Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Ocwen Financial First Quarter Preliminary Results. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would like to introduce your host for today's conference, Mr. Steve Swett. Sir, you may begin.

Thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today for Ocwen's First Quarter 2015 Preliminary Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that a slide presentation is available to accompany today's call. To access the presentation, please go to the Shareholder Relations section on our website at www.ocwen.com and click on the Events & Presentations tab. As a reminder, the presentation and our comments this morning may contain forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the federal securities laws. These forward-looking statements may be identified by reference to a future period or by use of forward-looking terminology. Forward-looking statements, by their nature, address matters that are, to a different degree, uncertain. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause the company's actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in these forward-looking statements. The presentation and our comments this afternoon relate to our preliminary results for the 3 months ended March 31, 2015, and our fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. This financial information is preliminary based upon the company's estimates and subject to the completion of the company's final closing procedures. As such, our preliminary results are subject to revision, and our final results may differ materially. In addition, the presentation and our comments contain references to non-GAAP financial measures such as normalized adjusted cash flow from operations. We believe these non-GAAP financial measures provide a useful supplement to discussions and analysis of our financial condition. We also believe these non-GAAP financial measures provide an alternate way to view certain aspects of our business that is instructive. Non-GAAP financial measures should be viewed in addition to, and not as an alternative for, the company's reported results under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. For an elaboration of the factors I just discussed, please refer to today's earnings release as well as the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Ocwen's 2013 Form 10-K/A and our third quarter Form 10-Q. Joining me on the call today is Ron Faris, our President and Chief Executive Officer; and Michael Bourque, our Chief Financial Officer. Now I will turn the call over to Ron.

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us on today's call. There's obviously a lot for us to cover today. First, I will briefly discuss the status of our 2014 audit and note that we will not be taking any questions on that specific topic. Both management and our independent auditor are working to ensure that all applicable information is taken into consideration and being evaluated. We believe that the auditors are near completion of their work, and we hope to issue our 10-K in the near future. We understand our auditors are deciding between an emphasis paragraph and a going concern explanatory paragraph in their opinion. We continue to work on this evaluation as does our auditor. There is no single issue here. We are looking at all available information, including things such as the impact of the regulatory environment, the status and impact of our servicer ratings and liquidity. My hope is that today's earnings release and the investor presentation we've posted will give you a much clearer picture of the current status of the company. Let me start by summarizing some key points. A going concern explanatory paragraph, if that were to be the result, will not cause a default under any of our debt agreements. While we are aware of the potential for negative public perception, we believe we will be able to refinance all of our maturing debt and maintain ample liquidity going forward. As you can see from our press release this afternoon, we were profitable in the first quarter, had substantial cash flow from operations, and we currently expect both of these trends to continue for the foreseeable future. We have already refinanced some of our near-term debt maturities. We have announced significant asset sales that we expect will generate over $900 million…

Thanks, Ron. I will spend some time first reviewing our preliminary financial results and then spend time discussing our cash, liquidity and leverage outlooks. Before I begin on the financials, I would note that Pages 32 to 35 of the investor presentation on our website cover our traditional financial earnings slides. In the first quarter of 2015, Ocwen returned to profitability and generated substantial cash flow from operating activities. Ocwen generated total revenue of $510 million, which was an increase of 3% from the fourth quarter of 2014. Both servicing and lending revenues were higher. Servicing revenues of $471 million were up 3% on a $13 million gain on the sale of whole loans, and our lending revenues of $38 million were up 16% on higher volume. Total operating expenses for the company were $378 million. Included in the operating expenses was an $18 million charge due to a decline in the fair value of our government-insured MSRs, primarily as a result of the 50 basis point reduction in the mortgage insurance premium rate. If the value of the this portfolio increases in the future, we have the ability to recover this charge. Additionally in the quarter, we recorded $9 million of monitoring expenses, $8 million of negative fair value marks on the small agency pool that is carried at fair value and over $8 million of strategic adviser costs. Noteworthy was the significant reduction in servicer and bad debt expenses associated with uncollectible advances. We recorded $9 million of these expenses in the first quarter of 2015, down $52 million from the fourth quarter of 2014 and our lowest quarter since the fourth quarter of 2013. Total other expense in the first quarter 2015 was $89 million, which was made up of $119 million of interest expense offset by…

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Mike Grondahl of Piper Jaffray.

