CPSS Consumer Portfolio Services Inc

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Description of Business

We were formed in California on March 8, 1991. We specialize in purchasing and servicing retail automobile installment sale contracts (“automobile contracts” or “finance receivables”) originated by licensed motor vehicle dealers located throughout the United States (“dealers”) in the sale of new and used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans. Through our purchases, we provide indirect financing to dealer customers for borrowers with limited credit histories, low incomes or past credit problems (“sub-prime customers”). We serve as an alternative source of financing for dealers, allowing sales to customers who otherwise might not be able to obtain financing. In addition to purchasing installment purchase contracts directly from dealers, we have also (i) acquired installment purchase contracts in four merger and acquisition transactions, (ii) purchased immaterial amounts of vehicle purchase money loans from non-affiliated lenders, and (iii) lent money directly to consumers for an immaterial amount of loans secured by vehicles. In this report, we refer to all of such contracts and loans as "automobile contracts."

Basis of Presentation

Our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, with the instructions to Form 10-Q and with Article 8 of Regulation S-X of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and include all adjustments that are, in management’s opinion, necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods presented. All such adjustments are, in the opinion of management, of a normal recurring nature. Results for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2013 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results to be expected for the full year.

Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America have been condensed or omitted from these Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. These Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reported periods. Specifically, a number of estimates were made in connection with determining an appropriate allowance for finance credit losses, valuing finance receivables measured at fair value and the related debt, valuing residual interest in securitizations, accreting net acquisition fees, amortizing deferred costs, valuing stock options and warrants issued, and recording deferred tax assets and reserves for uncertain tax positions. These are material estimates that could be susceptible to changes in the near term and, accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.

Stock-based Compensation

We recognize compensation costs in the financial statements for all share-based payments based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of ASC 718 “Stock Compensation”.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, we recorded stock-based compensation costs in the amount of $2,939,000 and $801,000, respectively. As of September 30, 2013, unrecognized stock-based compensation costs to be recognized over future periods equaled $13.5 million. This amount will be recognized as expense over a weighted-average period of 3.6 years.

The following represents stock option activity for the nine months ended September 30, 2013:

At September 30, 2013, the aggregate intrinsic value of options outstanding and exercisable was $32.5 million and $23.3 million, respectively. There were 1,116,000 options exercised for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 compared to 356,000 for the comparable period in 2012. There were 4.0 million shares available for future stock option grants under existing plans as of September 30, 2013.

Purchases of Company Stock

During the nine-month period ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, we purchased 323,674 and 320,154 shares, respectively, of our common stock, at average prices of $7.68 and $1.36, respectively.

Reclassifications

Some items in the prior year financial statements were reclassified to conform to the current presentation. Reclassifications had no effect on prior year net income or total shareholders’ equity.

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Derivative Financial Instruments

We do not use derivative financial instruments to hedge exposures to cash flow or market risks. However, from 2008 to 2010, we issued warrants to purchase the Company’s common stock in conjunction with various debt financing transactions. At the time of issuance, five of these warrants issued contained "down round," or price reset, features that are subject to classification as liabilities for financial statement purposes. These liabilities were measured at fair value, with the changes in fair value at the end of each period reflected as current period income or loss. Accordingly, changes to the market price per share of our common stock underlying these warrants with "down round," or price reset, features directly affected the fair value computations for these derivative financial instruments. The effect was that any increase in the market price per share of our common stock would also increase the related liability, which in turn would result in a current period loss. Conversely, any decrease in the market price per share of our common stock would also decrease the related liability, which in turn would result in a current period gain. We used a binomial pricing model to compute the fair value of the liabilities associated with the outstanding warrants. In computing the fair value of the warrant liabilities at the end of each period, we used significant judgments with respect to the risk free interest rate, the volatility of our stock price, and the estimated life of the warrants. The warrant liabilities were included in Accounts payable and accrued expenses on our consolidated balance sheets. On March 29, 2012 we agreed with the holders to amend three of the five warrants that contained the “down round” features, removing those specific price reset terms. On the date of the amendment, we valued each of the three warrants using a binomial pricing model as described above. The aggregate value of the three amended warrants of $1.1 million was then reclassified from Accounts payable to Common Stock. On June 25, 2012 we agreed with the holder to amend one other warrant that contained the “down round” features, removing those specific price reset terms. The $250,000 aggregate value of this amended warrant was reclassified from Accounts payable to Common stock on the date of the amendment. The fifth warrant with the “down round” feature was exercised on February 22, 2013. The $583,000 intrinsic value of this warrant was reclassified from Accounts payable to Common stock on the date of the exercise. As of September 30, 2013 all five of the warrants issued that previously contained price reset features have either been amended or exercised and are no longer subject to quarterly valuations.

Financial Covenants

Certain of our securitization transactions, our warehouse credit facilities and our residual interest financing contain various financial covenants requiring minimum financial ratios and results. Such covenants include maintaining minimum levels of liquidity and net worth and not exceeding maximum leverage levels. As of September 30, 2013, we were in compliance with all such covenants. In addition, certain securitization and non-securitization related debt agreements contain cross-default provisions that would allow certain creditors to declare a default if a default occurred under a different facility.

