Third Bench (THBD) Risk Analysis

Our continued growth and future success will depend on our ability to retain the members of our senior management team, who possess valuable knowledge of, and experience with, the legal and regulatory environment of our industry and who have been instrumental in developing our strategic plans and procuring capital to enable the pursuit of those plans. The loss of the services of members of senior management, together with any inability to attract new skilled management, could harm our business and future development.

The Dodd-Frank Act that took effect on July 21, 2010 is extensive and significant legislation that, among other things: - creates a liquidation framework for the resolution of large bank holding companies and systemically significant nonbank financial companies;- creates a new framework for the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives activities;- strengthens the regulatory oversight of securities and capital markets activities by the SEC; and - creates the CFPB, a new federal authority responsible for administering and enforcing the laws and regulations for consumer financial products and services. The Dodd-Frank Act will impact the offering, marketing and regulation of consumer financial products and services offered by financial institutions, which may include the products and services offered by the Company. The CFPB has supervision, examination and enforcement authority over the consumer financial products and services of certain non-depository institutions, which could include the Company. Compliance with the regulations implemented under the Dodd-Frank Act or the oversight of the SEC or CFPB may impose costs on, create operational constraints for or place limits on pricing with respect to finance companies such as the Company. Until implementing regulations are issued, no assurance can be given that these new requirements imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act will not increase our cost of doing business, impose new restrictions on the way in which we conduct our business or add significant operational constraints that might impair our profitability. The CFPB also has the power to define and ban "unfair, deceptive or abusive" practices in connection with consumer products. We are currently following legislative and regulatory developments in Congress and in individual states where we conduct business. It is difficult to assess the likelihood of the enactment of any unfavorable federal or state legislation, and there can be no assurance that additional legislative or regulatory initiatives will not be enacted which would severely restrict, prohibit or eliminate our ability to offer title loans. Any federal or state legislative or regulatory action that would serve to restrict the types of activities in which the Company is engaged could have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows and could impair our ability to service our debt obligations and to continue current operations. Examples of such actions include, among others, the imposition of limits on APRs on consumer loan transactions or the prohibition of cash advance and similar services. The extent of the impact of any future legislative or regulatory changes will depend on the nature of the legislative or regulatory change, the jurisdictions to which the new or modified laws would apply and the amount of business we do in that jurisdiction. Moreover, similar actions by states in which we do not currently operate could limit our opportunities to pursue our growth strategies. In addition to state and federal laws and regulations, our business is subject to various local rules and regulations such as local zoning regulation and permit licensing. Local jurisdictions' efforts to restrict the business of alternative financial services product providers through the use of local zoning and permitting laws have been on the rise. Actions taken in the future by local governing bodies to require special use permits or impose other restrictions on such lenders could have a material adverse effect on us. For example, the Dallas and Austin, Texas City Councils both recently passed ordinances that would restrict extensions of consumer credit by title lenders within city limits by, among other things, linking maximum allowable loan size to 3% of a consumer's gross annual income, mandating a 25% principal reduction requirement on refinances or renewals and limiting the term of a loan to no more than four months.

We include pre-dispute arbitration provisions in our loan agreements. These provisions are designed to allow us to resolve any customer disputes through individual arbitration rather than in court. Our arbitration provisions explicitly provide that all arbitrations will be conducted on an individual and not on a class basis. Thus, our arbitration agreements, if enforced, have the effect of shielding us from class action liability. They do not generally have any impact on regulatory enforcement proceedings. We take the position that the Federal Arbitration Act requires the enforcement in accordance with the terms of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers of the type we use. While many courts, particularly federal courts, have agreed with this argument in cases involving other parties, an increasing number of courts, including courts in California, Missouri, Washington, New Jersey, and a number of other states, have concluded that arbitration agreements with class action waivers are "unconscionable" and hence unenforceable, particularly where a small dollar amount is in controversy on an individual basis. While the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion case that consumer arbitration agreements meeting certain specifications are enforceable, our arbitration agreements differ in several respects from the agreement at issue in that case, thereby potentially limiting the precedential effect of the decision on our business. In addition, Congress has considered legislation that would generally limit or prohibit mandatory pre-dispute arbitration in consumer contracts and has adopted such a prohibition with respect to certain mortgage loans and also certain consumer loans to members of the military on active duty and their dependents. Further, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the CFPB to study consumer arbitration and report to Congress, and authorizes the CFPB to adopt rules limiting or prohibiting consumer arbitration, consistent with the results of its study. Any such rule would apply to arbitration agreements entered into more than six months after the final rule becomes effective (and not to prior arbitration agreements). Any judicial decisions, legislation or other rules or regulations that impair our ability to enter into and enforce pre-dispute consumer arbitration agreements could significantly increase our exposure to class action litigation as well as litigation in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions. Such litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.