Donovan Schafer: Okay. And I guess that gives you better economics because the dealer fee and then your financing partners, you know, maybe historically the way people looked at mortgages or something you could have prepayment risk impacts the net duration, the interest rate sensitivity and so forth. So or is it something that they will be happy with to the dealer fee and such gets shared with them in a way where if it all just is all these prepayments came in the door and just be everyone would be high-fiving And it’d be fantastic.
John Berger: Correct. The payoff of that you don’t have to refinance that at very, very high level of sales.
Donovan Schafer: I appreciate it. Thank you guys. I mean other questions have been asked, so I’ll take the rest of my questions offline. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. The next question is from Christine Cho with Barclays. Your line is open.
Christine Cho: Thank you for squeezing me in here. Maybe if I could just ask on the fully owned fully burdened unlevered return. And I know there are a lot of assumptions that go in here and for the loan book. I think there are three main drivers, the dealer feed, the APR to CPR. I would think that the dealer fee and APR move around in your assumptions as you know, the loan APRs and dealer fees exchange but just curious if these if the CPR assumptions have moved at all over this timeframe, or has it stayed relatively flat for consistency purposes to calculate this return number?
John Berger: We have moved the CPR down significantly to reflect the current market. So that would depress the unlevered return.
Christine Cho: Okay. And then you know, you previously talked about how funding the cost of capital has been more expensive for the non-ag attachment points in the ABS market and that’s why you previously funded that portion other ways. Can you just talk a little more about what drove your decision to change the approach and securitize beyond the IG attachment points and then de-lever cash flows from the liquidity file liquidity slide versus last quarter, you know, being down how much of this is driven by cash flows just coming in more from your existing base versus your approach and your change in approach and securitizing through the stack for new every new originations you are now. And so there being less residuals?
John Berger: I’ll answer the second first. And so the vast majority of that now looks slightly lower cash flow levered cash flow is due to not as many accessory loans looking at how do we sell some loans off but it’s much more about the margin, some of the origination, not the existing base underperforming in terms of the cost of capital between the asset level and the corporate capital. I think it’s pretty clear. And I think it’s really obvious that the corporate debt is trading at DP. discount. I think it’s also pretty obvious that the equity is trading at a very deep discount. And so I don’t think that the cost of capital on the corporate side, I don’t think you need to run a model. It’s a quite a bit higher than anything we can do in the asset-level side. So it seems pretty straightforward about why we’ve had that flip back to the asset-level side of things.
Christine Cho: Great. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. The last question of the call today is Corinne Blanchard with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.
Corinne Blanchard: Hey, good morning and thank you for taking my question and most have been answered but maybe I’m going to trying something different. And can you maybe talk a little bit about California? And I know it has been a year since then 3.0 and it’s a little bit less of a focus but maybe what are you seeing in terms of our diamond jewelry bond as we go into the 2Q at grid?
John Berger: Again, we don’t have a big presence in California. So I would leave it to my competitors who I think have a very large portion of their origination in California. I think it’s pretty clear that other states that are more consumer friendly have done a better job over the past year than the state of California has with regards to consumers and the power industry. So I’ll leave it at that. I think it’s most unfortunate the direction that the state of California is going and we’re quite heartened to see other states take the exact opposite path and embrace giving consumers value, particularly as the power as we all know, is in huge demand and it keeps going up in costs.
Corinne Blanchard: Okay, thank you. And then maybe just quickly so which I’ll just say that you have seen the most potent share for next domain, like maybe over the next 12 months?
John Berger: We do list that out. As you know, in the appendix by state. I don’t think anybody else does that. So I would I would point you in that direction. But again, as I mentioned earlier, we’re seeing a lot of growth in the southern United States and we’re seeing some growth spread out just in general. So I think overall at the overall as the weighted average cost of electricity from the utilities the monopolies continues to increase, we should expect to see consumers look for alternatives and with equipment pricing, whether it’s modules or batteries or inverters, that really crashing and cost that that presents a really nice value wedge for consumers and they’re ready and they’re transacting.
Corinne Blanchard: Great. Thank you.
Operator: Thanks. And thank you, everyone. This is all the questions we may have time for today. I will now hand back over to John Berger for closing remarks.
John Berger: Thank you for joining our Q1 call. We remain focused on cutting operating expenses, increasing value from our service contracts and closing our asset-level capital quicker all to increase cash generation even more than we already have. I wanted to thank Rob for his service and I look forward to seeing you all on the Q2 call. Thank you.
Operator: This concludes today’s call. Thank you for joining. You may now disconnect your line.
