Jonathan Clark: If I can just chime in. I just want to — Mike I just want to make sure you understand. And I want anybody on the call to think that this is anything other than a very, very rigorous process that we go through in order to determine what our forecast is. It is highly audited because it’s so impactful to the P&L. And so we have a very, very strict process very structured process of how we go about it. And then to the extent that you have a model that generates something and you have to have some kind of overlay or adjustment that has to be defended as to why it makes sense to do that. And we are — the important thing to remember I know Ashish mentioned this, but this isn’t an impairment. This is just an adjustment because impairment when one takes an impairment from an accounting perspective that’s a permanent thing.
This is not permanent. We don’t know what the future will hold. All we know is what the models tell us and we make the adjustments as we need them right?
Mike Grondahl: Yes. Fair enough impairment might be a strong word, but it’s still kind of a write-down to some extent on the pool. Okay. Thanks, guys. Hopefully we don’t have to talk about these next quarter.
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Robert Dodd of Raymond James. Your line is now open.
Robert Dodd: Hi, guys. A couple of questions. On the adjustment. And to your point this I mean the 2023 is I can say it’s a $6.9 million upward over the nine months this year. This time last year though the 2022s were getting written up as well if I remember right. So can you — and I know to Jonathan’s point it’s continue our best efforts to get the curb side. But how confident are you that the behavior you saw in the 2022s from early outperformance to where we are today, where there’s a little bit of underperformance it seems. How confident are you that that type of behavior isn’t going to occur with the 2023s.
Ashish Masih: Hey, Robert. So one thing I would just correct or add to your – you pointed out $6.9 million. That’s just for the three months. And actually for the 2023, nine months it is $16.7 million, overall revision. So I just wanted to kind of correct that. Now – in terms of payment behavior, let me just step back from all these minor adjustments on each vintages forecast because we do our best possible estimate for each. We are seeing a very stable payment US consumer payment behavior. As we’ve said in the past we are – our valuation models in 2021 and 2022 were adapting to changes from the pandemic levels of high collections. It takes some time. There’s a lag at times the valuation models were adjusting and they have adjusted because 2023 overperforming.
But that said, every vintage, we look at it at a very granular level in the forecast and are confident in that forecast as we sit today and then we look at it again in three months. So that’s how that process works. But overall, the consumer behavior is very stable, unlike what some competitors out there may be saying or whatnot, we found post-pandemic consumers have a little bit less cash to making smaller down payments but setting up payment plans. And we just looked at our data again, our data is consistently showing payment plans are holding up really steady, very well in the US market, in the U.S. business. So we feel very good with the underlying operational metrics. We are adding staff for additional purchasing that we’re doing. We added 350 account managers for the year.
So there’s nothing concerning from either big macro point of view or operational capability point of view. These are forecasting changes that happen on a winter by vintage basis. And you do your best to adapt and estimate for each vintage and the net effect of those and you can see that in our Q some vintages are positive some are negative globally, right? So that’s what happens from a forecasting and the implications on accounting point of view.
