10-K 1 d09248e10vk.htm FORM 10-K e10vk
Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

     
[X]   ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
    SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934          
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003

OR

     
[  ]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
    SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934          
For the transition period from _______to____

Commission File Number 0-20774

ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
     
                                       Texas   75-2142963
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)   (IRS Employer Identification No.)
     
1231 Greenway Drive, Suite 600    
Irving, Texas   75038
(Address of principal executive offices)   (Zip Code)

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) (972) 550-5000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

     
    Name of each exchange
Title of each class   on which registered

 

None
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, $.01 par value

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes  [X]  No  [  ]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).
Yes  [  ]  No  [X]

As of September 19, 2003, 10,344,979 shares of Common Stock were outstanding. As of such date the aggregate market value of voting stock (based upon the last reported sales price in The Nasdaq Stock Market) held by nonaffiliates of the registrant was approximately $105,396,104.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The information required by Part III is incorporated by reference from the registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report.


PART I
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
PART II
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
PART III
PART IV
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES, AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
SIGNATURES
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE
Schedule II – Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
EX-21 Subsidiaries of the Company
EX-23 Consent of Grant Thornton LLP
EX-31 Certifications of CEO & CFO to Section 302
EX-32 Certifications of CEO & CFO to Section 1350


Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

General

Ace Cash Express, Inc. (“ACE” or the “Company”) is a significant provider of retail financial services in the United States. The Company is also the largest owner, operator, and franchiser of check-cashing stores in the United States. As of August 31, 2003, the Company had a total network of 1,168 stores in 36 states and the District of Columbia, consisting of 968 company-owned stores and 200 franchised stores. The Company seeks to provide a full range of retail financial services and transaction processing in its markets and to develop and maintain the largest network of stores in each of the markets where the Company operates. The Company’s growth strategy is to integrate acquisitions, new store openings, and franchising in new and existing markets and to develop new products for introduction into the existing store base.

ACE stores offer check-cashing services and other retail financial services at competitive rates in clean, convenient settings. The Company’s services also include offering short-term consumer loans; selling money orders; providing money transfer services using the MoneyGram network; offering bill-payment services and other retail financial transaction processing services.

Industry Overview

The primary industry in which ACE operates is check-cashing. Industry sources indicate that there are approximately 11,000 check-cashing stores nationally. Though there is limited public information available, the Company believes that there are four other check-cashing companies operating or franchising over 100 stores and five companies that operate or franchise between 50 and 100 locations, with the remaining companies operating fewer than 50 stores, in the United States.

The Company believes that it and other check-cashing companies focus on and offer services to a customer segment that banks do not service and operate at locations and during hours that are more convenient than those traditionally offered by banks. Unlike many banks, check-cashing stores are willing to assume the risk that checks they cash will “bounce.” For instance, it is not unusual for a bank to refuse to cash a check for a customer who does not maintain a deposit account with the bank and to require its depositors to maintain sufficient funds in an account to cover a check to be cashed or wait several days for the check to clear. As a result, the Company believes check-cashing stores provide an attractive alternative to customers without bank accounts or with relatively small account balances. Although these customers might save money by depositing their checks in a bank and waiting for them to clear, many prefer paying a fee to take advantage of the convenience and availability of immediate cash offered by check-cashing stores.

The core business of check-cashing stores is generally cashing checks for a fee. These fees are intended to provide the check casher with a profit after covering operating expenses, including any interest expense incurred by the check casher on the funds advanced to customers between the time checks are cashed and the time the checks clear through the banking system. The risk a check-cashing store assumes upon cashing a check is that the check will be uncollected because of insufficient funds, stop payment orders, or fraud. In order to minimize this risk and the losses associated with uncollected checks, many check-cashing stores cash only payroll or government entitlement checks, charge higher fees, or have stricter approval procedures for cashing personal checks. ACE does not promote the cashing of personal checks in its stores. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, less than 1% of the checks cashed by the Company were one-party personal checks.

In addition to check-cashing services, most check-cashing stores offer customers a range of other services, including access to short-term consumer loans, bill-payment services, money orders, and wire transfer services. Some check-cashing stores also offer public transportation passes, copying and fax transmission services, and postage stamps.

The Company believes that the deregulation of the banking and savings and loan industry has increased the role played by check-cashing stores in providing basic retail financial services to low-income and middle-income customers. At the same time, the Company believes that competition, regulatory scrutiny and complexity are contributing to consolidation of the industry. The Company’s strategy is to position itself to benefit from industry consolidation and the competitive advantages available to large operators and franchisers of retail financial services.

Growth Strategy

ACE’s growth strategy consists principally of combining acquisitions and new store openings (both company-owned and franchised stores), with the objective of having the largest number of retail financial services locations in each of its markets and developing new products for introduction into the existing store base, and by increasing same store sales of existing products. ACE defines its target markets as cities of 100,000 or more. In fiscal 2003, the Company opened 14 newly constructed stores, acquired 2 stores, franchised 26 stores, and sold 23 and closed 28 company-owned stores. The Company

2


Table of Contents

currently anticipates that it will construct and open 40 company-owned stores, primarily in existing markets, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004. The Company’s growth strategy depends upon the availability of adequate financing, as well as suitable locations, acquisition opportunities, and experienced management employees, and is subject to the risk that any of these conditions may not be met. The Company’s growth in owned stores in fiscal 2003 was smaller than the Company’s historical growth primarily because of limitations on capital expenditures imposed by the Company’s bank credit agreement through March 31, 2003. The Company’s new and longer-term financing arrangements entered into as of March 31, 2003, however, should enable the Company to pursue its traditional growth strategy, as well as to expand the Company’s franchise network (which requires a minimal amount of capital).

3


Table of Contents

The following table illustrates the development of company-owned stores since June 30, 1997 by showing the number of stores open in each market area at the end of each of the indicated periods:

                                                         
    Company-owned stores
   
    June 30,
   
Market Area   2003   2002   2001   2000   1999   1998   1997
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Texas:
                                                       
Dallas/Fort Worth/East Texas Houston/Corpus Christi San Antonio/Austin/El Paso
    328       329       326       309       264       244       230  
California:
                                                       
Los Angeles/San Bernadino/ Sacramento/San Francisco/Fresno/ Oakland
    85       88       90       30       16       9        
Maryland/Washington, D.C./Virginia:
                                                       
Baltimore/Washington, D.C./ Northern VA/Norfolk/Virginia Beach
    84       84       85       93       81       77       72  
Arizona:
                                                       
Phoenix/Tucson/Nogales/Douglas
    75       72       75       73       69       59       58  
Florida:
                                                       
Jacksonville/Orlando/Palm Beach/Tampa
    68       91       91       90       73       60       46  
Colorado:
                                                       
Denver/Colorado Springs/Pueblo
    53       56       53       52       51       45       44  
Georgia:
                                                       
Atlanta/Augusta/Macon/ Savannah
    46       50       50       54       52       50       47  
Louisiana:
                                                       
New Orleans/Baton Rouge/Shreveport
    27       27       25       25       25       25       25  
North & South Carolina:
                                                       
Charlotte/Charleston/Columbia/ Greenville/Spartanburg/Orangeburg
    26       29       29       34       29       17       16  
Indiana:
                                                       
Indianapolis/Fort Wayne/Muncie
    26       25       25       25       23       14       9  
Ohio:
                                                       
Cleveland, Youngstown
    25       24       18       11       10       10       10  
Oklahoma:
                                                       
Oklahoma City, Tulsa
    21       23       23       12       14       13       13  
Tennessee:
                                                       
Memphis/Nashville
    18       18       19       26       22       18       15  
Pennsylvania:
                                                       
Pittsburgh
    16       16       9       3                    
Nevada:
                                                       
Las Vegas
    14       14       14       14       11       4        
Washington:
                                                       
Seattle/Tacoma/Everette
    13       13       13       14       12       10       8  
Missouri:
                                                       
St. Louis
    11       11       11       11       10       6       6  
New Mexico:
                                                       
Albuquerque
    11       10       10       8       8       7       7  
Arkansas:
                                                       
Little Rock/Pine Bluff/West Memphis
    8       8       8       8       7       7       6  
Oregon:
                                                       
Portland
    8       8       7       9       8       5       5  
Kansas:
                                                       
Wichita
    4       4       4       4       3       2        
Alabama:
                                                       
Birmingham/Homewood
    1       3       3       3       4       1        
Utah:
                                                       
Salt Lake City/Layton/Ogden
                      5       3              
Kentucky:
                                                       
Paducah /Murray
                      2       3              
 
   
     
     
     
     
     
     
 
Total
    968       1,003       988       915       798       683       617  
 
   
     
     
     
     
     
     
 

4


Table of Contents

Acquisitions. During fiscal 2003, the Company acquired two stores in two separate transactions. The Company believes its experience with acquisitions permits it to successfully integrate additional acquisitions. Of the 968 ACE company-owned stores in operation as of June 30, 2003, 382, or 39%, have been acquired stores. The Company does not have any current plan or expectation as to the number of stores that it may acquire during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004. The Company intends to continue searching for strategic opportunities in both existing and new markets.

Self-service machines. The Company has developed self-service machines (“SSMs”) which are able to cash checks, sell prepaid long-distance telephone cards, sell money orders, and process third-party bill payments. The Company increased the number of self-service machines in H&R Block Tax Services, Inc. (“H&R Block”) retail locations, to over 200 during the 2003 tax season (i.e., January through March). Those machines only cashed tax-refund checks issued to customers at H&R Block locations. The Company currently has 21 machines in company-owned locations and more than 200 machines available for deployment at H&R Block locations during the 2004 tax season. The Company currently has 22 bill-payment only SSMs located at a third-party service provider’s locations. The Company plans to deploy 15 additional bill-payment-only SSMs at such service provider’s locations in fiscal 2004.

Franchise Operations

The Company is one of the largest franchisers of check-cashing stores in the United States. ACE franchises are marketed through an employee sales force, supplemented by advertising in newspapers, trade journals, and other media. The following table illustrates the development of franchised stores since June 30, 1998 by showing the number of stores open in each state at the end of each of the indicated periods:

                                                 
    Number of Stores as of June 30,
   
    2003   2002   2001   2000   1999   1998
   
 
 
 
 
 
Texas
    55       56       55       48       42       23  
Ohio
    18       16       14       9       8       2  
Florida
    16       14       13       12       10       7  
South Carolina
    13       8       8       7       5       2  
Louisiana
    12       12       12       13       14       10  
Oklahoma
    11       11       9       11       1        
California
    10       11       12       15       12       12  
Tennessee
    7       7       7       2       1       2  
Colorado
    6       4       3       3       1       1  
Georgia
    6       6       7       6       5       7  
North Carolina
    6       7       7       5       6       4  
Arizona
    5       3       2       2              
Kansas
    5       4       1                    
Missouri
    4       3       3       3       1       1  
Oregon
    4       4       4       3       3       3  
Kentucky
    3       2       2       2       1       1  
Delaware
    2       1       1       1              
Idaho
    2       2       1       1              
Indiana
    2       2       2       2       2       2  
Minnesota
    2       2       2       2              
Mississippi
    2       1       1                    
Arkansas
    1       1       1       2       2       2  
Hawaii
    1                                
Maine
    1       1       1       1       1       1  
Michigan
    1       1       1                    
New Jersey
    1       1       1       1              
South Dakota
    1       1       1                    
Virginia
    1       1                          
Wisconsin
    1       1                          
Wyoming
    1       1       1       1       1       1  
Alabama
                1       1       1       1  
Connecticut
                2       2              
Massachusetts
                            1       1  
Pennsylvania
                                   
Utah
                                  1  
Washington
                      2       2       5  
 
   
     
     
     
     
     
 
Total
    200       184       175       157       120       89  
 
   
     
     
     
     
     
 

5


Table of Contents

The Company intends to continue its expansion through the sale of new franchises and the opening of additional stores under existing franchise agreements. The Company is actively marketing several types of ACE franchises, which vary by the level of business being conducted. These include a standard store franchise, a store-within-a-store (or “kiosk”) franchise, a small market franchise for market areas under 15,000 in population, and a conversion franchise that permits an existing check-cashing business to convert to an ACE franchisee. The Company opened 26 franchised stores, acquired two former franchised stores, and closed eight franchised stores during fiscal 2003. The majority of franchised stores operate under the “ACE” name, by license from the Company.

Customers and Services

Management believes the Company’s core customer group is composed primarily of individuals whose average age is between 25 and 34 and who rent their house or apartment and hold a wide variety of jobs in the service sector or are clerical workers, craftsmen, and laborers. These customers tend to change jobs and residences more often than average, have annual family incomes of approximately $30,000, often pay their bills with money orders, and prefer the availability of immediate cash provided by cashing checks at the Company’s stores.

