UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Form 10-Q

Commission File Number 0-14120

Advanta Corp.

Welsh and McKean Roads, P.O. Box 844, Spring House, PA 19477
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

(215) 657-4000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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 o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes x  No o

Applicable only to issuers involved in bankruptcy proceedings during the preceding five years:

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Sections 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.

Yes o   No o

     Applicable only to corporate issuers:

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

3

ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

4

ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

5

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

6

ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

7

ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

June 30, 2004
(Unaudited)

In these notes to consolidated financial statements, “Advanta”, “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to Advanta Corp. and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires.

Note 1) Basis of Presentation

We have prepared the consolidated financial statements included herein pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have condensed or omitted certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles pursuant to such rules and regulations. In the opinion of management, the statements include all adjustments (which include normal recurring adjustments) required for a fair statement of financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods presented. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in our latest annual report on Form 10-K. The results of operations for the interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results for the full year.

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Material estimates that are particularly susceptible to significant changes in the near term relate to the accounting for the allowance for receivable losses, securitization income, business credit card rewards programs, litigation contingencies, income taxes, and discontinued operations.

Certain prior period balances have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123, “Accounting for Stock Based Compensation,” as amended by SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation — Transition and Disclosure,” defines a fair value based method of accounting for employee stock compensation plans, whereby compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the value of the award and is recognized over the service period, which is usually the vesting period. However, it permits entities to continue to measure compensation cost for those plans using the intrinsic value based method of accounting prescribed by Accounting Principles Board Opinion (“Opinion”) No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” whereby compensation cost is the excess, if any, of the quoted market price of the stock at the grant date or other measurement date over the amount an employee must pay to acquire the stock. We have elected to continue with the accounting methodology in Opinion No. 25 and, as a result, have provided pro forma disclosures of compensation expense for options granted to employees under our stock option plans, net of related tax effects, net income and earnings per share, as if the fair value based method of accounting had been applied. Had compensation cost for

8

these plans been determined using the fair value method, our compensation expense for stock option plans, net of related tax effects, net income and net income per common share would have changed to the following pro forma amounts:

Note 2) Recently Issued Accounting Standards

In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Interpretation No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities — An Interpretation of ARB No. 51” (“FIN 46”). This interpretation requires a company to consolidate a variable interest entity if the company has variable interests that give it a majority of the expected losses or a majority of the expected residual returns of the entity. In December 2003, the FASB revised FIN 46 to clarify some of the provisions and incorporate several FASB staff positions related to FIN 46 that were already effective. This interpretation, as revised, did not have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations since qualifying special-purpose entities, as defined in SFAS No. 140, are exempt from the consolidation requirements of FIN 46. However, our adoption of the revised interpretation resulted in the deconsolidation of the subsidiary trust that issued our company-obligated mandatorily redeemable preferred securities (the “trust preferred securities”) effective December 31, 2003. As a result of the deconsolidation of that trust, the consolidated balance sheets include subordinated debt payable to preferred securities trust of $103 million and an equity investment in the trust of $3 million, rather than $100 million of trust preferred securities. Also as a result of the deconsolidation of that trust, the consolidated income statement includes interest expense on subordinated debt payable to preferred securities trust beginning January 1, 2004, as compared to periods through December 31, 2003 that included payments on the trust preferred securities classified as minority interest in income of consolidated subsidiary.

9

In June 2003, the FASB issued an exposure draft, “Qualifying Special-Purpose Entities and Isolation of Transferred Assets — An Amendment of FASB Statement No. 140.” The changes and clarifications in the proposed statement would prevent derecognition by transferors that may continue to retain effective control of transferred assets by providing financial support other than a subordinated retained interest or making decisions about beneficial interests. The changes would also help to ensure that variable interest entities will not qualify for the qualifying special-purpose entity exception to FIN 46, as revised, if any party involved is in a position to enhance or protect the value of its own subordinated interest by providing financial support for or making decisions about reissuing beneficial interests. For public entities, this proposed statement would apply prospectively to transfers of assets occurring after the beginning of the first interim period after the issuance of the final statement. In June 2004, the FASB announced plans to issue a revised exposure draft in the fourth quarter of 2004 and a final standard in the second quarter of 2005. Management will evaluate any potential impact of this revised proposed statement when it is available.

