being roughly comparable in the first and second quarters next year just like the principal charge off ratios. Again, significantly lower than they were in the fourth quarter this year. John Hecht – JMP Securities: Is there a steady state other income ratio that we should – give that your mix shift looks stabilized, theoretically in the second part of the year given just given a little net portfolio of those expectations, is there a period of time where we can look back to and say, “This is sort of the stabilized other income ratio.”

With the various portfolios that we purchased over the years, it skews the overall ratios from quarter-to-quarter so it’s kind of hard to tell you, “Go back and look at this. This is a steady state.” If we are sitting where we are today six months from now and the liquidity markets are still essentially tied and we are continuing to run along at a very low growth rate, we’ll be able to give you some guidance at that point as to what to look forward to on a steady state basis. It’s just very difficult right now without knowing which direction we’re going to go, we don’t want to have you anticipating one thing and have the liquidity markets open up, portfolios, what not that makes those types of things difficult. That’s why we refrain from guiding to specific numbers in this call.

But durationally as you probably know from pervious calls the lower tier product has very high income early in its life. So, as David was suggesting to the extent that we find additional securitization liquidity or additional liquidity outside of the securitization markets and begin to grow the second half of the year at a more robust pace then your fee income will increase at a fairly substantial level. To the extent that we are moving along at a conservative base then it would be lower. That’s why it’s difficult, as David says, to point back to a number at this point. I think that’s something we’ll have to address as we understand where the liquidity market is.

At this time ladies and gentlemen there are no further questions. With that said, thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This concludes this presentation. You may now disconnect. Have a great day.