The following table reflects the major categories of services that ACE currently offers and the revenues (in thousands) from these services for the indicated fiscal years:

                                         
    Year Ended June 30,
   
Revenue Category   2003   2002   2001   2000   1999

 
 
 
 
 
Check cashing fees
  $ 125,703     $ 118,907     $ 105,479     $ 89,641     $ 78,839  
Loan fees and interest
    70,806       74,197       54,771       17,872       14,257  
Bill payment services
    13,507       10,156       10,376       9,447       8,394  
Money transfer services
    10,898       10,998       10,270       8,944       7,951  
Money order fees
    6,960       7,554       7,245       7,032       5,332  
Franchise revenues
    2,346       2,199       2,257       2,537       2,117  
Other fees
    4,069       5,255       6,377       5,163       5,424  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Total revenue
  $ 234,289     $ 229,266     $ 196,775     $ 140,636     $ 122,314  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 

Check cashing. ACE’s primary business is cashing checks for a fee. The principal type of check the Company cashes is a payroll check. The Company also cashes government assistance, tax refund, and insurance checks or drafts. Subject to market conditions at different locations, the Company’s check-cashing fees for payroll checks approximate 2.3% of the face amount of the check. The Company may charge higher rates for cashing out-of-state checks, handwritten checks, money orders, and insurance checks or drafts, depending on risk and market factors. Unlike many of its competitors, the Company displays its check-cashing fees in full view of its customers on a “menu board” in each store and provides a detailed receipt for each transaction. Although the Company has established guidelines for approving check-cashing transactions, it has no preset limit on the size of the checks it will cash.

If a check cashed by the Company is not paid for any reason, the Company accounts for the amount of the check as a loss in the period in which it is returned. ACE then transfers the check to its collection department, which contacts the maker and payee of each returned check and, if necessary, commences legal action. The collection department utilizes an automated tracking system on the Company’s proprietary information system to monitor the status of all returned items. See “Selected Financial Data — Collections Data.”

Loan services. The Company is engaged in the small consumer loan business because the Company believes that many consumers may have limited access to other sources of consumer credit. In general, the small, short-term loan product or service (commonly referred to as a “payday loan”) offered at the Company’s stores consists of providing a customer cash in exchange for the customer’s check or an Automated Clearinghouse (“ACH”) authorization to debit the customer’s bank account, along with an agreement to defer the presentment or deposit of that check or the initiation of that ACH debit on the customer’s account, as the case may be, until the customer’s next payday (typically two to four weeks later).

Until December 31, 2002, the Company was a party to a Master Loan Agency Agreement and ancillary agreements (the “Goleta Agreement”) with Goleta National Bank (“Goleta”), a national bank located in Goleta, California. Under the Goleta Agreement, the parties developed and implemented an arrangement under which short-term loans made by Goleta (“Goleta Loans”) were offered at company-owned locations. Under the Goleta Agreement, the Company purchased from Goleta a participation representing 90% of each Goleta Loan made on a previous day. Goleta determined the interest rate (and other terms) of the Goleta Loans. Interest equal to $17 per $100 of Goleta Loan was charged by Goleta for each 14-day period. As of January 1, 2003, the Company no longer offered Goleta Loans at any of its stores.

Since January 1, 2003, all of the small, short-term loan products or similar services offered at the Company’s stores have consisted of either (1) short-term loans or deferred-deposit services made or entered into by the Company, or (2) deferred-

6


Table of Contents

deposit loans or services made or entered into by Republic Bank & Trust Company, a Kentucky state-chartered bank (“Republic Bank”). As of June 30, 2003, the Company was offering its own small short-term loan or deferred-deposit service in 512 of its owned stores, and Republic Bank was offering its deferred-deposit loan or service in 350 of the Company’s owned stores in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas. All of these loans and services, regardless of type, are made in accordance with state regulation; therefore, the terms of the loans and services vary from state to state.

Both the Company’s and Republic Bank’s short-term loan service or product consists of providing a customer cash in exchange for the customer’s check or an ACH authorization to debit the customer’s bank account, along with an agreement to defer the presentment or deposit of that check or the initiation of that ACH debit on the customer’s account, as the case may be, for a period of 14 to 30 days. The amount of the customer’s check or ACH authorization is the amount of the cash provided to the customer plus a fee. Because payday loans are authorized by statute or rule in the states in which they may be offered, they are subject to extensive regulation. The scope of that regulation, including the terms on which payday loans may be made, by the states is not consistent. Almost all states establish allowable fees and other charges to consumers for these payday loans. In addition, many of the states regulate the maximum amount, maturity, and renewal or extension of these payday loans. To comply with the laws and regulations of the states in which payday loans are offered at the Company’s stores, the terms of those payday loans must vary from state to state. As required, ACE is a licensed provider of payday loans under the laws and regulations of the states in which the Company provides loan services or products.

Bill-payment services. The Company’s stores serve as payment locations for customers to pay many of their utility, telephone, and other bills to third parties. Upon acceptance of the customer’s payment, the Company remits the amount owed to the third-party payee under an agreement with that payee and either receives a service fee from the payee or collects a fee from the consumer. The company offers the bill-payment services primarily through agreements directly with various product and service providers. To a lesser extent, the Company also offers services through an agency agreement (the “MoneyLine Agreement”) with Travelers Express Company, Inc. (“Travelers Express”) and its affiliate MoneyLine Express, Inc., which in turn has agreements directly with various product and service providers.

Money transfer services. ACE is an agent for the transmission and receipt of wire transfers through the MoneyGram network. Through this network, ACE customers can transfer funds electronically to any of approximately 60,000 MoneyGram agent locations worldwide (including other ACE stores). MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. establishes the fees for this service, and the Company is paid a percentage of the fees it collects from customers as a commission and remits the balance to MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc.

Money orders. The Company sells money orders issued by Travelers Express in denominations up to $1,000. These money orders are generally used by the Company’s customers for bill payments, rent payments, and other general disbursements. The Company sold 10.3 million money orders during fiscal 2003. The fees charged for money orders depend on local market conditions and the size of the money order. The Company remits the face amount of each money order sold to Travelers Express. ACE’s money order revenues include that portion of the fees retained by the Company.

Franchise revenues. The Company markets several types of ACE franchises, which vary by the level of business being conducted. These include a standard store franchise, a store-within-a-store (or “kiosk”) franchise, a small market franchise for market areas under 15,000 in population, and a conversion franchise that permits an existing check-cashing business to convert to an ACE franchisee. The Company’s franchise revenues consist of royalties and initial franchise fees and fees for future franchise purchase options. There were 200 company-franchised stores in operation as of June 30, 2003, compared to 184 as of June 30, 2002.

Self-service machines. The Company’s SSMs are able to cash checks, sell prepaid long-distance telephone cards, sell money orders, and process third-party bill payments. The Company currently has 21 SSMs in company-owned locations, 22 bill-payment only SSMs located at a third-party service provider’s locations, and more than 200 SSMs available for deployment at H&R Block locations during the 2004 tax season (i.e., January through March). These machines use the Company’s proprietary software that, among other things, reads checks and analyzes customer and check-issuer history, thereby enabling the Company to assess credit risk before cashing a check. Each of the SSMs incorporates the Company’s point-of-sale computer system.

The Company is a party to a license agreement with H&R Block under which the Company placed over 240 SSMs in H&R Block retail locations during the 2003 tax season. Those SSMs were available only to cash tax-refund checks and tax refund anticipation loan checks issued to customers of H&R Block. The Company obtained the cash that constituted the inventory for those SSMs through separate agreements with two banks. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources – SSM Funding Arrangements.” Based on the agreement with H&R Block, the Company anticipates placing more than 200 SSMs at H&R Block retail locations during the 2004 tax season.

7


Table of Contents

Other services and products. In many company-owned stores, ACE also offers a variety of other retail financial products and services to its customers, public transportation passes, copying and fax transmission services, postage stamps, and various prepaid services, such as long-distance telephone cards.

Store Operations

The Company’s objective is to locate its company-owned stores in highly visible, accessible locations and to operate the stores during hours convenient for its customers. The Company attempts to locate stores on high traffic streets or intersections, in many cases in or near destination shopping centers. The Company’s stores occupy 1,100 square feet on average and are located in strip shopping centers, free-standing buildings, and kiosks located inside major retail stores. The Company is focused on increasing the customer’s awareness of ACE by using consistent signage and design at each store location. All but two of the company-owned stores are leased.

Normal business hours of the company-owned stores are from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on Friday, and 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Currently, 169 stores are also open on Sunday, generally from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and several stores are open 24 hours. The business hours of any store may be changed due to local market conditions.

New Store Economics

The Company’s store construction and facilities planning staff reviews and negotiates lease agreements for store locations, supervises the construction of new stores and the remodeling of existing stores, and performs lease management services once the leases are executed. Although the size and shape of a company-owned store may vary, and since many of the stores are built within existing space, the work area of each store is a modular-designed unit that can be customized to meet the requirements of each location while giving a uniform appearance. These modular units may be moved from one location to the next, thus reducing the costs associated with opening new stores and relocating existing stores.

8


Table of Contents

The following tables show the average annual store revenues and the average store contribution for company-owned stores which were opened in the year indicated and remain open as of June 30, 2003:

                                                 
            Average Store Revenues
            Year Ended June 30,
    Number of   (in thousands)
    stores open at  
Year Opened:   June 30, 2003   2003   2002   2001   2000   1999
   
 
 
 
 
 
1994 and earlier
    225     $ 268.1     $ 278.6     $ 245.7     $ 202.9     $ 190.1  
1995
    33       278.5       239.2       209.6       167.3       158.6  
1996
    25       269.2       264.4       246.1       194.4       173.8  
1997
    34       245.3       239.6       206.1       159.6       143.5  
1998
    46       240.7       226.5       189.7       132.1       99.5  
1999
    66       199.4       195.5       160.6       92.3       30.3  
2000
    62       187.3       176.5       124.2       26.4        
2001
    43       181.9       138.7       33.5              
2002
    39       123.6       32.7                    
2003
    13       33.8                          
 
   
                                         
 
    586                                          
Acquired stores
    382                                          
 
   
                                         
 
    968                                          
 
   
                                         
                                                 
            Average Store Contribution (1)
            Year Ended June 30,
    Number of   (in thousands)
    Stores open at  
Year Opened:   June 30, 2003   2003   2002   2001   2000   1999
   
 
 
 
 
 
1994 and earlier
    225     $ 108.1     $ 118.5     $ 82.8     $ 89.9     $ 82.0  
1995
    33       118.3       86.6       56.9       54.2       47.1  
1996
    25       106.2       107.9       91.1       82.0       61.7  
1997
    34       88.1       87.8       55.2       41.9       33.4  
1998
    46       82.3       79.7       43.4       27.0       0.7  
1999
    66       55.5       54.1       15.8       (11.7 )     (15.5 )
2000
    62       44.9       42.2       (8.7 )     (12.8 )      
2001
    43       35.6       5.5       (21.6 )            
2002
    39       (5.3 )     (24.9 )                  
2003
    13       (17.6 )                        
 
   
                                         
 
    586                                          
Acquired stores
    382                                          
 
   
                                         
 
    968                                          
 
   
                                         

  (1)   “Average store contribution” equals revenues less direct store expenses and store-related depreciation. Direct store expenses consist of store salaries and benefits, occupancy costs (rent, maintenance, taxes and utilities), returned checks net of collections, cash shortages, armored and security costs, loan losses, and bank charges. Direct store expenses exclude region or corporate overhead, non-store depreciation, and amortization expenses.

The capital cost of opening a new store varies depending on the size and type of store. During fiscal 2003, the Company opened 14 company-owned stores at an average capital cost of approximately $65,000 per store.

There can be no assurance that the Company’s stores will continue to generate the same level of revenues or revenue growth as in the past or that any new or acquired store will perform at a level comparable to any of the Company’s existing stores, or that the capital cost to open a new store will not increase.

SSM Operation

During fiscal 2003, the Company operated 21 SSMs in company-owned stores. The Company placed over 240 SSMs at H&R Block retail offices during the 2003 tax season. During fiscal year 2003, the Company’s SSMs (located in Company stores or in H&R Block offices) cashed 233,000 checks with a face value of $242 million, which generated net check-cashing fees to the Company of $5.6 million (4.4% of the Company’s total check-cashing fees). The majority of the checks cashed by the SSMs were tax checks in H&R Block offices. There also can be no assurance that the SSMs will continue to generate the same level of revenues as in the past or that the SSMs can be successfully deployed at H&R Block offices during the 2004 tax season.

9


Table of Contents

Advertising and Marketing

ACE markets and promotes service and product offerings by a variety of methods. The Company believes that its most effective marketing is through in-store programs, combining the selling efforts of store personnel with various selling messages on point-of-purchase material. The Company emphasizes courteous service and trains service associates to recognize and develop good relationships with customers. All check-cashing customers participate in the ACE PLUS gold card retention program, which rewards members with benefits like free check-cashing commensurate with the volume of check-cashing done at ACE. Also, through its branding with standardized signage and store design, the Company attempts to foster an image that attracts customers and inspires consumer confidence. The Company also benefits from vendor-sponsored media advertising in some markets.