I just want to clarify something. I think you had kind of stated, if you get a going concern opinion, you really don't have any default risk on the financing side. Is there any risk on the operational side, the actual servicing?

So Mike, this is Ron. We don't believe so, but we are in active communication with all of our major counterparties, including the GSEs, regulators, trustees, et cetera. But at this point, we don't believe that there would be any material negative impact.

Okay. Secondly, through the regulatory changes, through the compliance enhancements, have you seen the time lines for modifications or foreclosures extend, I guess, compared to maybe a year or 18 months ago?

I would say modestly. I mean, keep in mind that about a little over a year ago, the new federal rules went in place that delayed the start of foreclosure until, at the earliest, 120 days. There, I think, are more stringent requirements on making sure that certain documents are in hand and in place before initiating foreclosure. But I wouldn't say they've been significant. They've been -- there have been modest changes. With the economy improving and other things, I think you've also seen some benefits on the other side of more borrowers rolling current, et cetera, which offset some of the extension of the foreclosure time lines.

Okay. And then just lastly, your comment about Ocwen growing again, would you describe that as sort of a 2016 priority or late 2015 priority? When do you sort of get real focused on that?

So I mean, I think, Mike, we're focused on it now, but I would agree it probably doesn't start to actually kick in until a ways out. I mean, as we reduce the size of the servicing portfolio through these announced sales, we'll have a smaller base. The runoff in absolute amount will be less on a monthly basis. At the same time, we'll be growing our origination platform, and hopefully, at some point, we'll hit an equilibrium and even be at a point where originations exceed the runoff. So it's hard to predict exactly when that will be. It's also going to be somewhat of a function of runoff speeds as well as our ability to ramp up the origination platform. So I'm not going to give an exact time on it, but it's definitely something that we're focused on now, but you won't see the growth until out in the future.

And our next question comes from the line of Bose George of KBW. Bose T. George - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: Just a quick follow-up on the question about the qualification. Does that also -- does it not impact the servicer rating? Is there any risk on that side if there's a qualification?

So Bose, the rating agencies will make their own evaluation and decisions based on the information available to them. So I don't know that, that qualification in and of itself will impact their decision-making one way or another. We have been in close contact with them and provided them a great deal of information. And I think that if you step back and look at the fact that we're profitable, we're generating a lot of cash, we're managing effectively kind of the regulatory environment, we're looking to delever the operation, all of those things from a ratings standpoint should be viewed positively. So I would be hopeful that if that was the case for an opinion like that, that it would not have any sort of negative impact at the rating agencies, but they will make their own assessment. Bose T. George - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: Okay, great. That makes sense. And then actually just in terms of future MSR sales, the -- are you guys done? I mean, the $34 billion of GSEs is that going to remain and then you've got a fair amount of jumbo as well, what's the outlook for future MSRs sales?

So I think I would put it this way. I mean, we are -- what we are most focused on right now is now on the execution side of things. We're starting to close the sales. We closed one in the third quarter. We just mentioned that -- or I'm sorry, in the first quarter. As we just mentioned, we closed a couple more today. We're going to start to close on transfers of some of the nonperforming starting tomorrow. So between now and August, I think most of our energy and effort is going to be focused on execution of those servicing transfers, working closely with the servicers that we're transferring the loans to, working closely with the regulators and others who are monitoring that activity and much less on looking at any additional sales. I don't want to say definitively that there won't be anything more, but that is much, much lower of a priority right now than on the execution side of things. Bose T. George - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: Okay, great. And then just in terms of the delinquent pools that you guys are selling, actually, what's the size of that, just the UPB?