In March 2004, the FASB issued an exposure draft, “Share-Based Payment - An Amendment of Statements No. 123 and 95” that addresses the accounting for equity-based compensation arrangements, including employee stock options. Upon implementation of the changes proposed in this statement, entities would no longer be able to account for equity-based compensation using the intrinsic value method under Opinion No. 25. Entities would be required to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for awards of equity instruments at the grant date of the award using a fair value based method. The comment period for this proposed statement ended on June 30, 2004. For public entities, this proposed statement would apply prospectively for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2004 as if all equity-based compensation awards granted, modified or settled after December 15, 1994 had been accounted for using a fair value based method of accounting. Management is currently evaluating the potential impact of the proposed statement.

Note 3) Restricted Interest-Bearing Deposits and Investments Available For Sale

At December 31, 2003, restricted interest-bearing deposits included amounts held in escrow in connection with our litigation with Fleet Financial Group, Inc. (“Fleet”) of $74.2 million. On February 2, 2004, the court issued its final judgment and order in the Delaware Chancery Court litigation with Fleet. In early February 2004, the escrow agent released $63.8 million from the escrow account to Fleet in satisfaction of all amounts due to Fleet in connection with this litigation and the $10.5 million of funds remaining in the escrow account were released and transferred from the restricted escrow account to an unrestricted cash account. See Note 8 for further discussion of this litigation.

10

Investments available for sale consisted of the following:

(1)		Includes venture capital investments of $9.5 million at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003. The amount shown as amortized cost represents fair value for these investments.
(2)		As of June 30, 2004, money market funds include investments in the Reserve Primary Money Market Fund of $48.1 million and the Barclays Global Investors Prime Money Market Fund of $34.1 million. As of December 31, 2003, money market funds include an investment in the Merrill Lynch Premier Institutional Money Market Fund of $163.8 million.

Note 4) Receivables

Receivables on the balance sheet, including those held for sale, consisted of the following:

In June 2001, Advanta Corp. provided a mortgage financing loan and a revolving home equity line of credit to an executive officer as part of a relocation agreement. Upon the termination of the executive officer’s employment in February 2004, a repayment event under the terms of the agreement occurred. The former executive officer sold the property in May 2004 and used the net proceeds from the sale to satisfy his loan obligations in accordance with the terms of the relocation agreement. The outstanding balances on these loans were included in other receivables and were $474 thousand at December 31, 2003. We recognized $91 thousand of compensation expense in the second quarter of 2004 related to loan forgiveness, based on the net proceeds from the sale of the property.

11

Note 5) Allowance for Receivable Losses

The following table presents activity in the allowance for receivable losses for the periods presented:

Note 6) Securitization Activities

Accounts receivable from securitizations consisted of the following:

(1)

Reduced by an estimate for uncollectible interest and fees of $10.8 million at June 30, 2004 and $12.6 million at December 31, 2003.

The following represents business credit card securitization data and the key assumptions used in estimating the fair value of retained interests in securitizations at the time of each new securitization or replenishment if quoted market prices were not available.

12

There were no purchases of delinquent accounts from the securitization trust during the three or six months ended June 30, 2004 or 2003.

The following assumptions were used in estimating the fair value of retained interests in business credit card securitizations as of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003. The assumptions listed represent weighted averages of assumptions used for each securitization.

In addition to the assumptions identified above, management also considered qualitative factors, such as the impact of the current economic environment on the performance of the business credit card receivables sold and the potential volatility of the current market for similar instruments, in assessing the fair value of retained interests in business credit card securitizations.

We have prepared sensitivity analyses of the valuations of retained interests in securitizations estimated using the assumptions identified above. The sensitivity analyses show the hypothetical effect on the fair value of those assets of two unfavorable variations from the expected levels for each key assumption, independently from any change in another key assumption. Set forth below are the results of those sensitivity analyses on the valuation as of June 30, 2004.

The objective of these hypothetical analyses is to measure the sensitivity of the fair value of the retained interests to changes in assumptions. The methodology used to calculate the fair value in the analyses is a discounted cash flow analysis, the same methodology used to estimate the fair value of the retained interests when quoted market prices are not available at each reporting date. These estimates do not factor in the impact of simultaneous changes in other key

13

assumptions. The above scenarios do not reflect management’s expectation regarding the future direction of these rates, and they depict only certain possibilities out of a large set of possible scenarios.