Supervision and Training

The Company’s operations are organized in regions, which generally correspond to the market areas in which ACE operates its stores. Each region has a regional vice president (“RVP”), who reports to one of two division vice presidents of operations and is responsible for the operations, administration, training, and supervision of the company-owned stores in his or her region. The Company currently has 11 RVP’s who supervise an average of 88 stores each. The Company currently has 72 district managers, each of whom reports to the RVP for his or her region and is directly responsible for the general management of up to 20 stores within his or her territory. These district managers are responsible for hiring, scheduling, operations, local marketing, and employee relations. Each center or store manager reports to a district manager, and has direct responsibility over his or her store’s operations.

Service associates, center managers, district managers, and RVP’s must complete formal training programs conducted by the Company. ACE has a Company-wide training program, with higher-level training conducted at the corporate office and new-hire training conducted in each regional office by corporate-trained personnel. The purpose of this training, which covers topics ranging from customer service to loss reduction, is to improve the Company’s delivery of products and services and facilitate compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.

Point-of-Sale System

ACE’s proprietary personal computer-based point-of-sale system is fully operational in all company-owned stores and is used by the Company’s SSMs for cashing checks and accepting bill-payments. In addition to other management information and control functions, the point-of-sale system allows the Company to:

1.   capture, analyze, and update on a daily basis data relating to customers and transactions, including the makers of checks cashed, which allows the Company to provide service associates with on-demand access to current information for use in approving check-cashing transactions;
 
2.   utilize an automated decision methodology to guide service associates to take appropriate actions and to better manage risk in check-cashing transactions;
 
3.   monitor daily revenues by product or service on a company, regional, per store, and per employee basis;
 
4.   monitor and manage daily store exception reports, which record, for example, any cash shortages and late store opening times;
 
5.   identify cash differences between bank statements and the Company’s records (such as differences resulting from missing items and deposits);
 
6.   determine, on a daily basis, the amount of cash needed at each store location, allowing centralized cash management personnel to maintain the optimum amount of cash inventory in each store;
 
7.   reduce the risk of transaction errors by, for example, automatically calculating check-cashing and other transaction fees;
 
8.   provide products and services in a standardized and efficient manner, which the Company believes allows it to operate its stores with fewer personnel than many of its competitors (with many of the Company’s stores being operated by only one person);
 
9.   electronically transmit information and documents to third-party providers of services or products offered at the stores;
 
10.   determine optimal scheduling of store personnel; and
 
11.   facilitate compliance with regulatory requirements.

The data captured by the point-of-sale system is transmitted daily from each store to a centralized database maintained at ACE’s headquarters and is automatically integrated into its general ledger system. The proprietary point-of-sale system is also licensed to the Company’s franchisees.

Security

10


Table of Contents

Because employee-safety is critical, all company-owned store employees work behind bullet-resistant Plexiglas and steel-reinforced partitions. Each company-owned store’s security measures include safes, alarm systems monitored by third parties, teller area entry control, perimeter opening entry detection, and tracking of all employee movement in and out of secured areas. All centers are currently using centralized security; acquired centers are typically converted within one month of acquisition. The centralized system includes the following security measures in addition to those described above: identical alarm systems in all stores, remote control over alarm systems, arming/disarming and changing user codes, and mechanically and electronically controlled time-delay safes.

Because ACE’s business requires its stores to maintain a significant supply of cash, the Company is subject to the risk of cash shortages resulting from employee and non-employee theft and employee errors. Although the Company has implemented various programs to reduce these risks and provide security for its facilities and employees, there can be no assurance that these problems will be eliminated. During 2003 and 2002, cash shortages from employee errors and from theft were approximately $1.3 million (0.6% of revenues) and $2.1 million (0.9% of revenues), respectively.

The Company’s point-of-sale system allows management to detect cash shortages on a daily basis. In addition to other procedures, district managers conduct audits of each company-owned store’s cash position and inventories on an unannounced, random basis.

Daily transportation of currency and checks is provided by nationally recognized armored carriers. ACE employees are not authorized to transport currency or checks.

Employees

At June 30, 2003, ACE employed 2,174 persons: 842 service associates at company-owned stores, 976 store managers, 72 district managers, 11 regional vice presidents, 169 region support personnel (located in region offices and the corporate office), 97 corporate employees and 7 franchise personnel. Third-party firms hired by the Company conduct background checks of all Company new hires.

The Company considers its employee relations to be good. ACE’s employees are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and the Company has never experienced any organized work stoppage, strike, or labor dispute. Generally, the Company’s employees are not bonded.

Competition

The Company believes that the principal competitive factors in the check-cashing industry are location, customer service, fees, convenience, and range of services offered. The Company faces intense competition and believes that the check-cashing market is becoming more competitive as the industry matures and consolidates. The Company competes with other check-cashing stores, grocery stores, banks, savings and loans, short-term consumer lenders, other financial services entities, and any retail businesses that cash checks, sell money orders, provide money transfer services, or other similar financial services. Certain competitors of the Company, other than check-cashing stores, cash checks without charging a fee under limited circumstances. Some of the Company’s competitors that are not check-cashing companies have larger and more established customer bases and substantially greater financial, marketing, and other resources. The Company’s stores have also recently been facing competition from automated check-cashing machines deployed in supermarkets, convenience stores, and other public venues by large financial services organizations. There is no assurance that the Company will be able to compete successfully with its competitors.

Trademarks and Patents

The Company has obtained several federal trademark registrations, including for “A-C-E America’s Cash Express®”, “ACE®” and its logo design

The Company’s two process patent applications related to its software used in the SSMs, filed during fiscal 2002, are still pending.

Regulation

General. The Company is subject to regulation in several jurisdictions in which it operates, including jurisdictions that regulate check-cashing fees or require the registration of check cashing companies or money transmission agents. The Company is also subject to federal and state regulation relating to the recording and reporting of certain financial transactions and relating to the privacy of customer information. Further, the Company’s loan-related activities are subject to state regulation and, in certain respects, federal regulation.

11


Table of Contents

State Regulations. In some states, check-cashing companies or money transmission agents are required to meet minimum bonding or capital requirements and are subject to record-keeping requirements. The Company operates in 17 states or jurisdictions that have licensing and/or fee regulations regarding check cashing: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The Company is licensed in each of the states or jurisdictions in which a license is currently required for it to operate as a check cashing company. To the extent these states have adopted ceilings on check cashing fees, those ceilings are in excess of or equal to the fees charged by the Company.

In those states in which the Company operates or has operated as a short-term consumer or “payday” lender, it is or has been licensed as such and is or has been subject to the various states’ regulations governing the terms of short-term consumer or “payday” loans. Typically, the states’ regulations limit the amount that a lender or service-provider may lend or provide (and, in some cases, the number of loans or transactions that a lender or service-provider may make) to any customer at one time, restrict the amount of finance or service charges or fees that the lender or service-provider may assess in connection with any loan or transaction, and limit a customer’s ability to renew any loans or transactions. The lender or service-provider must also comply with various consumer-disclosure requirements, which are typically similar or equivalent to the federal Truth in Lending Act and corresponding federal regulations, in connection with the loans or transactions. Collection activities regarding past-due loans or similar transactions may also be subject to consumer-debt-collection laws and regulations adopted by the various states.

The Company is subject to franchising laws and regulations in the states in which it offers and sells franchises. Those laws and regulations vary by state, but generally include filing or registration requirements, record-keeping requirements, and mandated disclosures to prospective franchisees

Federal Regulations. Under the Bank Secrecy Act regulations of the United States Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury Department”), transactions involving currency in an amount greater than $10,000 or the purchase of monetary instruments for cash in amounts from $3,000 to $10,000 must be reported. In general, every financial institution, including the Company, must report each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer, whether by, through or to the financial institution, that involves currency in an amount greater than $10,000. In addition, multiple currency transactions must be treated as single transactions if the financial institution has knowledge that the transactions are by, or on behalf of, any person and result in either cash in or cash out totaling more than $10,000 during any one business day. Management believes that the Company’s point-of-sale system and employee-training programs permit the Company to comply with these requirements.

The Bank Secrecy Act also requires the registration of “money services businesses,” like the Company, that engage in check cashing, currency exchange, money transmission, or the issuance or redemption of money orders, traveler’s checks, and similar instruments. This registration is intended to enable governmental authorities to better enforce laws prohibiting money laundering and other illegal activities. The Company is registered as a money services business with the Treasury Department, and must re-register with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Treasury Department (“FinCEN”), by December 31, 2003, and at least every two years thereafter. The Company must also maintain a list of names and addresses of, and other information about, its agents and must make that list available to any requesting law enforcement agency (through FinCEN). That agent list must be updated at least annually. The Company does not believe that compliance with the these existing requirements has had or will have any material impact on its operations.

In addition, federal regulations require money services businesses like the Company to report suspicious transactions involving at least $2,000 to FinCEN. The regulations generally describe three classes of reportable suspicious transactions — one or more related transactions that the money services business knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect (1) involve funds derived from illegal activity or are intended to hide or disguise such funds, (2) are designed to evade the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, or (3) appear to serve no business or lawful purpose. Because of the Company’s point-of-sale system and employee-training programs, the Company does not believe that compliance with the existing reporting requirement, and the corresponding recordkeeping requirements, has had or will have any material impact on its operations.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and its implementing federal regulations require the Company to generally protect the confidentiality of its customers’ nonpublic personal information and to disclose to its customers its privacy policy and practices, including those regarding sharing the customers’ nonpublic personal information with third parties. That disclosure must be made to customers at the time that the customer relationship is established and at least annually thereafter.

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and its implementing federal regulations require the Company, as a “financial institution,” to establish and maintain an anti-money-laundering program. Such a program must include (1) internal policies, procedures, and controls designed to identify and report money laundering, (2) a designated compliance officer, (3) an ongoing employee-training program, and (4) an independent audit function to test the program. Because of its compliance with other

12


Table of Contents

federal regulations having essentially a similar purpose, the Company does not believe that compliance with these requirements has had or will have any material impact on its operations.

Short-term Loans. Since January 1, 2003, all of the small, short-term loan products or similar services offered at the Company’s stores have consisted of either (1) short-term loans or deferred-deposit services made or entered into by the Company, or (2) deferred-deposit loans or services made or entered into by Republic Bank. The Company’s activities as a short-term consumer or “payday” lender obligate it to comply with the consumer-disclosure requirements of the federal Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z adopted under that act. The Company’s activities as a collection agent for past-due Republic Bank loans (see “— Short-Term Loans” below) obligate it to comply with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and corresponding regulations.

Republic Bank is subject to supervision by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). In July 2003, the FDIC issued guidelines governing permissible arrangements between a state-chartered bank and a loan marketer and servicer regarding short-term consumer loans. Those guidelines apply to the arrangements between Republic Bank and the Company regarding the offering of Republic Bank loans at the Company’s stores in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Texas and the Company’s servicing activities regarding those loans. The guidelines describe the FDIC’s expectations for a bank’s prudent risk-management practices regarding short-term consumer loan marketing and servicing relationships; they address bank capital requirements, allowances for loan losses, and loan classifications as well as income recognition, collection-recovery practices, and compliance with consumer-protection laws. The Company does not believe that the FDIC’s guidelines will have a material impact on its existing relationship with Republic Bank. Nevertheless, if the FDIC’s implementation of those guidelines were to ultimately restrict the ability of all or certain state-chartered banks (including Republic Bank) to maintain relationships with short-term consumer loan servicers, it could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s loan-related activities and revenues.

As a state-chartered, FDIC-insured bank, Republic Bank is subject to regular examination by state and regulatory bank authorities, including the FDIC. Because of the Company’s contractual relationship with Republic Bank, the Company’s activities regarding the Republic Bank loans are also subject to examination by the FDIC and the other regulatory authorities to which Republic Bank is subject. To the extent an examination involves review of the Republic Bank loans and related processes, the regulatory authority may require the Company to provide requested information and to grant access to the Company’s pertinent locations, personnel, and records.

Most states in which the Company conducts business authorize, or at least permit, short-term consumer or “payday” loans to be offered and made. Over the past few years, however, consumer-advocacy groups and certain media reports and stories have advocated governmental action to prohibit or severely restrict loans of this kind. The consumer groups and media stories typically focus on the cost to a consumer for this type of loan, which is higher than the interest typically charged by credit-card issuers to a more creditworthy consumer. This difference in credit cost is more significant if a consumer does not promptly repay the short-term loan, but renews (or “rolls over”) that loan for one or more additional short-term periods. The consumer groups and media stories typically characterize short-term lending activities as “abusive” toward consumers. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which supervises national banks, has taken actions in the past year to effectively prohibit certain national banks from offering and making short-term consumer loans, because of various risks posed to those banks. Also, during the last few years, legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress and in certain state legislatures, and regulatory authorities have proposed or publicly addressed the possibility of proposing regulations, that would prohibit or severely restrict short-term consumer loans. The Company is not aware of any such federal legislation or federal regulatory proposal that has made any significant progress in the legislative or regulatory process. But legislation and regulatory action that affects consumer lending has recently become effective in a few states and could be taken in other states. The Company intends to continue, with others in the short-term consumer loan industry, to inform and educate legislators and to oppose legislative or regulatory action that would prohibit or severely restrict short-term consumer loans. But if legislative or regulatory action with that effect were taken on the federal level or in states such as Texas, in which the Company has a significant number of stores, that action could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s loan-related activities and revenues.