Finance Receivables and Related Debt Measured at Fair Value

In September 2011 we purchased approximately $217.8 million of finance receivables from Fireside Bank. These receivables and the related acquisition debt are recorded on our balance sheet at fair value. There are no level 1 or level 2 inputs (as described by ASC 820) available to us for measurement of such receivables, or for the related debt. Our level 3, unobservable inputs reflect our own assumptions about the factors that market participants use in pricing similar receivables and debt, and are based on the best information available in the circumstances. The valuation method used to estimate fair value may produce a fair value measurement that may not be indicative of ultimate realizable value. Furthermore, while we believe our valuation methods are appropriate and consistent with those used by other market participants, the use of different methods or assumptions to estimate the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in different estimates of fair value. Those estimated values may differ significantly from the values that would have been used had a readily available market for such receivables or debt existed, or had such receivables or debt been liquidated, and those differences could be material to the financial statements.

Gain on Cancellation of Debt

In April 2013, we repurchased the outstanding Class D notes from our first 2008 securitization for a cash payment of $6.1 million and a new 5% note for $5.3 million due in June 2014. The Class D notes were held by the same related party that holds our senior secured debt. On the date we repurchased the Class D notes, the Class D note holder owned 10.5% of our outstanding common stock and warrants to purchase an additional 1.9 million shares of common stock. We subsequently exercised our “clean-up call” option and repurchased the remaining collateral from the related securitization trust. The aggregate value of our consideration for the Class D notes was $10.9 million less than our carrying value of the Class D notes at the time of the repurchase. As a result of the repurchase of the Class D notes and the termination of the securitization trust, we realized a gain of $10.9 million.

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Provision for Contingent Liabilities

During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, we recognized $9.7 million in contingent liability expenses to either record or increase the amounts we believe we may incur related to various pending litigation. The amount was allocated in part to a long running case we refer to as the Stanwich litigation, and also to more recent matters including two California class action suits where we are the defendant, and a governmental inquiry, in which the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has informally proposed that the we refrain from certain allegedly unfair trade practices, and make restitutionary payments into a consumer relief fund.

(2) Finance Receivables

Our portfolio of finance receivables consists of small-balance homogeneous contracts comprising a single segment and class that is collectively evaluated for impairment on a portfolio basis according to delinquency status. Our contract purchase guidelines are designed to produce a homogenous portfolio. For key terms such as interest rate, length of contract, monthly payment and amount financed, there is relatively little variation from the average for the portfolio. We report delinquency on a contractual basis. Once a contract becomes greater than 90 days delinquent, we do not recognize additional interest income until the obligor under the contract makes sufficient payments to be less than 90 days delinquent. Any payments received on a contract that is greater than 90 days delinquent are first applied to accrued interest and then to principal reduction.

The following table presents the components of Finance Receivables, net of unearned interest:

We consider an automobile contract delinquent when an obligor fails to make at least 90% of a contractually due payment by the following due date, which date may have been extended within limits specified in the servicing agreements. The period of delinquency is based on the number of days payments are contractually past due, as extended where applicable. Automobile contracts less than 31 days delinquent are not included. In certain circumstances we will grant obligors one-month payment extensions to assist them with temporary cash flow problems. The only modification of terms is to advance the obligor’s next due date by one month and extend the maturity date of the receivable by one month. In some cases, a two-month extension may be granted. There are no other concessions such as a reduction in interest rate, forgiveness of principal or of accrued interest. Accordingly, we consider such extensions to be insignificant delays in payments rather than troubled debt restructurings. The following table summarizes the delinquency status of finance receivables as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012:

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Finance receivables totaling $8.3 million and $5.1 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, including all receivables greater than 90 days delinquent, have been placed on non-accrual status as a result of their delinquency status.

We use a loss allowance methodology commonly referred to as " static pooling, " which stratifies our finance receivable portfolio into separately identified pools based on the period of origination. Using analytical and formula driven techniques, we estimate an allowance for finance credit losses, which we believe is adequate for probable credit losses that can be reasonably estimated in our portfolio of automobile contracts. The estimate for probable credit losses is reduced by our estimate for future recoveries on previously incurred losses. Provision for losses is charged to our consolidated statement of operations. Net losses incurred on finance receivables are charged to the allowance. For finance receivables originated through December 31, 2010 we established the allowance at the time of the acquisition of the receivable. Beginning January 1, 2011, we establish the allowance for new receivables over the 12-month period following their acquisition.

The following table presents a summary of the activity for the allowance for finance credit losses for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and 2012:

Excluded from finance receivables are contracts that were previously classified as finance receivables but were reclassified as other assets because we have repossessed the vehicle securing the Contract. The following table presents a summary of such repossessed inventory together with the allowance for losses in repossessed inventory that is not included in the allowance for finance credit losses:

(3) Finance Receivables Measured at Fair Value

In September 2011 we purchased approximately $217.8 million of finance receivables from Fireside Bank. These receivables are recorded on our balance sheet at fair value.

