Operator: Wonderful. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of John Rowan from Janney Montgomery Scott. Your line is now open.
John Rowan: Good afternoon guys.
Ashish Masih: Hey John.
John Rowan: So I guess just trying to understand, the MCM purchases took a dip in the quarter relative to the prior two quarters and then relative to the guidance that you gave for the fourth quarter. Why is it apparently just a little bit weaker in the third quarter?
Ashish Masih: I wouldn’t call it weak. It’s just a reflection of what portfolios come to market some of the flows they may increase or decrease in sizes. It’s just a normal volatility you might expect quarter-over-quarter. There’s nothing special about it, in terms of why is it 179 versus 213 in the prior two quarters. So we are buying at very good rate and being — also being selective, so that pricing reflects what it should given higher cost of capital and kind of what the market supply-demand dynamics are. So we are staying disciplined. And making sure the pricing direction we’re able to fully capitalize on that if you would. So it just can ebb and flow a little bit. But if you look at cumulative year given our expectation of 200 it is going to exceed the last record quarter by a huge margin which was in 2019.
John Rowan: Okay. I was a little surprised to see the negative revision, just given the comments that you made back in August about — or after the note deal. That the portfolio is performing in line with kind of the marks, when you look at December 2022 relative to the first half of the year through August it was consistent with the first half of the year. So I would assume at that point there probably wasn’t a negative revision through at least two months of the year. Was September notably weaker than the other two months?
Ashish Masih: That’s not the case, John. So let me explain a few things here, right? The first is September was no different than another two months. It’s just whatever normal seasonality and performance is. That’s number one. Number two, when we said performance was in line with what we have said previously, it’s a 97% number that John talked about, that 97% at the end of Q2 was against the December 2022 ERC. And we said, Q3, we are seeing the same 97% for the two months. And at the end of Q3, which includes September we’re still have that 97% in our script on presentation. Now, — you mentioned the revisions. So if you noticed in our Q, the performance above or below recoveries is just $4 million number. If you put that in context, that’s less than 1% or barely 1% impact in terms of the forecast.
So — that’s very close to expectations and better than the 97% which it was because the forecast has changed but also the 2023 vintage that’s over-performing. So those two factors that John talked about. So $4 million is just less than 1%. And the other one is changes in ERC. Some of it is actually timing. As timing changes and we forecast every vintage the change is way less than 1% on that ARC as well. But if the small changes that can cause quarterly variations. So that’s why one have to look at it over the long-term. If you start back in 2022 Q1, we’ve had significant upward revisions and then some downwards. So over time it adds up. And as Jon has said and we have said accounting will equal cash over the full life of the vintage.
John Rowan: Okay. Thank you for that.
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Mike Grondahl from Northland. Your line is now open.
Mike Grondahl: Hey guys, thanks. Could you give us any color into the impairments? Would you say that’s more macro inflation driven, I’m trying to understand the why student loan driven maybe? And then secondly, what years were most affecting negatively?