Relationships with the Money Order and MoneyGram Suppliers

Money Order Agreement. In April 1998, the Company signed a money order agreement with Travelers Express which became effective December 17, 1998. Under this five-year agreement, the Company exclusively sells Travelers Express money orders that bear the Company’s logo. In conjunction with this agreement and the MoneyLine Agreement for bill-payment services (which also has a five-year term), the Company received $3 million from Travelers Express in April 1998, and received $400,000 in each of the remaining years of the contract, for a total of $5 million. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources” and Note 10 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The existing money order agreement expires as of December 31, 2003. If the money order agreement is terminated under certain circumstances before that expiration, the Company will be obligated to

13


Table of Contents

repay a portion of the amounts received from Travelers Express. The money order agreement obligates the Company to make prompt remittances of money order proceeds. The Company’s payment and other obligations to Travelers Express under the money order agreement and the MoneyGram agreement are secured by a subordinated lien on the Company’s assets in accordance with security agreements described Note 4 of Notes to Consolidated Financials Statements.

The Company and Travelers Express are negotiating an agreement to amend the existing money order agreement (with terms that are substantially the same as the terms of the existing money order agreement) and to extend the term to December 31, 2007. The Company anticipates that such an amendment will be entered into with Travelers Express, but no amendment has been executed, and the Company cannot give any assurance that such an amendment will be executed. If the Company is unable to enter into such an amendment with Travelers Express, it will attempt to negotiate and enter into an agreement with another issuer of money orders, which the Company believes to be possible.

MoneyGram Services Agreement. The Company is an agent for the receipt and transmission of wire transfers of money through the MoneyGram network in accordance with a Money Transfer Agreement with Travelers Express and MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. (“MPS”), an affiliate of Travelers Express, that became effective on January 1, 2001 (the “MoneyGram Agreement”). The Company agreed to offer and sell only MoneyGram wire transfer services during the seven-year term of the MoneyGram Agreement. Under the MoneyGram Agreement, the Company earns commissions for each transmission and receipt of money through the MoneyGram network effected at a company-owned location; those commissions equal varying percentages of the fees charged by MPS to consumers for the MoneyGram services.

Under the MoneyGram Agreement, the Company is also entitled to receive a total of approximately $12.5 million in bonuses, payable in equal monthly installments (without interest) over the seven-year term. The amount of those monthly installments will be subject to reduction if the Company closes or sells a significant number of those locations at which MoneyGram services were offered at the beginning of the MoneyGram Agreement. In addition, the Company will be entitled to receive certain incentive payments regarding new MoneyGram service locations that it opens or acquires during the term of the MoneyGram Agreement.

General. The Company’s relationship with Travelers Express and its affiliates includes the money order agreement and the MoneyGram Agreement as well as (less significantly) the MoneyLine Agreement for bill-payment services, and is therefore significant to the Company’s business. Though the Company anticipates that the MoneyLine Agreement will expire at the end of December 2003, the Company does not anticipate any disruption of the more significant aspects of its relationship with Travelers Express and its affiliates. If such a disruption were to occur, however, the Company’s business could be materially and adversely affected.

Short-Term Loans

Until December 31, 2002, the Company was a party to the Goleta Agreement. Under the Goleta Agreement, short-term loans made by Goleta (“Goleta Loans”) were offered at most company-owned locations. A Goleta Loan could be up to $500 and had to be repaid or renewed in 14 days. Under the Goleta Agreement, the Company purchased from Goleta a participation representing 90% of each Goleta Loan made on a previous day. Goleta determined the interest rate (and other terms) of the Goleta Loans. As of January 1, 2003, the Company no longer offered Goleta Loans at any of its stores.

Since January 1, 2003, all of the small, short-term loan products or similar services, commonly referred to as “payday loans,” offered at the Company’s stores have consisted of either (1) short-term loans or deferred-deposit services made or entered into by the Company, or (2) deferred-deposit loans or services made or entered into by Republic Bank. As of June 30, 2003, the Company was offering its own small short-term loan or deferred-deposit service in 512 of its owned stores, and Republic Bank was offering its deferred-deposit loan or service in 350 of the Company’s owned stores in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas. All of these loans and services, regardless of type, are made in accordance with state regulation; therefore, the terms of the loans and services vary from state to state.

In general, the Company’s payday loan product or service consists of providing a customer cash in exchange for the customer’s check or an ACH authorization to debit the customer’s bank account, along with an agreement to defer the presentment or deposit of that check or the initiation of that ACH debit on the customer’s account, as the case may be, until the customer’s next payday. The amount of the customer’s check or ACH authorization is the amount of the cash provided to the customer plus a fee to the Company. The term of the deferral of the check presentment or ACH debit is typically two to four weeks. During the year ended June 30, 2003, the average amount of cash provided to a customer in such a transaction was $262, and the average fee to the Company was $39.41. As of June 30, 2003 and June 30, 2002, the gross receivable for the Company’s payday loans was approximately $20.2 million and $2.3 million, respectively.

Republic Bank offers and makes its deferred-deposit loans or services at the Company’s stores in accordance with a Marketing and Servicing Agreement with the Company dated as of October 21, 2002, as amended (the “Republic Bank

14


Table of Contents

Agreement”). The terms of those deferred-deposit loans or services are generally similar to those of the Company’s own loan products or services, though Republic Bank has sole discretion regarding the terms of its loans or services. As of June 30, 2003, Republic Bank authorized loans up to $425 with a term of 14 days. Under the terms of the Republic Bank Agreement, Republic Bank pays the Company an agency fee for the Company’s services in marketing or processing the Republic Bank loans at the stores and in collecting outstanding Republic Bank loans. The Company does not acquire or own any participation interest in any of the Republic Bank loans, but the Company’s fees are subject to reduction by the losses from uncollected Republic Bank loans.

Loan fees and interest include the Company’s interest and fees received from its participation interests in Goleta Loans, its fees and interest received from customers of the Company’s payday loan product or service, and its agency fees received from Republic Bank related to Republic Bank loans. Loan fees and interest revenues are recognized ratably over the term of each loan, regardless of the type of revenue or loan.

The Company has established a loan loss allowance regarding its economic interests in all of the loans, regardless of type (i.e., whether Goleta Loans or the Company’s payday loans). The Company’s policy for determining the loan loss allowance is based on historical loan loss experience generally, as well as the results of management’s review and analysis of the payment and collection of the loans within the last fiscal quarter. The Company’s policy is to charge off interests in all of the Goleta Loans and the Company’s payday loans which are 180 days or more past due. Charge-offs are applied as a reduction to the allowance for loan losses and any recoveries of previously charged off loans are applied as an increase to the allowance for loan losses. The Company establishes a payable to Republic Bank to reflect the Company’s obligation to, in effect, bear Republic Bank loan losses; that payable estimates such losses from such loans that are 180 days or more past due.

Relationship with H&R Block/SSM Arrangements

The Company is a party to a multi-year license agreement with H&R Block under which the Company may place its SSMs in various H&R Block retail offices during the tax season (i.e., January through March) of each year. Those SSMs are available to cash only tax refund and tax refund anticipation loan checks for H&R Block’s customers. The Company receives check-cashing fees from customers who use those SSMs, and the Company pays H&R Block fees that vary according to the value of the checks cashed in those SSMs. The Company placed over 240 SSMs in H&R Block retail offices during the 2003 tax season, and anticipates placing up to more than 200 SSMs at H&R Block retail offices during the 2004 tax season.

The arrangements by which the Company has obtained cash or currency for the SSMs in the H&R Block retail offices are described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources – SSM Funding Arrangements.”

Liquidation of Investment in ePacific

In March and April 2000, the Company purchased approximately 14% of the shares of preferred stock of ePacific Incorporated (“ePacific”), a private company that provided customized debit-card payment systems and electronic funds transfer processing services, for a total of $1 million. ePacific, formerly a controlled subsidiary of Goleta, provided the debit-card system and processing services to Goleta to enable it to make the Goleta Loans.

The Company’s investment in ePacific was made at the same time, and on the same terms, as the investment by two venture capital investors. The Company purchased approximately 14% of the shares of ePacific’s Series A Convertible Preferred Stock purchased by the group of investors. Under a stockholders’ agreement with ePacific and its other stockholders, the Company had the right to designate one person to serve as a director of ePacific. Jay B. Shipowitz, the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer, served as a director of ePacific until August 22, 2003.

As part of the agreement with Goleta entered into as of November 1, 2002, under which the Company and Goleta terminated their relationship, the Company acquired, for a nominal amount, all of the shares of common stock of ePacific that were owned by Goleta’s corporate parent.

On June 2, 2003, the board of directors of ePacific elected to dissolve the corporation and liquidate its assets, resulting in a cash distribution to the Company of $297,000 and a loss on investment to the Company of $703,000.

Payment of Secured Notes

In December 1996, the Company issued $20 million of its 9.03% Senior Secured Notes (“Notes”) to Principal Life Insurance Company (formerly known as Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company). Interest on the unpaid principal amount of the Notes, accruing at 9.03% per annum, was payable semiannually on May 15 and November 15 of each year, and the principal

15


Table of Contents

amount of the Notes was payable in five equal installments of $4 million on November 15 of each year. In March 2003, the Company paid all amounts due under the Notes by prepaying the final installment of $4.0 million of principal which was payable on November 15, 2003, all accrued interest, and expenses related to prepayment of $270,000 under the terms of the Notes.

Credit Facilities

Until March 31, 2003, the Company was a party to an Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with a syndicate of banks (the “Lenders”), led by Wells Fargo Bank Texas, National Association (“Wells Fargo Bank”).

The Credit Agreement provided the Company with a revolving line-of-credit facility and a term-loan facility. The revolving facility was available for working capital of the Company, and the term-loan facility was available for capital expenditures of the Company. Also, in addition to the primary credit facilities, the Company had available, from Wells Fargo Bank and certain of the other Lenders, a seasonal revolving advance facility of up to $25 million from January 1 through March 31, 2003, and, from Wells Fargo Bank, a standby letter-of-credit facility of up to $1.5 million.

On March 31, 2003, the Company refinanced its outstanding revolving and term loan indebtedness by entering into:

  a new credit agreement with a syndicate of banks led by JP Morgan Chase Bank, as agent and syndication agent, and Wells Fargo Bank, as administrative agent, for themselves and other lenders that provides for revolving credit facilities of up to $165 million; and
 
  a note purchase agreement with American Capital Financial Services, Inc., as agent for its affiliate American Capital Strategies, Ltd., which purchased $40 million of the Company’s senior subordinated secured promissory notes.

The credit facilities under the new credit agreement and the indebtedness incurred under the note purchase agreement replaced the revolving and term-loan credit facilities and the outstanding indebtedness under the Credit Agreement. The revolving facilities under the new credit agreement replaced the revolving facilities under the Credit Agreement, and the indebtedness incurred by the Company under the note purchase agreement was used to fully pay the outstanding term loans, and terminate the term loan facility, under the Credit Agreement. For a description of the terms of the refinanced indebtedness, see Note 4 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

All but two of the Company’s stores are leased, generally under leases providing for an initial term of three years and optional renewal terms of from three to six years. The Company owns the land and building at which two of the Company’s stores are located, one in Indianapolis, Indiana and the other in Tampa, Florida. The Company’s headquarters offices in Irving, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, occupy approximately 56,000 square feet under an 84-month lease, the term of which expires in 2008.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Goleta Loan-Related Lawsuits and Pending Settlement

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits regarding its former arrangements with Goleta National Bank (“Goleta”) under which small, short-term consumer loans made by Goleta (“Goleta Loans”) were offered at most of the Company’s stores before January 1, 2003. See “Business – Customers and Services – Loan services” and “ – Short-Term Loans.” The lawsuits pending as of September 26, 2003, are described below. The Company has, however, entered into a settlement agreement in the Purdie lawsuit described below. That lawsuit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all borrowers of Goleta Loans. The Company believes that the settlement, if finally approved by the federal court in which the Purdie lawsuit is pending, will result in the release of all claims against the Company (and Goleta) not only in the Purdie lawsuit, but also in the other pending Goleta Loan-related lawsuits.