The following table presents the components of Finance Receivables measured at fair value:

(4) Securitization Trust Debt

We have completed a number of securitization transactions that are structured as secured borrowings for financial accounting purposes. The debt issued in these transactions is shown on our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as “Securitization trust debt,” and the components of such debt are summarized in the following table:

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

All of the securitization trust debt was sold in private placement transactions to qualified institutional buyers. The debt was issued through our wholly-owned bankruptcy remote subsidiaries and is secured by the assets of such subsidiaries, but not by our other assets.

The terms of the securitization agreements related to the issuance of the securitization trust debt and the warehouse credit facilities require that we meet certain delinquency and credit loss criteria with respect to the pool of receivables, and certain of the agreements require that we maintain minimum levels of liquidity and not exceed maximum leverage levels. In addition, certain securitization and non-securitization related debt contain cross-default provisions, which would allow certain creditors to declare a default if a default were declared under a different facility. As of September 30, 2013, we were in compliance with all such covenants.

We are responsible for the administration and collection of the automobile contracts. The securitization agreements also require certain funds be held in restricted cash accounts to provide additional collateral for the borrowings, to be applied to make payments on the securitization trust debt or as pre-funding proceeds from a term securitization prior to the purchase of additional collateral. As of September 30, 2013, restricted cash under the various agreements totaled approximately $129.5 million, of which $65.8 million represented pre-funding proceeds. Interest expense on the securitization trust debt consists of the stated rate of interest plus amortization of additional costs of borrowing. Additional costs of borrowing include facility fees, amortization of deferred financing costs and discounts on notes sold. Deferred financing costs and discounts on notes sold related to the securitization trust debt are amortized using a level yield method. Accordingly, the effective cost of the securitization trust debt is greater than the contractual rate of interest disclosed above.

Our wholly-owned bankruptcy remote subsidiaries were formed to facilitate the above asset-backed financing transactions. Similar bankruptcy remote subsidiaries issue the debt outstanding under our credit facilities. Bankruptcy remote refers to a legal structure in which it is expected that the applicable entity would not be included in any bankruptcy filing by its parent or affiliates. All of the assets of these subsidiaries have been pledged as collateral for the related debt. All such transactions, treated as secured financings for accounting and tax purposes, are treated as sales for all other purposes, including legal and bankruptcy purposes. None of the assets of these subsidiaries are available to pay other creditors.

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(5) Debt

The terms and amounts of our other debt outstanding at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 are summarized below:

In April 2013 we entered into a new $20 million five-year residual financing facility secured by eligible residual assets in two previously securitized pools of automobile receivables. We also prepaid $15 million of our senior secured debt in April 2013 and reduced the interest rate on the remaining outstanding amount from 16.00% to 13.00%. The maturity date on the remaining outstanding amount was extended from December 2013 to June 2014.

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(6) Interest Income and Interest Expense

The following table presents the components of interest income:

The following table presents the components of interest expense:

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(7) Earnings Per Share

Earnings per share for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 were calculated using the weighted average number of shares outstanding for the related period. The following table reconciles the number of shares used in the computations of basic and diluted earnings per share for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and 2012:

If the anti-dilutive effects of common stock equivalents were considered, shares included in the diluted earnings per share calculation for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013 would have included an additional 3.1 million and 1.9 million shares, respectively, attributable to the exercise of outstanding options and warrants. For the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2012, the anti-dilutive shares were 1.3 million and 2.3 million, respectively.

(8) Income Taxes

We file numerous consolidated and separate income tax returns with the United States and with many states. With few exceptions, we are no longer subject to U.S. federal, state, or local examinations by tax authorities for years before 2008.

We do not anticipate that total unrecognized tax benefits will significantly change due to any settlements of audits or expirations of statutes of limitations over the next 12 months.

The Company and its subsidiaries file a consolidated federal income tax return and combined or stand-alone state franchise tax returns for certain states. We utilize the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes, under which deferred income taxes are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to the differences between the financial statement values of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred taxes of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.

Deferred tax assets are recognized subject to management’s judgment that realization is more likely than not. A valuation allowance is recognized for a deferred tax asset if, based on the weight of the available evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. In making such judgments, significant weight is given to evidence that can be objectively verified. As a result of the unprecedented adverse changes in the market for securitizations, the recession and the resulting high levels of unemployment that occurred in 2008 and 2009, we incurred substantial operating losses from 2009 through 2011 which led us to establish a valuation allowance against a substantial portion of our deferred tax assets. However, since the fourth quarter of 2011, we have reported eight consecutive quarters of increasing profitability, observed improvement in credit metrics, and produced reliable internal financial projections. Furthermore, we have demonstrated an ability to increase our volumes of contract purchases, grow our managed portfolio and obtain cost effective short-term and long-term financing for our finance receivables. As a result of these and other factors, we determined at December 31, 2012 that, based on the weight of the available objective evidence, it was more likely than not that we would generate sufficient future taxable income to utilize our net deferred tax assets. Accordingly, we reversed the related valuation allowance of $62.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Although realization is not assured, we believe that the realization of the recognized net deferred tax asset of $66.2 million as of September 30, 2013 is more likely than not based on forecasted future net earnings. Our net deferred tax asset of $66.2 million consists of approximately $54.5 million of net U.S. federal deferred tax assets and $11.7 million of net state deferred tax assets. The major components of the deferred tax asset are $46.4 million in net operating loss carryforwards and built in losses and $19.8 million in net deductions which have not yet been taken on a tax return. We estimate that we would need to generate approximately $165 million of taxable income during the applicable carryforward periods to realize fully our federal and state net deferred tax assets.