Yes, so I think we're not kind of giving that information right at this moment, but you can look at some of the data that we've provided on the percentage of delinquencies within the GSE portfolio. As we indicated, we're looking to move a big portion of the delinquent GSE loans, so it's going to be a pretty sizable portion of it. But I'll let you kind of go back to other information to kind of make your own estimates of that. Bose T. George - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: Okay, great. Actually, let me just sneak in one more. The tax rate on the MSRs you're selling, is that the same as your usual tax rate?

So what we've done, for the purposes in the presentation, is used sort of the -- generally, the 15%, which is sort of roughly kind of the overall corporate rate. But definitely, there's opportunities for the gain on the sales to be at the lower rate that we are subject to in the U.S. Virgin Islands. But for purposes of presentation, we've used more the overall corporate rate.

And our next question comes from Henry Coffey of Sterne Agee. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: Just a couple of questions. You talked about a $52 million fair value mark on your non-agency servicing. Was that picked up in the servicing revenue line?

No, it doesn't go through -- you won't see it to go through income at all. So it was not in the income numbers at all. It's simply sort of a beginning-of-period adjustment. So you basically increase your asset value and increase your equity, but that will not flow through the income statement. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: Okay. So in terms of assessing the asset gains, however you want to quantify them, we had the -- we had the sale of -- you had some reported gains, but those were the only real extraordinary items on the revenue side. You had some offsetting fair value marks with your Ginnie Mae book, but there were no other asset sale gains except for those sort of 2 or 3 highlighted in the first paragraph. [indiscernible]

Yes. You had a -- we sold some kind of legacy whole loans that were on the books that closed in the first quarter. And we -- I think it was a $13 million gain. And then you had the first sale of the announced MSR sales, which was with Nationstar that closed, the $1.9 billion, which I think was a $27 million gain or whatever that we recorded there. So those are really the only 2 items. You did, as you mentioned, because of the changes to the Ginnie Mae program, you saw a much faster -- a lot more loans are eligible for refinance now, which impacted the value of that portfolio. So we had an $18 million write-down there, which Michael mentioned could be recovered. But based on the fair value, there was a write-down there. And then we do have some MSR -- agency MSRs, not very much, that are carried at fair value, and interest rates declined during the first quarter again. And so there was some fair value losses reflected there as well. But I think we've laid them all out for you. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: Do you have what that number was?

Yes, I think it was $8 million or something. I think we reflected it in the release and in the presentation. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: Yes, I might have missed it. So really, when all is said and done, if we were to reverse -- if we're going to go back to a core number or something, you made about $23 million. I mean, it was a very -- even on a purely operating basis, it was a very solid quarter.

I will definitely agree with your last statement, Henry. Assuming you did the math right, I agree with you. I haven't... Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: Right. The only thing that -- that caught my attention, and of course, we haven't had the kind of detail we need from the K and the Q and we'll get it soon, I'm sure, it looked like your servicing revenue was about 47 basis points of average balances, and that's higher than it's been in the past. What resulted in a higher level of servicing revenue, say, than we would have seen in a prior quarter? Just trying to get my arms around that.

Yes. Henry, so that's going to be the impact of the -- the whole loan gain of $13 million flows through the servicing revenue line. So that's what brought that number higher. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: Okay. So the 40 -- yes, so in the $44.6 million, there's that $13 million gain?

That's right. You saw the traditional fees come down. I think some of the other fees ticked up a bit that helped offset some of the decline in the portfolio, but you'll see that eventually in the statements. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: So just back of the envelope, you're still realizing gross revenue from your servicing asset of about 40 basis points? Have I done that math correctly?

Yes. That sounds directionally correct. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: Taxes were about 20%?

Yes, so just given the mix of where the income was generated in the quarter, I would say just from a jurisdictional basis, you were around 15% or 16%, given the higher mix in the U.S., particularly around lending. And then a couple of small discrete items caused it to tick up. I think it was 19% or 20%. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: And then in terms of looking at the business on a going-forward basis, your origination business was profitable this quarter. Is that going to be a business primarily focused on originating a Ginnie and Fannie and Freddie product? Or will you be reaching into the non-agency market? And maybe you could comment a little bit on what's going on in the reverse mortgage business.