A key issue in the existing Goleta Loan-related lawsuits is whether Goleta or the Company is properly regarded as the lender. The Company and Goleta maintain that, as stated in the legal documents and marketing materials for the Goleta Loans, Goleta was the lender and that, because Goleta was a national bank located in California, the Goleta Loans, including the interest that may legally be charged, should be governed by federal and California law. The opposing parties in most of these lawsuits, however, maintain that the Company should be regarded as the lender, because of its agent services in connection with the Goleta Loans and its purchase of participation interests in the Goleta Loans, and that the Goleta Loans, including the interest that may legally be charged, should be governed by the laws of the respective states in which the borrowers reside. If the Company were held to be the lender, then the interest charged for the Goleta Loans would violate most of the applicable states’ usury laws, which impose maximum rates of interest or finance charges that a non-bank lender may charge. The

16


Table of Contents

consequences to the Company of such a holding in any lawsuit would depend on the applicable state’s usury and consumer-protection laws and on the basis for a finding of violation of those laws. But those consequences could include the Company’s obligation to refund interest collected on the illegal Goleta Loans, to refund the principal amount of the illegal Goleta Loans, to pay treble or other multiple damages, and to pay monetary penalties specified by applicable statutes. The amounts that the Company might be required to pay (as damages and other relief) if it were held to be the lender of the Goleta Loans could, depending on the circumstances, significantly impair the Company’s financial resources and financial condition. During the last year, a federal district court in Indiana agreed with the Company’s and Goleta’s position that Goleta is properly regarded as the lender of the Goleta Loans. This is the sole court decision that has addressed the merits of this key issue.

The Company anticipates that the settlement in the Purdie lawsuit, as described below, will receive final court approval and will be implemented. If the settlement is not finally approved or implemented, however, the Company expects that the defense of the lawsuits, even if successful, will continue to require substantial time and attention of certain of its senior officers and other management personnel that would otherwise be spent on other aspects of its business and will continue to require the expenditure of significant amounts for legal fees and other litigation-related costs. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources – Litigation Expenses.” In addition, the Company would continue to have the risk of an adverse determination in the Goleta Loan-related lawsuits.

Jennafer Long v. Ace Cash Express, Inc.: This lawsuit regarding Goleta Loans offered and made at the Company’s locations in Florida was filed in a Florida state Circuit Court in Clay County, Florida, and was served on the Company on November 8, 2000. The plaintiff, for herself and others similarly situated, alleges that the Goleta Loans offered at the Company’s locations in Florida are being made by the Company rather than by Goleta and, therefore, that those Goleta Loans violate Florida usury laws and the offering of those Goleta Loans involves misrepresentations and deceptive practices in violation of Florida law. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including an amount equal to all interest charged on the Goleta Loans made in Florida, the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, and court costs.

The Company’s attempt to remove this case to federal court was unsuccessful. On October 2, 2001, the court granted Goleta’s motion to intervene as a defendant in this lawsuit. The Company and Goleta filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that Goleta is the lender of the Goleta Loans and, under federal law, is entitled to charge interest at the rate permitted by California law. But on March 20, 2002, the court denied that motion, and on April 19, 2002, each of the Company and Goleta filed its answer to the plaintiff’s complaint. The parties were conducting discovery in this lawsuit until the settlement agreement was entered into in the Purdie lawsuit. The plaintiff’s counsel in this lawsuit is a party to, and is supporting, the settlement agreement in the Purdie lawsuit, which, if finally approved, will effectively settle and terminate this lawsuit as well.

Vonnie T. Hudson v. Ace Cash Express, Inc. et al.: This lawsuit regarding the Goleta Loans offered and made at the Company’s locations in Indiana was filed on September 11, 2001 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. This lawsuit was filed against the Company; Goleta; the Company’s Chairman of the Board, Raymond C. Hemmig; the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Donald H. Neustadt; the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer, Jay B. Shipowitz; and a former employee of the Company. The plaintiff alleged violations of (1) the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code (“UCCC”) and the Indiana “loansharking” statute, because the interest charged for the Goleta Loans exceeded the finance charges permitted by those statutes, (2) the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), Regulation Z, and the Indiana UCCC, because the disclosures to borrowers of Goleta Loans did not comply with the disclosure requirements of those laws, and (3) the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act. In the complaint the plaintiff purported to represent a class of all persons to whom a Goleta Loan has been made at any location of the Company in Indiana (a) since September 11, 1999, regarding the excess-charge claims, (b) since September 11, 2000, regarding the disclosure-violation claims, and (c) since September 11, 1997, regarding the federal RICO Act claims. The plaintiff sought relief of various kinds, including (i) for the members of the class of plaintiffs who were allegedly charged excessive interest, an order declaring the Goleta Loans to them “void,” the refund of all finance charges or interest paid by them in excess of the maximum finance charges permitted under the Indiana UCCC, and a penalty (to be determined by the court) in a maximum amount equal to the greater of either all of the finance charges or interest received from them or up to ten times the amount of all excess finance charges or interest received from them; (ii) for the members of the class of plaintiffs who allegedly did not receive proper disclosures under the federal TILA, Regulation Z, and the Indiana UCCC, statutory damages of $500,000 each for violations of those statutes; (iii) for the members of the class of plaintiffs allegedly damaged because of violations of the RICO Act, an amount equal to three times those damages; and (iv) the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and court costs.

On December 17, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, and on May 30, 2002, the court granted the motion. Based on its review of the complaint and other filed documents, the court concluded that Goleta made the Goleta Loan to the plaintiff and then sold a participation interest in that Goleta Loan to the Company, so that the claims

17


Table of Contents

asserted in the complaint were not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to any damages or other legal relief. The court, however, afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint to assert legally sufficient claims.

On June 25, 2002, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the complaint that was dismissed, except that the amended complaint did not name Goleta as a defendant and does not assert any disclosure-violation claims. On July 8, 2002, the Company and other remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, asserting that the amended complaint did not allege sufficient new facts to justify relief and that the court’s initial decision is dispositive. On September 30, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. On October 15, 2002, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That appeal was pending when the settlement agreement was entered into in the Purdie lawsuit. The plaintiff’s counsel in this lawsuit is a party to, and is supporting, the settlement agreement in the Purdie lawsuit, which will effectively settle and terminate this lawsuit as well.

Rufus Patricia Brown v. Ace Cash Express, Inc. et al.: This lawsuit regarding both the Company’s former “payday loan” activities and the Goleta Loans offered and made at the Company’s locations in Maryland was filed on August 20, 2001 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. On September 12, 2001, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and unnamed franchisees of the Company. In the complaint, the plaintiff purports to represent a class of all consumers with whom the Company has entered into any payday-loan transaction or to whom a Goleta Loan has been made at any location of the Company in Maryland since April 1, 2000. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants’ loan-related activities violate the Maryland usury laws, the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, the Maryland Unsecured Closed End Credit Regulation Act, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and are unconscionable under Maryland law. The plaintiff seeks relief of various kinds, including a permanent injunction against any further alleged illegal activities, an order that all obligations of the class of plaintiffs to the defendants are void, the return (as restitution) to the class of plaintiffs of all amounts paid to the defendants, an order dissolving the Company and prohibiting all defendants from conducting any further financial services business, the disgorgement and return of all profits from the loan-related activities, the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses, and court costs.

On September 7, 2001, the Company removed this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, but on November 14, 2001, the federal court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand this lawsuit back to the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. On January 3, 2002, Goleta filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in this lawsuit, and the court granted that motion on January 8, 2002. The parties were conducting discovery in this lawsuit until the settlement agreement was entered into in the Purdie lawsuit. The plaintiff’s counsel in this lawsuit is a party to, and is supporting, the settlement agreement in the Purdie lawsuit, which, if finally approved, will effectively settle and terminate this lawsuit as well.

Beverly Purdie v. Ace Cash Express, Inc. et al.: This lawsuit regarding both the Company’s former “payday loan” activities and the Goleta Loans offered and made at the Company’s locations was filed on September 6, 2001 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The original complaint named as defendants the Company and certain of the executive officers and directors and a former employee of the Company. As the result of two amended complaints, however, only the Company and Goleta are currently defendants in this lawsuit. In her second amended complaint, the plaintiff purports to represent a class of all consumers in the United States with whom the Company has entered into any payday-loan transaction or to whom a Goleta Loan has been made at any location of the Company since September 6, 1997, as well as sub-classes of persons who have engaged in those kinds of transactions with the Company or at the Company’s locations and are alleged to be victims of usury or of unfair or deceptive lending practices under the laws of various states in the United States during the time periods within the various applicable statutes of limitations. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ loan-related activities violate the federal RICO Act and the laws and regulations of various states regarding usury, deceptive trade practices (including the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and other consumer protections. The plaintiff seeks relief of various kinds, including a permanent injunction against any further alleged illegal activities; the return (as restitution) to the class and sub-classes of plaintiffs of all amounts paid to the defendants; damages equal to three times the amount of all fees and interests paid by the class and sub-classes of plaintiffs since September 6, 1997; punitive damages of at least $250 million; the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees; and court costs.

On January 18, 2002, the Company and Goleta filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, asserting that the federal RICO Act claims are legally deficient and should be dismissed and that, if those claims are dismissed, the court should not retain jurisdiction of the remaining state-law claims. On October 29, 2002, the court granted the Company’s and Goleta’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. The court found that the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to support her federal RICO Act claims and, accordingly, dismissed those claims with prejudice. In the absence of federal-law claims, the court declined to retain jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims and, accordingly, dismissed those claims without prejudice.

On May 12, 2003, the Company entered into an agreement to settle and terminate this lawsuit. The settlement agreement is subject to the approval of the court, and if it is finally approved, the settlement agreement will result in the release of substantially all of the claims of former borrowers against the Company (and Goleta) not only in this lawsuit, but also in the

18


Table of Contents

Long, Hudson, and Brown lawsuits, and in the termination of all four lawsuits. Court approval of the settlement agreement will also effectively settle and terminate the Hale lawsuit described below, although (unlike the plaintiffs’ counsel in the Long, Hudson, and Brown lawsuits) the plaintiff’s counsel in the Hale lawsuit is neither a party to nor supporting the settlement agreement.

In the settlement agreement, the Company agreed:

  To pay:

    At least $2.5 million as refunds to former borrowers who have repaid all of their Goleta Loans and who timely submit claims for refunds or, if the refunds and certain other amounts paid by the Company total less than $2.5 million, the amount of the shortfall to certain consumer-advocacy organizations. The refund payable by the Company to each eligible former borrower who files a refund claim will be equal to approximately five percent of the interest or finance charges paid by that borrower, but not less than $7.50 or more than $45.00.
 
    Up to $2.1 million as attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs’ counsel in the Purdie, Long, Hudson, and Brown lawsuits.
 
    Notice and other administrative costs in connection with the settlement.

  To discontinue, by July 1, 2003, any further efforts to collect any amounts due under any remaining unpaid Goleta Loans, which will be forgiven and canceled by Goleta. Because Goleta Loans were not offered on or after January 1, 2003, this required date to cease collection activities corresponds to the Company’s policy to charge off its participation interests in Goleta Loans that are 180 days past due.
 
  To ensure that any of the Company’s short-term consumer loans or deferred-deposit transactions made under state law during the two years ending December 31, 2004 are made only in compliance with any applicable state payday-lending laws; except that the Company may rely on federal-preemption rules in connection with acting as marketing and servicing agent for the Republic Bank deferred-deposit loans made at or through the Company’s stores in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
 
  For the two years following the date on which the Company makes the settlement payments (which must be within 60 days after final court approval of the settlement and the lapse of any appeal period), to:

    make specified disclosures to borrowers of the Company’s payday loans regarding the expense of such loans and regarding certain collection-related expenses to which borrowers might become subject; and
 
    abide by specified restrictions on activities to collect its payday loans through Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) debits and on credit reporting regarding borrowers of its payday loans.

  Within 45 days after preliminary court approval of the settlement and at least 60 days before the scheduled hearing regarding final court approval of the settlement, to:

    publish in a newspaper of national circulation, mail to all former borrowers of Goleta Loans, and post in each of the Company’s owned stores, notices (in specified forms) that announce the settlement, the potential benefits of the settlement to the former borrowers, and the procedure for borrowers’ refund claims; and
 
    maintain a toll-free telephone number to facilitate communications with any former borrower who wishes to file a refund claim.

On June 13, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Company and began to publish, mail, and post the settlement notices and began the other claim procedures, as contemplated by the agreement.

The settlement agreement will also be subject to subsequent final court approval, after a hearing to be conducted after implementation of the notice and claims procedures. That court hearing is scheduled for October 15, 2003. The Company will be obligated to make the settlement payments within 60 days, and to perform its other covenants, after final approval by the court and the lapse of any appeal period. The Company cannot predict when, after the hearing, the court will rule on the settlement or if the court will grant final approval of the settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement will become ineffective, and be terminated, if the court does not grant final approval or if, on any appeal, final approval is either reversed or modified in a manner unsatisfactory to the parties. The Company may also withdraw from the settlement agreement and terminate it if any of the Long, Hudson, or Brown lawsuits is not dismissed upon final approval or if more than 1,000 eligible former borrowers of Goleta Loans elect to opt out or exclude themselves from the settlement.