Managed receivable data

Our managed business credit card receivable portfolio is comprised of both owned and securitized business credit card receivables. Performance on a managed receivable portfolio basis is useful and relevant because we retain interests in the securitized receivables and, therefore, we have a financial interest in and exposure to the performance of the securitized receivables. Credit quality data on the managed business credit card receivable portfolio was as follows:

Note 7) Selected Balance Sheet Information

Other assets consisted of the following:

14

Other liabilities consisted of the following:

(1)

A substantial portion of other liabilities at December 31, 2003 represented our litigation reserves.

In February 2004, the court issued its final judgment and order in the Delaware Chancery Court litigation with Fleet, and a payment was made to Fleet in satisfaction of all amounts due in connection with this litigation. In accordance with the court’s February 2004 order, the payment to Fleet was net of amounts due to Advanta from Fleet. As a result of the court’s order and payment to Fleet in February 2004, there was a decrease in other assets and other liabilities as of the payment date. There was no impact to the results of our operations since, based on the final judgment and order, our reserves at December 31, 2003 were adequate. In March 2004, we filed a notice of appeal to commence the appeals process related to this final judgment and order. On May 28, 2004, we reached an agreement with Bank of America Corp. (“Bank of America”) to resolve all outstanding litigation, including partnership tax disputes, between Advanta and FleetBoston Financial Corporation, which was recently acquired by Bank of America. See Note 8. In connection with the anticipated combination of Bank of America’s and Fleet’s consumer credit card businesses and the May 28, 2004 agreement, our partnership interest in Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. would represent an interest in the combined business. Subsequent to the date of the agreement, we have accounted for our investment in the partnership interest in Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. using the cost method.

Eligible cardholders earn cash back rewards or business rewards based on net purchases charged on their business credit card accounts. The costs of future reward redemptions are estimated and a liability is recorded at the time cash back rewards or business rewards are earned by the cardholder. In each reporting period, we adjust our estimate of the percentage of earned rewards that will ultimately be redeemed by cardholders and the cost of rewards based on our experience with each program. In the three months ended June 30, 2004, we expanded our business rewards program to include offers of gift certificates and merchandise, in addition to our traditional travel awards. We anticipate that the expanded program will have the effect of increasing the volume of future reward redemptions while decreasing the associated costs per redemption. In the first quarter of 2003, we changed the redemption terms of certain business reward programs resulting in a decrease in the anticipated costs of future reward redemptions. The impact of the changes in the estimated percentage of earned rewards that will ultimately be redeemed by cardholders and other changes in anticipated costs of future period reward redemptions for these programs in the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 was as follows:

15

Note 8) Commitments and Contingencies

On May 28, 2004, Advanta Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries and Bank of America signed an agreement to resolve all outstanding litigation, including partnership tax disputes, between Advanta and Fleet, which was recently acquired by Bank of America, relating to the transfer of our consumer credit card business to Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. (the “Consumer Credit Card Transaction”) in 1998. The agreement is subject to the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) final approval of the settlement of the tax disputes, which the IRS is expected to approve. Under the agreement, Bank of America will pay Advanta $63.8 million in cash which represents a return of the payments made to Fleet in the Delaware state court litigation in February 2004, as described below. That payment will be made following IRS approval of the settlement of the tax disputes. At that time, Advanta and Fleet will dismiss all outstanding litigation. Advanta and Bank of America have agreed to resolve the tax disputes between Advanta and Fleet by allocating approximately $125 million of the disputed $508 million of partnership deductions to Advanta and by Advanta recognizing for tax purposes approximately $600 thousand of the disputed $47 million partnership taxable gain. As a result of the agreement, Advanta expects to record a net after-tax gain from the settlement of the litigation of approximately $61 million in the quarter that the IRS approval is received. The disputes involving Fleet that are described below would all be resolved under the agreement with Bank of America if IRS approval of the settlement of the tax disputes is obtained.

