Rakesh Sehgal: Yes, I would just say status quo, right? The Q1 event was NOI, and as you could see our income from operations is positive. So, no changes there, David.
David Scharf: Got it, that’s what I thought. And then one last one, circling back to kind of the purchasing outlook and supply, it seems like the last few years pouring through the Q, the concentration of the company’s purchases in private label seems to have gotten larger and larger relative to over the last three, five, 10 years. And instinctively, I think it’s kind of harder to collect from lower balance accounts. As you look at kind of your flow deals and just the overall increase in supply a lot of people are used to thinking more in terms of the general purpose asset class versus private label. Is your mix changing? Are you engaging with more private, general purpose auctions? And should that matter to us or am I overthinking this?
Vikram Atal : I actually, I’m just looking at some data here. I’m not sure what you’re tracking to David, but in our Q, we report out the mix of the portfolios between the major credit cards and private label and actually private label as a percent or part of our purchases has actually declined versus a year ago. But I would also say that like the whole notion of private label versus major credit cards has got a little bit distorted out of our time because it’s a question of really, if you’re talking about average balances and thinking that what is the collectability on all across average balances, we are not seeing a change, material change in the average balances that we’re collecting on, right? And in fact, one way that that comes up is in what percent of our accounts are those that we might target, if necessary, for legal coverage, and that hasn’t really changed out over time.
Operator: The next question is a follow-up from Mark Hughes of Truist.
Mark Hughes: Yes, thanks. Rakesh, what is the factor that drives the $1.1 billion in availability? I think you said subject covenants and advance rates. Could you just maybe expand on that? Is that available? Under what circumstances is it available?
Rakesh Sehgal: Yes, sure. So look, we have committed capital of $3.1 billion, Mark. And we borrowed certain amounts under the credit facilities. And so that $1.1 billion that I was mentioning is something that we can draw on subject to the advance rates that we have in those facilities as we purchase more ERC. So our advance rates that we disclose range anywhere from 35% to 55%. And so we can, as we acquire more ERC, we can draw down on that debt available to us to fund our purchases.
Mark Hughes: Okay, very good. And then did you give a number when you gave the $841 million to replace the run off? Did you give the associated number what you do forecast for run off over the next 12 months?
Rakesh Sehgal: Yes, so you’re talking about the dollars of ERC running off? That’s the $1.5 billion.
Mark Hughes: Okay. And then you’re saying that the purchases in order to replace that, you need $841 million, correct?
Rakesh Sehgal: Correct. And we’re just looking at the multiples that we are in ‘23, exactly.
Operator: This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Vikram Atal for any closing remarks.
Vikram Atal : Thank you everyone for joining us this afternoon. And we appreciate further input and feedback over the next several weeks and months. Thank you.
Operator: The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. And you may now disconnect.