Hale v. Ace Cash Express, Inc.: On December 18, 2002, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in late October 2002 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The amended class action complaint served on the Company names only the Company as a defendant and relates to the Company’s activities in connection with the Goleta Loans of Goleta offered at the Company’s stores in Virginia between April 1, 2000 and October 10, 2002. The plaintiff, for

19


Table of Contents

himself and others similarly situated, alleges that the Company’s loan-related activities during that period violated the federal RICO Act, the Virginia Consumer Finance (or Small Loan) Act, the Virginia Payday Loan Act, and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and constituted fraud. The plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages of various kinds, including (under the RICO Act) an amount equal to three times all of the Company’s proceeds from the loans made in Virginia during the approximate two and one-half years; an amount equal to three times the actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater, for each violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act; attorneys’ fees; and court costs.

On February 5, 2003, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the plaintiff’s Promissory Note Supplement and to stay this lawsuit pending completion of arbitration. After a hearing on April 8, 2003, the court granted that motion on May 9, 2003, therefore requiring the plaintiff to proceed against the Company, if at all, in an arbitration proceeding. On June 9, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider and to certify an appeal of the court’s order, and the Company filed an opposition to that motion. The motions are pending before the court. Although the plaintiff’s counsel is not a party to the settlement agreement entered into in the Purdie lawsuit, and is not supporting that settlement, the Company believes that this lawsuit will effectively be settled and terminated if that settlement agreement receives final court approval.

General: Because each of the preceding Goleta Loan-related lawsuits purports to be a class action, the amount of damages for which the Company might be responsible is necessarily uncertain. Regarding each lawsuit, that amount would depend upon proof of the allegations, on the number of persons who constitute the class of plaintiffs (if permitted by the court) or the number or the amount of the loan-related transactions during an applicable time period, and (for certain of the claims) on proof of actual damages sustained by the plaintiffs. If the settlement agreement entered into in the Purdie lawsuit is not finally approved or implemented, the Company intends to vigorously defend the preceding lawsuits.

Ace Cash Express, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, et al.: On May 17, 2002, the Company filed this lawsuit in a Texas state court against two insurers, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Illinois Union Insurance Company, regarding liability coverage it obtained for claims made against the Company as a result of the Company’s activities in connection with the Goleta Loans. Each of the insurers issued an errors and omissions policy to the Company for a one-year period and each policy provided up to $5 million in coverage for claims made against the Company during the policy period, subject to a $200,000 deductible for each claim. On July 11, 2003, this lawsuit was settled, and the Company recovered $4.7 million related to the costs of defending the Goleta Loan-related lawsuits and amounts previously paid to settle certain former lawsuits.

Non-Loan-Related Proceeding

Ace Cash Express, Inc. v. Valley Check Cashiers, Inc., Jeffrey D. Silverman, and Morris Silverman: On November 27, 2001, the Company filed this lawsuit in Texas state court in Travis County, Texas, seeking damages relating to the defendants’ misrepresentations and breaches of warranties in an Asset Purchase Agreement between the Company and the defendants, and certain other entities affiliated with the defendants, dated as of November 10, 2000. Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company acquired the assets of 107 check-cashing and retail financial services locations owned and managed by the defendants and their affiliated entities for a total purchase price of $29.7 million in cash. Eleven of the acquired locations were in third-party grocery stores, operated under the “Handy Andy” name, in and around San Antonio, Texas. Following the foreclosure and sale of those grocery stores by the secured creditor of the grocery store operator, the Company (in cooperation with the sellers under the Asset Purchase Agreement) instituted litigation against that creditor and its purchaser in January 2001 to maintain the Company’s right to operate in those locations. At a trial in April 2001, the court found that the lease agreement under which the Company claimed the right to occupy those eleven locations, which had been assigned to the Company by the defendants and their affiliated entities, was not enforceable under Texas law. The court therefore ordered the Company to vacate those eleven locations, which the Company did in June 2001. Because of the court’s finding, the Company requested the defendants to satisfy their monetary obligations to the Company, based on their representations and warranties, regarding those locations. When it appeared that further negotiations regarding the Company’s request would be unsuccessful, the Company filed this lawsuit to recover the damages suffered in connection with, and as a result of, the loss of those eleven locations. In its complaint, the Company seeks actual damages in excess of $2 million. On January 14, 2002, the defendants filed their answer denying all of the Company’s material claims.

On October 15, 2002, Jeffrey Silverman and Morris Silverman, but not Valley Check Cashiers, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment requesting the court to dismiss the Company’s complaint against them. After a hearing held on November 12, 2002, the court granted a motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint against those two defendants on March 24, 2003. On March 31, 2003, the Company filed an appeal of that order. Both parties have filed appellate briefs, and oral argument in the appellate court is scheduled for October 15, 2003.

20


Table of Contents

Estimate of Possible Loss or Gain

The Company’s policy is to estimate a possible loss, or a range of possible loss, or a possible gain, or a range of possible gain, and to disclose that estimate, when the Company has determined that a loss or a gain is “probable” and an estimate can reasonably be made. The Company accrues for probable losses and records gains when they are received.

The settlement agreement regarding the Goleta Loan-related lawsuits, if finally approved by the court in the Purdie lawsuit, will result in the termination of not only the Purdie lawsuit, but also the Long, Hudson, and Brown lawsuits and, in effect, the Hale lawsuit. Based on its estimates of the anticipated refund claims by eligible borrowers and of the administrative and other costs related to the settlement, the Company recorded a $5.0 million charge for its settlement payment obligations in its financial statements as of and for the periods ended March 31, 2003.

Although the Company believes that its legal claims asserted in the lawsuit filed by it against Valley Check Cashiers, Inc. and others have merit, and although the Company intends to continue to pursue that lawsuit, the Company has not determined that its present likelihood of recovery from that lawsuit is sufficiently probable to justify reflecting any anticipated gain or recovery in the Company’s financial statements.

Other Incidental Proceedings

The Company is also involved from time to time in various legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of its business. Management believes that none of these legal proceedings will result in any material impact on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

No matters were submitted to a vote of the shareholders of the Company during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

The Company’s Common Stock is quoted on The Nasdaq Stock Market (“NASDAQ”) under the symbol “AACE.” At September 19, 2003, there were approximately 97 holders of record of the Common Stock, and there were approximately 1,800 beneficial holders of the Common Stock held in nominee or street name.

The following table sets forth the high and low sale prices of the Common Stock as reported by NASDAQ for the past two fiscal years:

                 
    High   Low
   
 
Fiscal 2002
               
Quarter ended September 30, 2001
  $ 10.50     $ 7.65  
Quarter ended December 31, 2001
    9.90       7.75  
Quarter ended March 31, 2002
    11.15       8.35  
Quarter ended June 30, 2002
    11.50       8.70  
Fiscal 2003
               
Quarter ended September 30, 2002
  $ 10.00     $ 7.80  
Quarter ended December 31, 2002
    9.25       7.48  
Quarter ended March 31, 2003
    10.04       8.70  
Quarter ended June 30, 2003
    11.65       9.09  

On September 19, 2003, the last reported sale price of the Common Stock on NASDAQ was $14.45 per share.

The Company has never paid dividends on the Common Stock and has no plans to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Company’s ability to pay cash dividends is currently limited under the agreements governing its credit arrangements (see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources – Credit Facilities”).

21


Table of Contents

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

                                             
        Year Ended June 30,
       
        2003   2002   2001   2000   1999
       
 
 
 
 
        (in thousands, except per share and store data)
Statement of Operations Data:
                                       
Revenues
  $ 234,289     $ 229,266     $ 196,775     $ 140,636     $ 122,314  
Store expenses
    155,414       151,827       145,015       94,668       80,943  
Region expenses
    17,056       17,495       14,127       11,119       9,369  
Headquarters expenses
    17,133       16,594       10,328       8,247       7,673  
Franchise expenses
    1,225       993       1,017       1,063       1,288  
Other depreciation and amortization
    5,423       7,570       5,087       3,798       4,236  
Interest expense
    16,004       14,934       12,016       6,123       4,476  
Other expenses:
                                       
 
Restructuring
          (163 )     7,710              
 
Legal settlements
    1,050       1,984       350       584       130  
 
Other (including store closing expense)
    534       1,006       108       371       559  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Total other expenses
    1,584       2,827       8,168       955       689  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
 
Income from continuing operations before income taxes and cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    20,450       17,026       1,017       14,663       13,640  
 
Provision for income taxes
    8,174       6,913       406       5,797       5,390  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
 
Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of accounting change
    12,276       10,113       611       8,866       8,250  
 
Gain on sale of discontinued operations, net of income tax (2)
    499                          
 
Cumulative effect of accounting change, net of income tax (1)
                      (603 )      
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
   
Net income
  $ 12,775     $ 10,113     $ 611     $ 8,263     $ 8,250  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Diluted earnings per share
  $ 1.25     $ 1.00     $ .06     $ .82     $ .80  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Weighted average number of dilutive shares
    10,206       10,141       10,158       10,361       10,283  
Balance Sheet Data:
                                       
Cash and cash equivalents
  $ 108,110     $ 116,264     $ 129,186     $ 105,577     $ 59,414  
Total assets
    258,768       267,062       276,197       221,423       145,233  
Term advances
    38,269       48,350       53,000       18,500       10,500  
Money order principal payable
    6,884       13,417       16,928       10,487       5,340  
Revolving advances
    83,900       97,500       109,800       95,000       40,100  
Senior secured notes payable
          8,000       12,000       16,000       20,226  
Shareholders’ equity
    78,984       66,139       54,726       55,159       48,274  
Supplemental Statistical Data:
                                       
Percentage increase in comparable company-owned store revenues from prior year:
                                       
 
Total revenues (3)
    1.5 %     15.6 %     23.3 %     6.9 %     10.8 %
 
Exclusive of loan fees and interest (4)
    4.9 %     7.3 %     0.3 %     6.0 %     8.7 %
 
Check cashing fees, including tax (5)
    5.1 %     9.6 %     1.4 %     6.3 %     6.6 %
Capital expenditures
  $ 4,771     $ 7,127     $ 12,655     $ 12,255     $ 10,089  
Cost of net assets acquired
  $ 673     $ 1,177     $ 35,841     $ 11,359     $ 8,378  

  (1)   Before a cumulative effect of accounting change recorded in the three months ended September 30, 1999, of $0.6 million, net of a $0.4 million tax benefit, relating to the adoption of Statement of Position 98-5, “Reporting on the Costs of Start-up Activities.”
 
  (2)   Discontinued operations related to the Company’s sale of 19 underperforming stores in Florida for a pre-tax gain of $0.8 million and an after-tax gain of $0.5 million recorded in the three months ended December 31, 2002.
 
  (3)   Calculated based on the changes in revenues of all stores open for the years compared.
 
  (4)   Change in revenues computed excluding loan fees and interest for the years compared.
 
  (5)   Change in check cashing fee revenue (including tax checks) for the years compared.

22


Table of Contents

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA (continued)

                                               
          Year Ended June 30,
         
          2003   2002   2001   2000   1999
         
 
 
 
 
Store Count Data:
                                       
 
Company-owned stores in operation:
                                       
   
Beginning of year
    1,003       988       915       798       683  
     
Acquired
    2       8       133       36       35  
     
Opened
    14       39       49       99       99  
     
Sold
    (23 )           (4 )     (1 )      
     
Closed (1)
    (28 )     (32 )     (105 )     (17 )     (19 )
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
   
End of year
    968       1,003       988       915       798  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
 
Franchised stores in operations:
                                       
   
Beginning of year
    184       175       157       120       89  
     
Opened
    26       22       30       56       42  
     
Acquired by ACE
    (2 )     (8 )     (4 )     (7 )     (1 )
     
Closed/Sold
    (8 )     (5 )     (8 )     (12 )     (10 )
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
   
End of year
    200       184       175       157       120  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Total store network
    1,168       1,187       1,163       1072       918  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
COMPANY-OWNED STORES:
                                       
Operating Data (Check Cashing and Money Orders):
                                       
Face amount of checks cashed (in millions)
  $ 5,040     $ 4,843     $ 4,498     $ 3,839     $ 3,373  
Face amount of money orders sold (in millions)
  $ 1,600     $ 1,711     $ 1,709     $ 1,585     $ 1,905  
Face amount of average check
  $ 383     $ 378     $ 358     $ 339     $ 320  
Average fee per check
  $ 9.65     $ 9.36     $ 8.38     $ 7.92     $ 7.47  
Fees as a percentage of average check
    2.52 %     2.48 %     2.34 %     2.33 %     2.33 %
Number of checks cashed (in thousands)
    13,148       12,821       12,580       11,317       10,556  
Number of money orders sold (in thousands)
    10,256       11,562       12,787       12,339       14,495  
Collections Data:
                                       