On January 22, 1999, Fleet and certain of its affiliates filed a lawsuit against Advanta Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries in Delaware Chancery Court. Fleet’s allegations, which we denied, centered around Fleet’s assertions that we failed to complete certain post-closing adjustments to the value of the assets and liabilities we contributed to Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. in connection with the Consumer Credit Card Transaction. We filed an answer to the complaint, and we also filed a countercomplaint against Fleet for damages we believe have been caused by certain actions of Fleet. As a result of related litigation with Fleet, $70.1 million of our reserves in connection with this litigation were funded in an interest-bearing escrow account in February 2001. On January 22, 2003, the trial court issued a ruling on all but one of the remaining issues, and ordered further briefing on the remaining outstanding issue. Effective December 31, 2002, we recognized a $43.0 million pretax loss on the transfer of our consumer credit card business, representing the estimated impact of implementing the court’s January 2003 decisions. This amount represented the amount in excess of the reserves we had been carrying for the litigation, which was based on our expectations of the outcome of the litigation. On November 7, 2003, the court ruled on the remaining outstanding issue, the method for calculating the interest to be awarded, and ordered the parties to submit revised calculations in accordance with this ruling before it issued a judgment. On February 2, 2004, the court issued its final judgment and order. In early February 2004, the escrow agent released $63.8 million from the escrow account to Fleet in satisfaction of all amounts due to Fleet in connection with this litigation and the $10.5 million of funds remaining in the escrow account were released and transferred from the restricted escrow account to an unrestricted cash account. At December 31, 2003, the escrow account was included in restricted interest-bearing deposits on the consolidated balance sheet. There was no impact to the results of our operations since, based on the final judgment and order, our reserves at December 31, 2003 were adequate. On March 1, 2004, we filed a notice of appeal to commence the appeals process relating to orders made by the Delaware Chancery Court during the litigation, and on April 15, 2004, we filed an opening brief with the Supreme Court of Delaware setting forth the basis for our appeal. Fleet filed its answering brief with the Supreme Court of Delaware on May 17, 2004, and we filed our reply brief on June 1, 2004.

16

Pursuant to the May 28, 2004 agreement between Advanta and Bank of America described above, Advanta and Fleet filed a joint motion with the Delaware Supreme Court to stay the appeal and on June 28, 2004 the court granted the motion and stayed the appeal, pending fulfillment of all conditions of the agreement.

In an ongoing element of Fleet’s disputes with us, Fleet has claimed $508 million of tax deductions from its partnership with us in connection with the Consumer Credit Card Transaction, which are required under the law to be allocated solely to Advanta. As required, we reported these deductions on our 1998 corporate tax return. However, we have not used or booked the benefit from most of these deductions because for tax purposes we have a very substantial net operating loss carryforward. We have $482 million of net operating loss carryforwards from all sources at June 30, 2004, and have booked no benefit from approximately $400 million of these net operating loss carryforwards. If the deductions are ultimately allocated as claimed by Fleet, the impact on our equity at June 30, 2004 would be a decrease of approximately $35 million. The deductions are attributable to deductions for bad debt reserves that we expensed in computing our book income or loss before the Consumer Credit Card Transaction, but which were not deductible by Advanta for tax purposes until after the closing of the transaction in 1998. The tax law requires “built in losses” like these to be deducted by the party who contributed the assets to the partnership, in this case, Advanta. The Internal Revenue Service agents who have examined the returns at issue have to ensure that both parties do not obtain the deductions and therefore, following standard practice, proposed to disallow the deductions to both parties until there is a final resolution. The deductions, as well as the allocation of a gain from the sale of a partnership asset of approximately $47 million, were before the IRS Regional Office of Appeals. If the conditions of the May 28, 2004 agreement between Advanta and Bank of America are fulfilled, this matter would also be resolved in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

On January 15, 2003, Fleet filed a complaint in Rhode Island Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment that we indemnify Fleet under the applicable partnership agreement for any damage Fleet incurs by not being entitled to the $508 million of tax deductions. Fleet is also seeking a declaratory judgment that it should not indemnify us for any damages that we incur due to any allocation to Advanta of the $47 million gain on the sale of a partnership asset. On February 28, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 13, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. We answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim against Fleet on September 19, 2003. The discovery phase of the case has concluded. We believe that the indemnification provision in the partnership agreement does not indemnify Fleet for damages incurred related to the tax deductions and that the lawsuit is frivolous, having no legal basis whatsoever and therefore, we do not have any reserves for this litigation. If the conditions of the May 28, 2004 agreement between Advanta and Bank of America are fulfilled, this matter would also be resolved in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

Although the IRS is expected to approve the settlement of the tax disputes, in the event the settlement is not consummated, management does not expect the lawsuits or the tax disputes with Fleet, described above, to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

On July 26, 2001, Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation (“Chase”) filed a complaint against Advanta Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging, among other things, that we breached our contract with Chase in connection with the Mortgage Transaction. Chase claims that we misled Chase concerning the value of certain of the assets sold to Chase and claims damages of approximately $70 million. In September 2001, we filed an answer to the complaint in which we denied all of the substantive allegations of

17

the complaint and asserted a counterclaim against Chase for breach of contract relating to funds owed by Chase to us in connection with the transaction. The trial was originally scheduled to begin in January 2004. In the second quarter of 2003, the parties extended the discovery period and the court delayed the scheduled trial date to April 2004. In September 2003, we filed a motion for summary judgment with the court with respect to all claims raised in Chase’s complaint and Chase filed a motion for partial summary judgment with respect to certain of its claims. On March 4, 2004, the court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. On April 26, 2004, a non-jury trial commenced; at trial, Chase asserted damages totaling approximately $88 million. The trial concluded on May 26, 2004, and the court has ordered the parties to make certain post-trial filings with the court. Post-trial filings were filed on July 30, 2004 and additional filings are expected to be made on September 17, 2004. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend Advanta in this litigation and therefore, we do not have any reserves for future judgments or rulings in this litigation. However, since this litigation relates to a discontinued operation, we have established reserves for estimated future litigation costs. We do not expect this lawsuit to have any impact on our continuing business and, based on the complete lack of merit, we do not anticipate that the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

On February 13, 2004, Advanta Corp. filed a Writ of Summons against Chase in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, which was amended on March 4, 2004; and on March 8, 2004, Advanta Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries filed a Second Amended Writ of Summons and a Complaint against Chase in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas seeking damages of at least $17.7 million. In May 2004, Chase filed an answer to the complaint and asserted a new matter and counterclaims seeking damages of at least $5 million. On August 2, 2004, we filed our reply to Chase’s new matter and counterclaims. On February 23, 2004 and June 4, 2004, Chase filed a complaint and a first amended complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware seeking damages of at least $7 million. These filings relate to contractual claims under the purchase and sale agreement governing the Mortgage Transaction and are a continuation of the ongoing dispute associated with the Mortgage Transaction. We do not expect the lawsuit filed by Chase on February 23, 2004, as amended on June 4, 2004, or Chase’s new matter and counterclaims in the action brought by us in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Advanta Mortgage Corp. USA (“AMCUSA”) and Advanta Mortgage Conduit Services, Inc. (“AMCSI”), subsidiaries of Advanta Corp., have been involved in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association with Goodrich & Pennington Mortgage Fund, Inc. (“GPMF”), a participant in one of the programs of our former mortgage business. The arbitration process commenced June 28, 2001 in San Francisco, California with GPMF serving a demand for arbitration relating to alleged failure to provide information and documentation under the former mortgage program. On September 5, 2001, AMCUSA and AMCSI filed an answer to the Demand for Arbitration, and from December 2001, have provided information and documentation responsive to the program participant’s requests in the arbitration proceeding. In February and June 2004, GPMF filed additional Statements of Claim, each alleging contractual and other related claims. The amount of damages sought by GPMF is not known because at this time no damage amount has been specified in its pleadings. Discovery in this matter is ongoing and more recently, since June 2004, the parties have filed a number of motions and briefs with the Arbitrator in anticipation of the arbitration hearing which is presently scheduled to commence on November 2, 2004. We do not expect this arbitration to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. However, since this arbitration relates to a

18

discontinued operation, we have established reserves for estimated future legal costs.

In addition to the cases described above, Advanta Corp. and its subsidiaries are involved in class action lawsuits, other litigation, claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or discontinued operations, including litigation arising from our operation of the mortgage business prior to our exit from that business in the first quarter of 2001.

Management believes that the aggregate loss, if any, resulting from existing litigation, claims and other legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of our operations based on the level of litigation reserves we have established and our current expectations regarding the ultimate resolutions of these existing actions. We estimate our litigation reserves based on the status of litigation and our assessment of the ultimate resolution of each action after consultation with our attorneys. However, due to the inherent uncertainty in litigation and since the ultimate resolutions of our litigation, claims and other legal proceedings are influenced by factors outside of our control, it is reasonably possible that our estimated liability under these proceedings may change or that actual results will differ from our estimates.

Note 9) Capital Stock

In 2001 and 2002, the Board of Directors of Advanta Corp. authorized management to purchase up to an aggregate 3.0 million shares of Advanta Corp. common stock. In 2003, we repurchased 434 thousand shares of our Class A Common Stock and 315 thousand shares of our Class B Common Stock, which substantially completed our purchases under the authorizations.

Cash dividends per share of common stock declared were as follows: