on the first point - it could be a positive or negative. My...

on the first point - it could be a positive or negative. My point and I think you agree is that it's hard to tell. That uncertainty could therefore be better communicated to the market. It's that lack of clarity that makes either the company or Lev's arguments both compelling, which if they communicated better than they have to date could potentially dispose of the issue (assuming the company's view is the right one)

on the second point - I disagree. I know for fact at least one of their competitors uses detailed modelling using a variety value driving characteristics in actuarial models to predict estimated cash flows. That by definition isn't on a whole portfolio basis and such an approach could be used to derive EIRs by purchase tranches which will definitely have different underlying internal rates of return. We can debate whether that provides a better answer and whether you'd rather they smooth underperforming parts of the portfolio against other parts, but it is possible. The increase in amortisation rate to me was inevitable as I believe they had underamortised in the past and there had to be a catch-up at some point. I see a real risk of that rising further north going forward and why the potential to bring forward cash flows and profits to mask that position/or potentially solve it, i carries such a large incentive for management.