Income tax expense was $4.7 million and $11.2 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 and represents an effective income tax rate of 44.4% and 43.5%, respectively.

(9) Legal Proceedings

Stanwich Litigation. We were for some time a defendant in a class action (the “Stanwich Case”) brought in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. The original plaintiffs in that case were persons entitled to receive regular payments (the “Settlement Payments”) pursuant to earlier settlements of claims, generally personal injury claims, against unrelated defendants. Stanwich Financial Services Corp. (“Stanwich”), an affiliate of the former chairman of our board of directors, is the entity that was obligated to pay the Settlement Payments. Stanwich defaulted on its payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in June 2001 filed for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the federal bankruptcy court in Connecticut. By February 2005, we had settled all claims brought against us in the Stanwich Case.

In November 2001, one of the defendants in the Stanwich Case, Jonathan Pardee, asserted claims for indemnity against us in a separate action, which is now pending in federal district court in Rhode Island. We have filed counterclaims in the Rhode Island federal court against Mr. Pardee, and have filed a separate action against Mr. Pardee's Rhode Island attorneys, in the same court. The litigation between Mr. Pardee and us was stayed for several years through September 2011, awaiting resolution of an adversary action brought against Mr. Pardee in the bankruptcy court, which is hearing the bankruptcy of Stanwich.

Pursuant to an agreement with the representative of creditors in the Stanwich bankruptcy, that adversary action has been dismissed. Under that agreement, we paid the bankruptcy estate $800,000 and abandoned our claims against the estate, while the estate has abandoned its adversary action against Mr. Pardee. With the dismissal of the adversary action, all known claims asserted against Mr. Pardee have been resolved without his incurring any liability. Accordingly, we believe that this resolution of the adversary action will result in limitation of our exposure to Mr. Pardee to no more than some portion of his attorneys fees incurred. The stay in the action against us in Rhode Island has been lifted, and both we and Mr. Pardee filed motions for summary judgment. The court ruled on those motions in February 2013, denying our motion, and granting Mr. Pardee’s motion as to liability. The issues remaining for trial are the extent of our obligation to indemnify Mr. Pardee. There is no trial date set, but our expectation is that the court may, not earlier than December 2013, set the matter for trial in 2014.

Consumer Litigation. We are routinely involved in various legal proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and practices, both continuing and discontinued. Consumers can and do initiate lawsuits against us alleging violations of law applicable to collection of receivables, and such lawsuits sometimes allege that resolution as a class action is appropriate. We are currently defending two such class actions. For the most part, we have legal and factual defenses to such claims, which we routinely contest or settle (for immaterial amounts) depending on the particular circumstances of each case. We have recorded a liability as of September 30, 2013 with respect to such matters, in the aggregate.

FTC Action . On July 17, 2013, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) advised us that they are prepared to recommend that the FTC initiate a lawsuit against us relating to allegedly unfair trade practices, and simultaneously advised that settlement of such issues by consent decree may be possible. Based on our review of the FTC’s allegations, of past practices of the FTC, of our records of our collection and servicing activities, and of other companies’ settlements with the FTC, we expect that we will reach such a settlement, and that such a settlement will require that we make restitutionary payments and that we implement procedural changes under a consent decree. There can be no assurance, however, that we will reach agreement regarding any such settlement, and we may choose to contest the allegations of the FTC. Whether we reach such an agreement or not, the cost to us of contesting or settling the matter may be material. We have recorded a liability as of September 30, 2013 with respect to this matter.

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

In General . There can be no assurance as to the outcomes of any of the matters referenced above. We have recorded a liability as of September 30, 2013 that we believe represents our best estimate of probable incurred losses for legal contingencies, including all of the matters described or referenced above. The amount of losses that may ultimately be incurred cannot be estimated with certainty. However, based on such information as is available to us, we believe that the range of reasonably possible losses for the legal proceedings and contingencies described or referenced above does not include an amount that would materially exceed the reserves established at September 30, 2013.

Accordingly, we believe that the ultimate resolution of such legal proceedings and contingencies, after taking into account our current litigation reserves, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. We note, however, that in light of the uncertainties inherent in contested proceedings, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves we have accrued; as a result, the outcome of a particular matter may be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our income for that period.

(10) Employee Benefits

On March 8, 2002 we acquired MFN Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries in a merger. We sponsor the MFN Financial Corporation Benefit Plan (the “Plan”). Plan benefits were frozen June 30, 2001. The table below sets forth the Plan’s net periodic benefit cost for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and 2012.

We contributed $112,000 and $277,000 to the Plan during the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and we anticipate making contributions in the amount of $112,000 for the remainder of 2013.