Face amount of returned checks (in thousands)
  $ 24,087     $ 23,637     $ 26,536     $ 16,548     $ 12,442  
Collections (in thousands)
    16,935       16,090       17,717       10,788       7,423  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Net write-offs (in thousands)
  $ 7,152     $ 7,547     $ 8,819     $ 5,760     $ 5,019  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Collections as a percentage of returned checks
    70.3 %     68.1 %     66.8 %     65.2 %     59.7 %
Net write-offs as a percentage of revenues
    3.1 %     3.3 %     4.5 %     4.1 %     4.1 %
Net write-offs as a percentage of the face amount of checks cashed
    .14 %     .16 %     .20 %     .15 %     .15 %
Operating Data (Small Consumer Loans Excluding Loans Processed for Republic Bank):
                                       
Volume – new loans and refinances (in thousands)
  $ 420,129     $ 502,013     $ 396,783     $ 137,015     $ 105,765  
Average advance
  $ 268     $ 269     $ 269     $ 240     $ 200  
Average finance charge
  $ 42.71     $ 45.61     $ 42.30     $ 34.51     $ 30.30  
Number of loan transactions – new loans and refinances (in thousands)
    1,587       1,866       1,477       557       460  
Matured loan volume (in thousands)
  $ 432,900     $ 489,887     $ 370,559     $ 129,548     $ 105,765  
Balance Sheet Data (in thousands):
                                       
Gross loans receivable
  $ 21,734     $ 29,569     $ 27,768     $ 18,695     $ 5,543  
Less: Allowance for losses on loans receivable
    8,734       12,213       13,382              
   
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Loans receivable, net of allowance
  $ 13,000     $ 17,356     $ 14,386     $ 18,695     $ 5,543  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Allowance for losses on loans receivable:
                                       
 
Beginning of period
  $ 12,213     $ 13,382     $     $     $  
 
Provision for loan losses
    19,361       21,924       26,429              
 
Charge-offs
    (23,729 )     (24,519 )     (13,510 )                
 
Recoveries
    889       1,426       463              
   
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
 
End of period
  $ 8,734     $ 12,213     $ 13,382     $     $  
 
   
     
     
     
     
 
Provision for loan losses as a percent of matured loan volume
    4.5 %     4.5 %     7.1 %            
Net loan charge-offs as a percent of volume (2)
    5.4 %     4.6 %     3.3 %            
Allowance as a percent of gross loans receivable
    40.2 %     41.3 %     48.2 %            


(1)   Includes the 85 stores closed in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2001 resulting from a plan established and executed by management during the third quarter of fiscal 2001.
 
(2)   The ratio compares the net loan charge-offs to the current year volume, which is lower as a result of the December 31, 2002 cessation of loan-related business in Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama and the transition from offering the Goleta Loans to offering ACE loans or Republic Bank loans.

23


Table of Contents

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA (continued)

                                         
    Year Ended June 30,
   
    2003   2002   2001   2000   1999
   
 
 
 
 
Operating Data for Loans Processed for Republic Bank: (1)
                                       
Volume - new loans and refinances (in thousands)
  $ 63,897     $     $     $     $  
Average advance
  $ 302     $     $     $     $  
Number of loan transactions – new loans and refinances (in thousands)
    211                          
Matured loan volume (in thousands)
  $ 56,040     $     $     $     $  
Provision for loan losses payable to Republic Bank (in thousands)
  $ 2,932     $     $     $     $  
Provision for loan losses payable to Republic Bank as a percent of matured loan volume
    5.2 %                        


(1)   Republic Bank loans are short-term deferred deposit transactions offered and made by Republic Bank and Trust Company at or through the Company’s stores in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Republic Bank loans have been offered at those stores since January 1, 2003. The Company serves only as marketing and servicing agent for Republic Bank regarding those loans and does not acquire or own any participation interest in any of those loans. The Company’s agreement with Republic Bank provides for the Company to receive fees paid by Republic Bank and to bear a percentage of the losses from those loans.

24


Table of Contents

     
ITEM 7.   MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Results of Operations

                                                 
    Year Ended June 30,
   
            (in thousands)                   (percentage of revenue)        
Revenue Analysis   2003   2002   2001   2003   2002   2001

 
 
 
 
 
 
Check cashing fees
  $ 125,703     $ 118,907     $ 105,479       53.7 %     51.9 %     53.6 %
Loan fees and interest
    70,806       74,197       54,771       30.2       32.4       27.8  
Bill-payment services
    13,507       10,156       10,376       5.8       4.4       5.3  
Money transfer services
    10,898       10,998       10,270       4.6       4.8       5.2  
Money order fees
    6,960       7,554       7,245       3.0       3.3       3.7  
Franchise revenues
    2,346       2,199       2,257       1.0       0.9       1.2  
Other fees
    4,069       5,255       6,377       1.7       2.3       3.2  
 
   
     
     
     
     
     
 
Total revenue
  $ 234,289     $ 229,266     $ 196,775       100.0 %     100.0 %     100.0 %
 
   
     
     
     
     
     
 
Average revenue per store (excluding franchise revenues)
  $ 235.5     $ 227.3     $ 195.9                          

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. Revenues increased by $5.0 million, or 2%, to $234.3 million in the year ended June 30, 2003 from $229.3 million in the year ended June 30, 2002. This revenue growth resulted from a $3.1 million, or 1.5%, increase in comparable company-owned store revenues (906 stores) and a $1.9 million increase from stores which were not open for both of the full periods compared. The number of company-owned stores decreased by 35, or 3%, to 968 stores open at June 30, 2003 from 1,003 stores open at June 30, 2002. During fiscal 2003, the Company opened 14 newly constructed stores, acquired two, sold 23, (including 19 underperforming stores in Florida during the second fiscal quarter), and closed 28 company-owned stores.

Check cashing fees, including tax check fees, increased $6.8 million, or 6%, to $125.7 million in fiscal 2003 from $118.9 million in fiscal 2002. Same store check cashing fees increased 5% in fiscal 2003 from fiscal 2002. This increase resulted from a 4% increase in the average size check and a 2% increase in the number of checks cashed. Tax check fees of $21.5 million for fiscal 2003 increased by $0.2 million, from $21.3 million in fiscal 2002. The Company received $4.7 million of tax check fees from over 240 self-service machines (“SSMs”) located in H&R Block offices in fiscal 2003, compared to $3.8 million of tax check fees from 100 SSMs in H&R Block offices last fiscal year. Check cashing fees (including tax checks) were 54% of total revenue for fiscal 2003 compared to 52% of total revenue for fiscal 2002.

Loan fees and interest decreased by 5%, to $70.8 million in fiscal 2003 from $74.2 million in fiscal 2002, and loan fees and interest were 30% of total revenue in fiscal 2003 compared to 32% of total revenue for fiscal 2002. The decline in fees and interest in fiscal 2003 resulted primarily from discontinuing the Company’s loan-related business in Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama and from transitioning from offering short-term loans made by Goleta National Bank (“Goleta”), which ended December 31, 2002, to offering state-regulated short-term loan products.

Bill payment fees increased by 33%, to $13.5 million in fiscal 2003 from $10.2 million in fiscal 2002, primarily as a result of the addition of 14 new payees to the bill-payment program and growth from existing partners. Money order fees decreased by 8%, to $7.0 million in fiscal 2003 from $7.6 million in fiscal 2002, primarily because of the sale of fewer money orders, which in turn was primarily because of increased customer usage of electronic bill-payment services. Other fees decreased by 23%, to $4.1 million in fiscal 2003 from $5.3 million in fiscal 2002, as a result of the discontinuation of certain products, such as lottery ticket sales and the sale of regional publications.

During fiscal 2003, the Company opened 26 franchised stores, acquired two former franchised stores, and closed eight franchised stores, resulting in a total of 200 franchised stores as of June 30, 2003, compared to 184 franchised stores as of June 30, 2002. Franchise revenues consist of royalties, and initial franchise fees and fees for future franchise purchase options. Franchise revenues increased by 7%, to $2.3 million in fiscal 2003 from $2.2 million in fiscal 2002, as a result of the increased number of franchised store openings.

Fiscal 2002 Compared to Fiscal 2001. Revenues increased by $32.5 million, or 17%, from $196.8 million in the year ended June 30, 2001, to $229.3 million in the year ended June 30, 2002. This revenue growth resulted from a $25.5 million, or 15.6%, increase in comparable company-owned store revenues (797 stores) and a $7.0 million increase from stores which were not open for both of the full periods compared. Average revenue per store increased by $31,400 primarily because of

25


Table of Contents

increases in check cashing fees (including tax check fees) and loan fees and interest, though these increases were partially offset by a decrease in other fees. The number of company-owned stores increased by 15, or 2%, from 988 stores open at June 30, 2001, to 1,003 stores open at June 30, 2002. The increase in loan fees and interest accounted for 60% of the total revenue increase, and total check-cashing fees accounted for 41% of the total revenue increase.

Loan fees and interest for the year ended June 30, 2002, primarily reflect the Company’s participation interests in loans made by Goleta at most of the company-owned stores during fiscal 2002. Loan fees and interest increased $19.4 million, or 35%, to $74.2 million in fiscal 2002 as compared to $54.8 million in fiscal 2001, due to the increased consumer awareness of Goleta loans at the stores and to the increase in the average finance charges for these loans. Check cashing fees, including tax check fees, increased $13.4 million, or 13%, from $105.5 million in fiscal 2001 to $118.9 million in fiscal 2002. This increase resulted from a 6% increase in the average size check and a 12% increase in the average fee per check. An increase in tax check fees contributed $6.2 million of the total $13.4 million increase. The Company received $3.8 million of tax check fees from 100 SSMs located in H&R Block offices in fiscal 2002, compared to $1.2 million of tax check fees from 50 SSMs in H&R Block offices last fiscal year. Despite a decrease in the number of money orders sold, money order fees increased $0.3 million in fiscal 2002 from fiscal 2001 as a result of an increase in the average money order fee charged. Other fees declined primarily as a result of reductions in foreign currency exchange fees and fees from prepaid telephone cards.

During fiscal 2002, the Company opened 22 franchised stores, acquired eight former franchised stores, transferred one franchised store and closed four franchised stores. Franchise revenues consist of royalties, and initial and optional franchise fees. Franchise revenues declined slightly as a result of the reduced number of franchised store openings.

                                                 
    Year Ended June 30,
   
Store and SSM           (in thousands)                   (percentage of revenue)        
Expense Analysis   2003   2002   2001   2003   2002   2001

 
 
 
 
 
 
Salaries and benefits
  $ 58,170     $ 57,864     $ 51,969       24.8 %     25.2 %     26.4 %
Occupancy
    29,194       28,207       26,439       12.5       12.3       13.4  
Armored and security
    7,782       7,708       7,442       3.3       3.4       3.8  
Returns and cash shorts
    9,896       10,390       12,553       4.2       4.6       6.4  
Loan losses and provisions
    22,892       22,064       24,825       9.8       9.6       12.6  
Depreciation
    6,966       7,180       6,697       3.0       3.1       3.4  
Other expenses
    20,514       18,414       15,090       8.7       8.0       7.7  
 
   
     
     
     
     
     
 
Total store expense
  $ 155,414     $ 151,827     $ 145,015       66.3 %     66.2 %     73.7 %
 
   
     
     
     
     
     
 
Average per store expense (including SSM expenses)
  $ 157.8     $ 152.0     $ 146.1                          

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. Total store and SSM expenses increased by $3.6 million, or 2%, in fiscal 2003 over fiscal 2002, primarily as a result of increased lease expense related to the addition of over 100 SSMs placed in H&R Block retail offices during the 2003 tax season. Average store expense increased by approximately $6,000 per store in fiscal 2003 as compared to fiscal 2002. Total store and SSM expenses increased slightly as a percentage of revenues to 66.3% in fiscal 2003 from 66.2% in fiscal 2002 due to a reduction in loan fees and interest.

Salaries and benefits expenses increased only by $0.3 million, or 0.5%, in fiscal 2003 from fiscal 2002 due to slightly higher wages and bonuses, offset by improved personnel scheduling and fewer stores. Occupancy costs and armored and security expenses combined increased $1.1 million, or 3%, primarily as a result of maintenance expense related to the SSMs located in the H&R Block offices ($0.6 million) and scheduled increases in lease expense ($0.4 million). Returned checks, net of collections, and cash shortages decreased $0.5 million, or 5%, in fiscal 2003 as compared to fiscal 2002, due to continued improvements in operational procedures and controls. Returned checks, net of collections, and cash shortages as a percentage of revenues also decreased, to 4.2% in fiscal 2003 from 4.5% in fiscal 2002. Loan loss provision increased $0.8 million, or 4%, in fiscal 2003 from fiscal 2002 primarily due to the increase in the number of loans maturing as a result of the Company’s discontinuing its loan-related business in Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama, and its transitioning from offering the Goleta loans, which ended December 31, 2002, to offering state-regulated short-term loan products. The overall collectability of the short-term loans improved slightly in fiscal 2003 compared to fiscal 2002. The allowance for loan losses of $8.7 million at June 30, 2003, represented 40.2% of gross loans receivable, a decrease from the allowance for loan losses of $12.2 million, representing 41.3% of gross loans receivable, at June 30, 2002. Loan losses are charged to this allowance, which is reviewed for adequacy (and may be adjusted) on a quarterly basis. Other store and SSM expenses increased $2.1 million, or 11%, in fiscal 2003 from fiscal 2002 primarily as a result of additional lease costs for the Company’s increased

26


Table of Contents

number of SSMs placed at H&R Block offices, increases in licensing fees related to the transition to a state-regulated short-term loan products, and increases in advertising expenses.

Fiscal 2002 Compared to Fiscal 2001. Total store and SSM expenses increased $6.8 million, or 5%, in fiscal 2002 over fiscal 2001, primarily as a result of an increased amount of performance bonuses and merit increases paid to store employees. Average store expense increased by approximately $6,000 per store in fiscal 2002 as compared to fiscal 2001. Total store and SSM expenses decreased as a percentage of revenues, however, to 66.2% in fiscal 2002 from 73.7% in fiscal 2001.

Salaries and benefits expenses increased $5.9 million, or 11%, in fiscal 2002 from fiscal 2001 primarily as a result of the increased performance bonus expense. Occupancy costs and armored and security expenses combined increased $2.0 million, or 6%, as a result of scheduled increases in lease and armored and security expense, along with additional armored and security expense related to the SSMs. Returned checks, net of collections, and cash shortages decreased $2.2 million, or 17%, in fiscal 2002 as compared to fiscal 2001, due to improvements in operational procedures and controls. Returned checks, net of collections, and cash shortages as a percentage of revenues also decreased to 5% in fiscal 2002 from 6% in fiscal 2001. Loan loss provision decreased $2.8 million, or 11%, in fiscal 2002 from fiscal 2001 primarily due to improved collections experience. The allowance for loan losses of $12.2 million at June 30, 2002, represented 41.3% of gross loans receivable, a decrease from the allowance for loan losses of $13.4 million, representing 48.2% of gross loans receivable, at June 30, 2001. Loan losses are charged to this allowance, which is reviewed for adequacy (and may be adjusted) on a quarterly basis. Other store and SSM expenses increased $3.3 million, or 22%, primarily as a result of lease costs for the SSMs at H&R Block offices, increases in bank charges related to increased rates for bank services and increased use of Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) transactions for collections, and additional expense related to operational and marketing supplies required to support the Goleta loan product.

                                                 
    Year Ended June 30,
   
            (in thousands)                   (percentage of revenue)        
Other Expense Analysis   2003   2002   2001   2003   2002   2001

 
 
 
 
 
 
Region expenses
  $ 17,056     $ 17,495     $ 14,127       7.3 %     7.6 %     7.2 %
Headquarters expenses
    17,133       16,594       10,328       7.3       7.2       5.2  
Franchise expenses
    1,225       993       1,017       0.5       0.4       0.5  
Other depreciation and amortization
    5,423       7,570       5,087       2.3       3.3       2.6  
Interest expense
    16,004       14,934       12,016       6.8       6.5       6.1  
Other expenses
    1,584       2,827       8,168       0.7       1.2       4.2  

Region Expenses

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. Region expenses decreased $0.4 million, or 3%, in fiscal 2003 from fiscal 2002. The decrease results from a reduction in salaries and benefits expense resulting from a smaller average number of regional employees throughout the year. Region expenses decreased as a percentage of revenues to 7.3% in fiscal 2003 from 7.6% in fiscal 2002.

Fiscal 2002 Compared to Fiscal 2001. Region expenses increased $3.4 million, or 24%, in fiscal 2002 over fiscal 2001. The increase is a result of additional personnel in collections and customer-service related to the Goleta loan product and an increase in the number of district managers in the field. Region expenses increased as a percentage of revenues to 7.6% in fiscal 2002 from 7.2% in fiscal 2001.

Headquarters Expenses

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. Headquarters expenses increased $0.5 million, or 3%, in fiscal 2003 over fiscal 2002. Increased salaries and benefits related to the addition of professional personnel, including an assistant vice president of internal audit, a compliance officer, and chief marketing officer, constituted $0.3 million of the expense increase; employee-performance bonus expense constituted $0.3 million of the increase; telephone expense constituted $0.3 million of the increase; and insurance expense constituted $0.1 million of the increase; and these increases were partially offset by a reduction in legal and professional expenses of $0.3 million. Headquarters expenses increased slightly as a percentage of revenues to 7.3% in fiscal 2003 from 7.2% in fiscal 2002.

Fiscal 2002 Compared to Fiscal 2001. Headquarters expenses increased $6.3 million, or 61%, in fiscal 2002 over fiscal 2001. Increased legal expenses associated with defending various lawsuits constituted $2.7 million of the increase; employee-performance bonus expense constituted $1.4 million of the increase; and the addition of headquarters personnel and their corresponding salaries and benefits constituted most of the remaining increase. Headquarters expenses increased as a percentage of revenues to 7.2% in fiscal 2002 from 5.2% in fiscal 2001.

27


Table of Contents

Franchise Expenses

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. Franchise expenses relate to the salaries, benefits, and other franchisee support costs for the sales and support personnel in the ACE Franchise Group. Franchise expenses for fiscal 2003 increased $0.2 million, or 23%, in fiscal 2003 over fiscal 2002 as a result of changes in departmental staffing, and increased travel, legal, and professional expenses. Franchise expenses as a percentage of revenue increased to 0.5% for fiscal 2003 from 0.4% for fiscal 2002.

Fiscal 2002 Compared to Fiscal 2001. Franchise expenses relate to the salaries, benefits, and other franchisee support costs for the sales and support personnel in the ACE Franchise Group. Franchise expenses for fiscal 2002 remained substantially the same as those for fiscal 2001. Franchise expenses as a percentage of revenue decreased to 0.4% for fiscal 2002 from 0.5% for fiscal 2001.

Other Depreciation and Amortization

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. Other depreciation and amortization decreased $2.1 million, or 28%, in fiscal 2003 from fiscal 2002. This decrease was due to the decrease in the amount of debt financing costs amortized in fiscal 2003 compared to fiscal 2002.

Fiscal 2002 Compared to Fiscal 2001. Other depreciation and amortization increased $2.5 million, or 49%, in fiscal 2002 from fiscal 2001. This increase was due to the amortization of an additional $4.9 million of debt financing costs in fiscal 2002 compared to fiscal 2001 resulting from amendments to the Company’s bank credit agreement, offset by a reduction of $2.3 million for the discontinuation of goodwill amortization in accordance with SFAS 142, which the Company adopted in the first quarter of fiscal 2002.

Interest Expense

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. Interest expense increased $1.1 million, or 7%, in fiscal 2003 as compared to fiscal 2002. This increase was the result of an increase in the effective interest rate on the term debt ($2.5 million) and higher interest and cash usage fees for the increase of more than 100 SSMs at H&R Block offices ($1.5 million), which were partially offset by lower interest expense from lower average revolver advances and term note balances ($2.4 million) and lower interest paid on senior secured notes payable ($ 0.5 million).

Fiscal 2002 Compared to Fiscal 2001. Interest expense increased $2.9 million, or 24%, in fiscal 2002 as compared to fiscal 2001. This increase was the result of an increase in borrowings used to finance the higher-volume tax season operations and higher interest rates charged in the last half of fiscal 2002 by the Company’s bank lenders.

Other Expenses

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. Other expenses decreased by $1.2 million in fiscal 2003 from fiscal 2002. Other expenses for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, included the following (in thousands):

                   
      For the Year Ended
      June 30,
     
      2003   2002
     
 
Legal settlements (including $5 million charge for settlement and release of substantially all claims in the Company’s Goleta loan-related lawsuits)
  $ 5,750     $ 1,984  
Insurance recovery resulting from claims related to the Goleta loan-related lawsuits
    (4,700 )      
Loss on liquidation of investment in ePacific
    703        
Store closing expense
    534       1,029  
Early extinguishment of senior secured debt
    270        
Gain on sale of stores to franchisees
    (888 )      
Restructuring provision
          (163 )
Other
    (85 )     (23 )
 
   
     
 
 
Total other expenses
  $ 1,584     $ 2,827  
 
   
     
 

Fiscal 2002 Compared to Fiscal 2001. Other expenses decreased by $5.3 million in fiscal 2002 from fiscal 2001 as a result of the $7.7 million recorded in fiscal 2001 for the costs associated with closing 85 unprofitable or underperforming stores owned and operated by the Company, offset by legal settlement expense of $2.0 million recorded in fiscal 2002 for the settlement of legal proceedings against the Company in Colorado, Indiana, and Maryland.

28


Table of Contents

Income Taxes

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. A provision of $8.5 million was recorded for income taxes for fiscal 2003, compared to $6.9 million for fiscal 2002. The provision for income taxes was calculated based on a statutory federal income tax rate of 35%, plus a provision for state income taxes. The effective income tax rate was 40.0% for fiscal 2003 compared to 40.6% for last fiscal year.

Fiscal 2002 Compared to Fiscal 2001. A provision of $6.9 million was recorded for income taxes for fiscal 2002, compared to $0.4 million for fiscal 2001. The provision for income taxes was calculated based on a statutory federal income tax rate of 35%, plus a provision for state income taxes and non-deductible goodwill resulting from acquisitions. The effective income tax rate was 40.6% for fiscal 2002 compared to 39.9% for last fiscal year.

Gain on Sale of Discontinued Operations

Fiscal 2003 Compared to Fiscal 2002. The Company sold 19 underperforming stores in Florida in late-November 2002 for a pre-tax gain of $0.8 million and an after-tax gain of $0.5 million. The operating results of the 19 stores had no material impact on current or historical net income or cash flow for or during the years ended June 30, 2003, 2002, or 2001.

Balance Sheet Variations

Cash and cash equivalents, the money orders payable, and the revolving advances vary because of seasonal and day-to-day requirements resulting primarily from maintaining cash for cashing checks and making small consumer loans; receipts of cash from the sale of money orders and remittances on money orders sold; receipts of cash for wire transfers, and remittances for wire transfers; and receipts of cash for electronic bill payments and remittances for bill payments. For the year ended June 30, 2003, cash and cash equivalents decreased $8.2 million, compared to a decrease of $12.9 million for the year ended June 30, 2002.

Accounts receivable, net, at June 30, 2003 increased $0.6 million from June 30, 2002 primarily due to the $4.7 million receivable recorded in June 2003 related to the recovery of insurance claims regarding the Goleta Loan-related lawsuits, offset by a $4.0 million decrease in receivables from Goleta because of the cessation of offering Goleta loans at the Company’s stores effective December 31, 2002.

Loans receivable, net, at June 30, 2003 decreased $4.4 million from June 30, 2002 due to the Company’s transition from offering Goleta loans at most of its stores to offering a state-regulated short-term loan or service in a reduced number of its stores. Also, loans receivable, net, as of June 30, 2003 does not include any of the Republic Bank deferred-deposit loans available through the Company’s stores in Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Texas, because the Company serves only as marketing and servicing agent for Republic Bank regarding those loans and does not acquire or own any participation interest in any of those loans. The Company’s agreement with Republic Bank provides for the Company to receive agency fees from Republic Bank, though such fees are subject to reduction or offset by the losses from uncollected Republic Bank loans.

Prepaid expenses and other current assets at June 30, 2003 increased by $2.1 million from June 30, 2002 due to an increase in deferred financing costs ($2.7 million) and an increase in prepaid income taxes ($1.1 million), which were partially offset by a reduction in the deferred tax asset balance ($1.4 million) and other prepaid expenses related to the recognition of a full year’s expense associated with the lease and maintenance costs related to the SSMs, most of which are operated only during tax season in H&R Block locations ($0.3 million).

Property and equipment, net, at June 30, 2003 decreased $4.8 million as a result of depreciation expense ($8.2 million) and fixed asset retirements ($1.4 million) (including $0.8 million related to the sale of 19 underperforming stores in Florida in November 2002), offset by fixed asset additions of $4.8 million (including $0.6 million for capitalized software development.) Goodwill, net, at June 30, 2003 increased $0.6 million, from June 30, 2002 as a result of the two stores acquired during fiscal 2003. The Company opened 14 newly constructed stores, acquired two stores, closed 28 company-owned stores and sold 23 company-owned stores during the year ended June 30, 2003.

Revolving advances at June 30, 2003 decreased by $13.6 million from June 30, 2002 due to reduced average daily usage of the revolving credit facility, which in turn resulted from continued improvements in cash forecasting and operational procedures regarding store cash deliveries and more efficient management of working capital during fiscal 2003.

Accounts payable, accrued liabilities, and other current liabilities at June 30, 2003 increased by $12.2 million from June 30, 2002, as indicated by the following:

29


Table of Contents

                         
    For the Year Ended June 30,
   
                    Increase
    2003   2002   (decrease)
   
 
 
    (in thousands)
Accounts payable – trade
  $ 10,787     $ 5,329     $ 5,458  
Accrued salaries and benefits
    7,675       6,292       1,383  
Payable to Republic Bank
    6,662             6,662  
Accrued litigation
    5,139       2,286       2,853  
Money transfer payable
    4,223       3,545