Yes. So Henry, I mean, we'll try to get into more detail on that in coming quarters. But I mean, we definitely continued to -- with our reverse mortgage business. The reverse mortgage business is one that with the type of product today, you generally originate the loans and book income pretty much -- there's really not much of a gain in the month that you originate. But over time, as the seniors make additional draws, there's no expense related to that, but you're going to then securitize that draws and you'll pick up all the revenue. So as time goes on, you're kind of building up a pipeline of future profits as the seniors continue to take draws, but that remains a small but important business for us. Right now, a lot of our focus is on the HARP refinance. Obviously, one of the challenges for all originators as the year goes on is that, that will start to go away. But yes, I mean, right now, we're focused mainly on Fannie, Freddie and some FHA refinance business in our forward business. Over time, we want to grow those capabilities. We want to cast a wider net, so that we're not just refinancing our own customer base but really going after a broader customer base. We're exploring other lending products. I'm not going to get into the details of what those are, but our objective would be to have a broad lending platform that, where appropriate, has some hopefully niche high-margin capability, but at the same time kind of serves the broad customer base that we service today.

And our next question comes from Kevin Barker of Compass Point. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: I had a question on the mark-to-market fair value of the MSR. Am I correct in saying that the difference between the GSE value of $1.22 billion and the $800-and-so million that's currently on the books is basically all of the remaining fair value gains that you could recognize over time in the MSR?

Can I have those numbers, again, Kevin. And maybe are you looking at a page or the... Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: Yes. So the $1.22 billion that you mentioned on the GSEs in Slide 46 and the $880 million that you have at book value on the GSE portfolio. So the difference between those 2, is basically the potential fair value gains that you could recognize in your entire portfolio remaining. Is that right?

That's right. And I would just -- I think there's -- as you go through some of the other details, you'll see some different cuts of it. But there are some of that fair value difference relates to the portion of the OASIS notes that have been sold. So you'll see on some other pages, we take that out and you can tie it back. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: So if I were to take the loss that you're expected to take on the GSE portfolio sales, the delinquent portfolio sales, and then the sale -- the OASIS portion of the MSRs and then mark to fair value the GSE loans, would you be able to recognize any gains? Or is that basically a net breakeven?

No. You can see -- Page 50 actually has the kind of what the embedded gain looks like today that basically adjusts a few things. The biggest impact actually is just the decline in interest rates over the last, really, since the end of September was kind of the basis we had in kind of looking at the potential embedded gain in the portfolio through the fourth quarter. And so as that has come down, so has the value. And then you've got the impact of some of the NPL -- or the nonperforming MSR sales, which basically has been driven by different assumptions, but ultimately we still think are very smart trades for us.

Yes. I would also point out, Kevin, just maybe so it's clear, the sales that we've announced so far as well as kind of the nonperforming kind of negative value that we've discussed are largely already incorporated into the fair value numbers that you're seeing in the presentation.

That's right. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: What I'm trying to understand is the reconciliation between the $8.30 book value reported and a $2.59 fair value increase you estimate, if you've already booked your MSR to fair value.

Well, we haven't booked our MSRs to fair value. I mean, we've booked -- the non-agency portion is at fair value. The agency and the Ginnie Mae -- the Ginnie Mae book is effectively at fair value because it's carried at lower of cost or market and so it's been written down actually to market. And on the Fannie and Freddie portion, there's a small amount that is at fair value, but the bulk of it is not at fair value yet. So the future sales that we're going to -- that we have that haven't closed yet will result in gains, but those are gains that are reflected in the fair value. The nonperforming will have losses, and then whatever is left over has embedded gains in it. So does that help you? Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: Yes. And then -- so when I think about the $2.59 that you lay out on Page 28, the light blue bar regarding HLSS subservicing is basically your expectations for future earnings tied to that servicing portfolio. Is that the right way to think about it?