(11) Fair Value Measurements

ASC 820, "Fair Value Measurements" clarifies the principle that fair value should be based on the assumptions market participants would use when pricing an asset or liability and establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the information used to develop those assumptions. Under the standard, fair value measurements would be separately disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy.

ASC 820 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy for disclosure of fair value measurement and enhances disclosure requirements for fair value measurements. The three levels are defined as follows: level 1 - inputs to the valuation methodology are quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets; level 2 – inputs to the valuation methodology include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, and inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the financial instrument; and level 3 – inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement.

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

At the time of issuance, five warrants issued between 2008 and 2010 in conjunction with various debt financing transactions contained features that make them subject to derivative accounting. We valued these warrants using a binomial valuation model using a weighted average volatility assumption of 41%, weighted average term of 8 years and a risk free rate of 3.3%. On March 29, 2012 we agreed with the holders to amend three of the five warrants to remove the price reset features that resulted in derivative accounting. On the date of the amendment, we valued each of the three warrants using a binomial pricing model as described above. The aggregate value of the three amended warrants of $1.1 million was then reclassified from Accounts Payable to Common Stock. On June 25, 2012 we agreed with the holder to amend one other warrant that contained the “down round,” or price reset, features to remove those specific price reset terms. The $250,000 aggregate value of this amended warrant was reclassified from Accounts Payable to Common Stock on the date of the amendment. The fifth warrant with the “down round” feature was exercised on February 22, 2013. The $583,000 intrinsic value of this warrant was reclassified from Accounts Payable to Common Stock on the date of the exercise. As of September 30, 2013 all five of the warrants issued that previously contained price reset features have either been amended or exercised and are no longer subject to quarterly valuations.

In September 2008 we sold automobile contracts in a securitization that was structured as a sale for financial accounting purposes. In that sale, we retained both securities and a residual interest in the transaction that are measured at fair value. In September 2010 we took advantage of improvement in the market for asset-backed securities by re-securitizing the underlying receivables from our unrated September 2008 securitization. We also sold the securities retained from the September 2008 transaction. No gain or loss was recorded as a result of the re-securitization transaction described above. We describe below the valuation methodologies we use for the securities retained and the residual interest in the cash flows of the transaction, as well as the general classification of such instruments pursuant to the valuation hierarchy. The residual interest in such securitization is $1.4 million as of September 30, 2013 and $4.8 million as of December 31, 2012 and is classified as level 3 in the three-level valuation hierarchy. We determine the value of that residual interest using a discounted cash flow model that includes estimates for prepayments and losses. We used a discount rate of 20% per annum and a cumulative net loss rate of 15% at September 30, 2013 and 14% at December 31, 2012. The assumptions we used are based on historical performance of automobile contracts we have originated and serviced in the past, adjusted for current market conditions.

In September 2011, we acquired $217.8 million of finance receivables from Fireside Bank for a purchase price of $199.6 million. The receivables were acquired by our wholly-owned special purpose subsidiary, CPS Fender Receivables, LLC, which issued a note for $197.3 million, with a fair value of $196.5 million. Since the Fireside receivables were originated by another entity with its own underwriting guidelines and procedures, we have elected to account for the Fireside receivables and the related debt secured by those receivables at their estimated fair values so that changes in fair value will be reflected in our results of operations as they occur. Interest income from the receivables and interest expense on the note are included in interest income and interest expense, respectively. Changes to the fair value of the receivables and debt are included in other income. Our level 3, unobservable inputs reflect our own assumptions about the factors that market participants use in pricing similar receivables and debt, and are based on the best information available in the circumstances. They include such inputs as estimated net charge-offs and timing of the amortization of the portfolio of finance receivables. Our estimate of the fair value of the Fireside receivables is performed on a pool basis, rather than separately on each individual receivable. The table below presents a reconciliation of the acquired finance receivables and related debt measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs:

The table below compares the fair values of the Fireside receivables and the related secured debt to their contractual balances for the periods shown:

The fair value of the debt secured by the Fireside receivables portfolio represents the discounted value of future cash flows that we estimate will become due to the lender in accordance with the terms of our financing for the Fireside portfolio.

Repossessed vehicle inventory, which is included in Other Assets on our balance sheet, is measured at fair value using level 2 assumptions based on our actual loss experience on sale of repossessed vehicles. At September 30, 2013, the finance receivables related to the repossessed vehicles in inventory totaled $20.7 million. We have applied a valuation adjustment, or loss allowance, of $12.0 million, which is based on a recovery rate of 42%, resulting in an estimated fair value and carrying amount of $8.7 million. The fair value and carrying amount of the repossessed inventory at December 31, 2012 was $5.7 million after applying a valuation adjustment of $6.4 million.

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

There were no transfers in or out of level 1 or level 2 assets and liabilities for the three or nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012. We have no level 3 assets that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. The table below presents a reconciliation for level 3 assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs:

The following table provides certain qualitative information about our level 3 fair value measurements for assets and liabilities carried at fair value:

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The following summary presents a description of the methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of our financial instruments. Much of the information used to determine fair value is highly subjective. When applicable, readily available market information has been utilized. However, for a significant portion of our financial instruments, active markets do not exist. Therefore, significant elements of judgment were required in estimating fair value for certain items. The subjective factors include, among other things, the estimated timing and amount of cash flows, risk characteristics, credit quality and interest rates, all of which are subject to change. Since the fair value is estimated as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the amounts that will actually be realized or paid at settlement or maturity of the instruments could be significantly different.

Cash, Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash and Equivalents

The carrying value equals fair value.

Finance Receivables, net

The fair value of finance receivables is estimated by discounting future cash flows expected to be collected using current rates at which similar receivables could be originated.

Finance Receivables Measured at Fair Value and Debt Secured by Receivables Measured at Fair Value

The carrying value equals fair value.

Residual Interest in Securitizations

The fair value is estimated by discounting future cash flows using credit and discount rates that we believe reflect the estimated credit, interest rate and prepayment risks associated with similar types of instruments.

Accrued Interest Receivable and Payable

The carrying value approximates fair value because the related interest rates are estimated to reflect current market conditions for similar types of instruments.

Warrant Derivative Liability

The method used to estimate fair value is described above.

Warehouse Lines of Credit, Residual Interest Financing, Senior Secured Debt and Subordinated Renewable Notes

The carrying value approximates fair value because the related interest rates are estimated to reflect current market conditions for similar types of secured instruments.

Securitization Trust Debt

The fair value is estimated by discounting future cash flows using interest rates that we believe reflects the current market rates.

Item 2 . Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Overview

We are a specialty finance company focused on consumers who have limited credit histories, low incomes or past credit problems, whom we refer to as sub-prime customers. Our business is to purchase and service retail automobile contracts originated primarily by franchised automobile dealers and, to a lesser extent, by select independent dealers in the United States in the sale of new and used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans. Through our automobile contract purchases, we provide indirect financing to sub-prime customers of dealers. We serve as an alternative source of financing for dealers, facilitating sales to customers who otherwise might not be able to obtain financing from traditional sources, such as commercial banks, credit unions and the captive finance companies affiliated with major automobile manufacturers. In addition to purchasing installment purchase contracts directly from dealers, we have also (i) acquired installment purchase contracts in four merger and acquisition transactions, (ii) purchased immaterial amounts of vehicle purchase money loans from non-affiliated lenders, and (iii) lent money directly to consumers for an immaterial amount of loans secured by vehicles. In this report, we refer to all of such contracts and loans as "automobile contracts."

We were incorporated and began our operations in March 1991. From inception through September 30, 2013, we have purchased a total of approximately $10.2 billion of automobile contracts from dealers. In addition, we obtained a total of approximately $822.8 million of automobile contracts in mergers and acquisitions in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2011. In 2004 and 2009, we were appointed as a third-party servicer for certain portfolios of automobile receivables originated and owned by non-affiliated entities. Beginning in 2008 through the third quarter of 2011, our managed portfolio decreased each year due to our strategy of limiting contract purchases in 2008 and 2009 to conserve our liquidity, as discussed further below. However, since October 2009 we have gradually increased contract purchases, which, in turn has resulted in recent increases to our managed portfolio. Recent contract purchase volumes and managed portfolio levels are shown in the table below:

We are headquartered in Irvine, California, where most operational and administrative functions are centralized. Credit and underwriting functions are performed in our California headquarters with certain of these functions also performed in our Florida branch. We service our automobile contracts from our California headquarters and our branches in Virginia, Florida and Illinois.

We purchase contracts in our own name (“CPS”) and, until July 2008, also in the name of our wholly-owned subsidiary, TFC. Programs marketed under the CPS name are intended to serve a wide range of sub-prime customers, primarily through franchised new car dealers. Our TFC program served vehicle purchasers enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, primarily through independent used car dealers. In July 2008, we suspended contract purchases under our TFC program. We purchase automobile contracts with the intention of financing them on a long-term basis through securitizations. Securitizations are transactions in which we sell a specified pool of contracts to a special purpose entity of ours, which in turn issues asset-backed securities to fund the purchase of the pool of contracts from us.

Securitization and Warehouse Credit Facilities

Throughout the period for which information is presented in this report, we have purchased automobile contracts with the intention of financing them on a long-term basis through securitizations, and on an interim basis through warehouse credit facilities. All such financings have involved identification of specific automobile contracts, sale of those automobile contracts (and associated rights) to one of our special-purpose subsidiaries, and issuance of asset-backed securities or loans to fund the transactions. Depending on the structure, these transactions may properly be accounted for under generally accepted accounting principles as sales of the automobile contracts or as secured financings.

When structured to be treated as a secured financing for accounting purposes, the subsidiary is consolidated with us. Accordingly, the sold automobile contracts and the related debt appear as assets and liabilities, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheet. We then periodically (i) recognize interest and fee income on the contracts, (ii) recognize interest expense on the securities issued in the transaction and (iii) record as expense a provision for credit losses on the contracts.