That's right. So that's the value -- that's not on -- that's effectively not on the balance sheet anywhere. That's the fair value estimate of the earnings stream from effectively what some people would refer to as the subservicing that we have on that contract. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: Okay. And then on the deferred servicing fees, you lay out a $0.64 number on Page 29 of the release. Yet back in the third quarter of the 10-Q, you mentioned $559 million of deferred servicing fees then. What's the difference between the number in the third quarter 10-Q and the number that you're reflecting on Page 29 of deferred servicing fees?

So the page on -- the number on Page 29 basically just represents the deferred servicing fees on the non-agency portfolio where we own the MSRs outright and have not been sold to HLSS. The higher number in the third quarter reflected the entire deferred servicing fee on our entire portfolio, including the portion with HLSS. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: So the potential fees that you could -- so if you had a termination occur in a non-agency portfolio, this $0.64 is essentially the total amount you could potentially recover. Is that right?

No, not exactly. In fact, if -- for example, let's say, this can't really occur now based on the amendment that we had, but let's say HLSS decided to terminate Ocwen as servicer and transfer servicing to somebody else, effectively, the way the calculation would work is all of that $500-plus million would come to us.

Again, I think said another way, we wanted to lay out a very conservative base case here for folks to understand without kind of the complication of the HLSS waterfall and other things, what is the true value identifiable that kind of accrues to Ocwen. It's not complicated. It's very straightforward. That was the basis for putting in the $95 million as opposed to the $500-plus million. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: Yes, that makes sense. And then, are you able to sell any of your MSRs that are OASIS-financed without prior approval?

No, we're not. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: So could you effectively fully exit GSE servicing, given that they're OASIS-financed?

Well, as we said, we're not -- we have no intention. We've never stated that we intend to exit GSE servicing. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: Okay. And then you're supposed to take roughly a $20 million expense in the first quarter related to moving from the ResCap platform to the real servicing platform. Did you take that charge? Or is that something that's going to come down in the future?

No. It'll come down in the future, Kevin. I think as you go through and see the operating expenses, we did end up shutting down a bunch of legacy, I'd say, bolt-on systems around the legacy Fiserv platform from ResCap. So our costs did come down in the technology space. And as we keep going month-by-month, that termination charge actually drops by a little bit less than $1 million a month. So it's not going to be $20 million when it happens. And at some point here over the next coming couple of quarters, we'll exit that system, but it's declining every month. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: Right. And then on the call rights, you mentioned in the past that you had about a $5 billion potential portfolio that you could do with 2 to 3 points that you could earn on it. How has that value changed, given that you sold the call rights with about 50 basis points left over to HLSS? The call rights that you have here, it seems like there's a much larger portfolio that you think you can call and at a -- or at a much higher gain that you could potentially get out of that portfolio. Could you help quantify the potential amount of call rights that you think you can exercise?

Well, we're not going to go into a lot of detail on it, Kevin. I think it's -- until -- I think we're out executing on it. It's tough to get into, and frankly, we don't want to tip our hand in certain places. But the -- what we quantified for folks was the amount of what we'd call a premium call. That was something where the -- your underlying collateral was well worth more than the value of calling the bonds and it was a quick type of transaction. And so those still exists, the number's smaller. There are other types of transactions out there with -- where you might be at a discount and you're looking at a longer execution or you're actually buying up bonds where we think we can get significant value. So there's a couple of different ways that we're thinking of approaching this that drives some of that difference. But you're right, we did sell off a bunch of the value to NRZ or it was part of the consent transaction. And -- but we're not going to get into kind of reconciling that just yet.

Yes. But Kevin, you made a statement that we're showing a much larger -- what did you mean by all that? Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: Well, in previous -- I believe in your previous calls back in -- around the third quarter of last year, you mentioned there was a $5 billion potential opportunity to call off of your private label servicing to basically clean up that portfolio and earn a gain of close to 2 to 3 points on that, which would imply anywhere, $100 million to $150 million potential gain. Now a lot of -- the 2 or 3 points can exist if you sold the rights to -- or the majority of the rights to HLSS where you're retaining only 50 basis points of the potential gain. So what I'm trying to understand is the $0.47, which would imply -- and the $0.40 on the HLSS-owned MSRs on Slide 29, it would imply a much higher value or a much higher portfolio that you think you can call than previous. So I guess, I'm just trying...

So the $4 billion to $5 billion was a number that we said was going to be -- was either already in the money or would be coming into the money over the next, I can't remember exactly what we said, but reasonable time frame. This is more our valuation of what those -- in the one hand, the $0.40 is what we think that 50 basis points is going to be worth to us as NRZ ultimately calls the deal. And the $0.47 is on the value of the call right on the portfolio that we still retain outright, which we'll earn wider margins on, although it's a smaller book. Kevin Barker - Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Research Division: Okay. And then finally, is the New York operations monitor put in place yet? And the $50 million of expenses regarding the monitor this year, does that include the New York operations monitor?

So the New York operations monitor is now in place. And yes, the $50 million or whatever we mentioned is our best estimate of the various monitors that we -- expense that will occur this year. Like we said, it could be more, it could be less. It's just our estimate, but it does contemplate and include the new New York monitor.

And our next question comes from Matt Liebowitz of Nomura.

I think most of my questions were answered by previous callers. But to me, it seems like by any measure, you're going to be generating a substantial amount of cash over the next 2 years. So obviously, you're going to pay down the term loan. But even after that, just wondering if you guys had any high-level thoughts on what priorities for cash would be following deleveraging.

Sure. So I mean, yes, I mean, we think in the near term, we think it's most important that we delever. We think that that's our -- that, along with kind of solid operations and solid earnings, is our best way to get our corporate ratings back up and get our servicer ratings back up, which I think we'll benefit all stakeholders, including shareholders, if we can get that accomplished and the sooner the better. But once we've accomplished those couple of things, the additional cash flow will -- we'll evaluate it, but stock repurchases would definitely be one of the things that we would be looking at. Some of it will depend on how well we're doing in the origination business, how fast it's growing and how much capital we need to deploy into that business into the -- and into the retained MSRs there. But I think that with the speed that we're generating cash and the speed at which we will be able to pay down some of the corporate debt, we'll probably be in a position to evaluate a lot of alternatives, including stock repurchase.

And our next question comes from the line of Henry Coffey of Sterne Agee. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: I'm just still trying to sort through some of the servicing information, but assuming that you're probably generating about 40 or 45 basis points from the servicing business, it also looks like your overhead is running somewhere between about 25 and 30 basis points of servicing or about, I'm excluding amortization, of course, or about $300 million.

I mean, Henry, maybe we can follow up. I mean, I'm not sure it's a best use of our time to try to sort through all that basis point stuff on the call. But we're happy to kind of discuss with you kind of what you're looking at and make sure that your calculations make sense. Henry J. Coffey - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: And then in terms of the servicing that's remaining, I know you've gone over some of these numbers, but can you give me a quick breakdown again between agency, government servicing and the PLS business?

So why don't you -- if you turn to maybe one way, there's various ways, I think, in all this information. But if you go back to Page 46 of the presentation and you take a look at where we sit today kind of after you take out the announced sales, you're going to have $10 billion of Fannie and Freddie loans in the OASIS transaction. So another $24 billion of Fannie and Freddie that has not been sold. Moving over to the right, you're going to have $25.6 billion of Ginnie Mae -- or I'm sorry, yes, Ginnie Mae servicing and you've got, including HLSS, you've got $188 billion of PLS. Now there's also some subservicing that's not included in here, so there would be a little bit additional Ginnie Mae subservicing and a little bit additional GSE subservicing that's not reflected on this particular chart. But hopefully, this is enough information to give you a reasonable sense as to what it will look like after the sales which have been announced, which is the far left-hand column.

And that appears to be the last question in the queue. Thank you for attending the Ocwen Financial Corporation's First Quarter Earnings Call. You may now disconnect.