Since the third quarter of 2003, we have conducted 33 term securitizations. Of these 33, 27 were periodic (generally quarterly) securitizations of automobile contracts that we purchased from automobile dealers under our regular programs. In addition, in March 2004 and November 2005, we completed securitizations of our retained interests in other securitizations that we and our affiliates previously sponsored. The debt from the March 2004 transaction was repaid in August 2005, and the debt from the November 2005 transaction was repaid in May 2007. Also, in June 2004, we completed a securitization of automobile contracts purchased under our TFC program and acquired in a bulk purchase. Further, in December 2005 and May 2007 we completed securitizations that included automobile contracts purchased under the TFC programs, automobile contracts purchased under the CPS programs and automobile contracts we repurchased upon termination of prior securitizations. Since July 2003 all such securitizations have been structured as secured financings, except our September 2008 and September 2010 securitizations. These transactions were in substance sales of the underlying receivables and were treated as sales for financial accounting purposes. The September 2010 securitization was our first securitization since 1993 that did not utilize a financial guaranty for the senior asset-backed notes. Since then we have completed 10 senior subordinate securitizations and none have utilized financial guarantees.

Since December 2011, our securitizations have included a pre-funding feature in which a portion of the receivables to be sold to the trust were not delivered until after the initial closing. As a result, our restricted cash balance at September 30, 2013 included $65.8 million from the proceeds of the sale of the asset-backed notes that were held by the trustee pending delivery of the remaining receivables. In October 2013, the requisite additional receivables were delivered to the trust and we received the related restricted cash, most of which was used to repay amounts owed under our warehouse credit facilities.

Portfolio Acquisitions

As stated above, we have acquired approximately $822.8 million in finance receivables through four acquisitions. These transactions took place in 2002, 2003, 2004 and September 2011. The September 2011 acquisition consisted of approximately $217.8 million of finance receivables that we purchased from Fireside Bank of Pleasanton, California.

Uncertainty of Capital Markets and General Economic Conditions

We depend upon the availability of warehouse credit facilities and access to long-term financing through the issuance of asset-backed securities collateralized by our automobile contracts. Since 1994, we have completed 60 term securitizations of approximately $8.3 billion in contracts. From the fourth quarter of 2007 through the end of 2009, we observed unprecedented adverse changes in the market for securitized pools of automobile contracts. These changes included reduced liquidity, and reduced demand for asset-backed securities, particularly for securities carrying a financial guaranty and for securities backed by sub-prime automobile receivables. Moreover, during that period many of the firms that previously provided financial guarantees, which were an integral part of our securitizations, suspended offering such guarantees. These adverse changes caused us to conserve liquidity by significantly reducing our purchases of automobile contracts. However, since September 2009 we have established new funding facilities and gradually increased our contract purchases and the frequency and amount of our term securitizations. Our recent history of term securitizations is summarized in the table below:

Our 2012 securitizations included $58.2 million in contracts that were repurchased in 2012 from securitizations closed in 2006 and 2007. Our 2013 securitizations included $7.4 million in contracts that were repurchased from a securitization closed in 2008. Since 2011 all of our securitizations have been structured as secured financings and none have utilized financial guarantees.

Our current short-term funding capacity is $200 million, comprising two credit facilities. The first $100 million credit facility was established in December 2010. This facility was renewed in March 2013, extending the revolving period to March 2015, and adding an amortization period through March 2017. Our second $100 million credit facility was established in May 2012. This facility was renewed in June 2013, extending the revolving period to June 2015, and adding an amortization period through June 2016.

Financial Covenants

Certain of our securitization transactions, our warehouse credit facilities and our residual interest financing contain various financial covenants requiring certain minimum financial ratios and results. Such covenants include maintaining minimum levels of liquidity and net worth and not exceeding maximum leverage levels. As of September 30, 2013 we were in compliance with all such covenants. In addition, certain securitization and non-securitization related debt contain cross-default provisions that would allow certain creditors to declare a default if a default occurred under a different facility.

Results of Operations

Comparison of Operating Results for the three months ended September 30, 2013 with the three months ended September 30, 2012

Revenues .  During the three months ended September 30, 2013, our revenues were $64.1 million, an increase of $16.1 million, or 33.7%, from the prior year revenue of $47.9 million. The primary reason for the increase in revenues is an increase in interest income. Interest income for the three months ended September 30, 2013 increased $15.4 million, or 34.2%, to $60.5 million from $45.1 million in the prior year. The primary reason for the increase in interest income is the increase in finance receivables held by consolidated subsidiaries, which increased from $807.1 million at September 30, 2012 to $1,154.2 million at September 30, 2013. The table below shows the average balances of our portfolio held by consolidated subsidiaries for the three months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012:

Servicing fees totaling $700,000 in the three months ended September 30, 2013 increased $198,000, or 39.5%, from $502,000 in the prior year. We earn base servicing fees on three portfolios that are decreasing in size as we receive customer payments and, consequently, base servicing fees are decreasing also. On one of those portfolios, however, we recently began earning an incentive servicing fee. Such incentive servicing fee was $349,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2013 and more than offset the decrease of $151,000 in base servicing fees. We did not earn any incentive servicing fee in the prior year’s period. As of September 30, 2013 and 2012, our managed portfolio owned by consolidated vs. non-consolidated subsidiaries and other third parties was as follows:

(1) Contractual balances.

(2) Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

At September 30, 2013, we were generating income and fees on a managed portfolio with an outstanding principal balance of $1,166.9 million (this amount includes $6.1 million of automobile contracts on which we earn servicing fees and own a residual interest and also includes another $6.6 million of automobile contracts on which we earn base and incentive servicing fees), compared to a managed portfolio with an outstanding principal balance of $844.9 million as of September 30, 2012. At September 30, 2013 and 2012, the managed portfolio composition was as follows:

(1) Contractual balances.

(2) Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Other income increased by $539,000, or 22.7%, to $2.9 million in the three months ended September 30, 2013 from $2.4 million during the prior year. The increase is comprised of a net increase of $681,000 in the fair value of the receivables and debt associated with the Fireside portfolio acquisition, and an increase of $5,000 in payments from third-party providers of convenience fees paid by our customers for web based and other electronic payments. These increases were partially offset by decreases of $74,000 in fees associated with direct mail and other related products and services that we offer to our dealers, decreases in sales tax refunds of $59,000, and a decrease of $18,000 in recoveries on receivables from the 2002 acquisition of MFN Financial Corporation.

Expenses .  Our operating expenses consist largely of provision for credit losses, interest expense, employee costs and general and administrative expenses. Provision for credit losses and interest expense are significantly affected by the volume of automobile contracts we purchased during the trailing 12-month period and by the outstanding balance of finance receivables held by consolidated subsidiaries. Employee costs and general and administrative expenses are incurred as applications and automobile contracts are received, processed and serviced. Factors that affect margins and net income include changes in the automobile and automobile finance market environments, and macroeconomic factors such as interest rates and changes in the unemployment level.

Employee costs include base salaries, commissions and bonuses paid to employees, and certain expenses related to the accounting treatment of outstanding stock options, and are one of our most significant operating expenses. These costs (other than those relating to stock options) generally fluctuate with the level of applications and automobile contracts processed and serviced.

Other operating expenses consist largely of facilities expenses, telephone and other communication services, credit services, computer services, marketing and advertising expenses, and depreciation and amortization.

Total operating expenses were $53.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2013, compared to $45.2 million for the prior year, an increase of $8.3 million, or 18.4%. The increase is primarily due to the increase in the amount of new contracts we purchased, the resulting increase in our consolidated portfolio and associated servicing costs, and the related increase in our provision for credit losses. Increases in core operating expenses and provision for credit losses were partially offset by decreases in interest expense.

Employee costs increased by $2.5 million or 28.3%, to $11.2 million during the three months ended September 30, 2013, representing 20.9% of total operating expenses, from $8.7 million for the prior year, or 19.3% of total operating expenses. Since 2010, we have added employees in our Originations and Marketing departments to accommodate the increase in contract purchases. More recently, we have also added Servicing staff to accommodate the increase in the number of accounts in our managed portfolio. The table below summarizes our employees by category as well as contract purchases and units in our managed portfolio as of, and for the three-month periods ended, September 30, 2013 and 2012:

General and administrative expenses include costs associated with purchasing and servicing our portfolio of finance receivables, including expenses for facilities, credit services, and telecommunications. General and administrative expenses were $4.1 million, an increase of $384,000, or 10.4%, compared to the previous year and represented 7.6% of total operating expenses.

Interest expense for the three months ended September 30, 2013 decreased by $5.7 million to $13.9 million, or 29.2%, compared to $19.6 million in the previous year.

Interest expense on the Fireside portfolio credit facility decreased by $2.7 million compared to the prior year period as the Fireside portfolio and the related debt have paid down to significantly lower levels over the last year.

Interest on securitization trust debt decreased by $1.0 million for the three months ended September 30, 2013 compared to the prior year. Although the outstanding amount of securitization trust debt increased to $1,094.6 million at September 30, 2013 compared to $721.4 million at September 30, 2012, the blended interest rates on term securitizations completed since 2012 are significantly less than the blended interest rates on securitization trust debt incurred prior to 2012.

Interest expense on senior secured debt and subordinated debt decreased by $1.6 million. This was due primarily to the April 2013 repayment of $15.0 million in senior secured debt and to the reduction in the interest rate on the remaining senior secured debt from 16.0% to 13.0%. Interest expense on residual interest financing increased $348,000 in the three months ended September 30, 2013 compared to the prior year. The increase is due to the establishment in April 2013 of a new $20 million residual interest financing. This was partially offset by the September 2013 repayment of the $13.8 million of indebtedness outstanding under the residual facility originally established in 2007.

Interest expense on warehouse debt decreased by $732,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2013 compared to the prior year. Although we increased our contract purchases to $206.8 million for the three months ended September 30, 2013 compared to $143.1 million in the prior period, recently we have relied less on warehouse credit facilities and more on unrestricted cash balances to fund receivables prior to securitization.

The following table presents the components of interest income and interest expense and a net interest yield analysis for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and 2012: