Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED June 30, 2003

Commission file number 1-3433

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

2030 DOW CENTER, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 48674
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

989-636-1000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Not applicable
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

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 ý    No o

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

The Dow Chemical Company
Table of Contents

2

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Income

See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

3

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheets

See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

4

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income

See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

5

The Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

NOTE A—CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

        The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) which, in the opinion of management, are considered necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the periods covered. Certain reclassifications of prior year amounts have been made to conform to current year presentation. These statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. Except as otherwise indicated by the context, the terms "Company" or "Dow" as used herein mean The Dow Chemical Company and its consolidated subsidiaries.

NOTE B—ACCOUNTING CHANGES

        In June 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 141, "Business Combinations," which replaced Accounting Principles Board ("APB") Opinion No. 16, "Business Combinations." Under SFAS No. 141, all business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001 are accounted for using the purchase method. As required by SFAS No. 141, negative goodwill of $89 million associated with the acquisition of Buna Sow Leuna Olefinverbund ("BSL") in 1997 was written off and included in "Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles" in the first quarter of 2002. The application of SFAS No. 141 did not result in the reclassification of any amounts previously recorded as goodwill or other intangible assets.

        In June 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," which replaced APB Opinion No. 17, "Intangible Assets," and established new accounting and reporting requirements for goodwill and other intangible assets, effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2001. Under this statement, goodwill and intangible assets deemed to have indefinite useful lives are not amortized, but are subject to impairment testing. Impairment testing was required at adoption and at least annually thereafter. On an ongoing basis (absent any impairment indicators), Dow plans to perform impairment tests during the fourth quarter of each year, in conjunction with the Company's annual budgeting process. Effective January 1, 2002, Dow ceased all amortization of goodwill, which is its only intangible asset with an indefinite useful life, and tested recorded goodwill for impairment by comparing the fair value of each reporting unit, determined using a discounted cash flow method, with its carrying value.

        As a result of the Company's impairment testing, goodwill impairment losses totaling $22 million were recorded in the first quarter of 2002 and included in "Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles." Summaries of the impairment losses are as follows:

•

The Hampshire Fine Chemicals reporting unit has experienced increased competition and the loss of several large customers. The reporting unit has revised its 10-year earnings forecast to reflect the decreased profitability outlook, and, as a result, the Company recognized a goodwill impairment loss of $18 million in the first quarter of 2002 in the Performance Chemicals segment.



•

The Rubber reporting unit has faced increased competition and rapidly rising hydrocarbon costs with a significant oversupply of natural rubber, resulting in steadily declining margins. Revisions were made to the 10-year earnings forecast to reflect these negative trends and, as a result, a goodwill impairment loss of $4 million was recognized in the first quarter of 2002 in the Plastics segment.

        As required by SFAS No. 142, the Company also reassessed the useful lives and the classification of its identifiable intangible assets and determined them to be appropriate. See Note E for disclosures related to goodwill and other intangible assets.

        In June 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations," which requires an entity to record the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred and a corresponding increase in the related long-lived asset. The liability is adjusted to its present value each period and the asset is depreciated over its useful life. A gain or loss may be incurred upon settlement of the liability. SFAS No. 143 was effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2002. Adoption of SFAS No. 143 on January 1, 2003 resulted in the recognition of an asset retirement obligation of $45 million and a charge of $9 million (net of tax of $5 million), which was included in "Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles." See Note H for disclosures related to asset retirement obligations.

        In June 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, "Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities," which nullifies Emerging Issues Task Force ("EITF") Issue 94-3, "Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity." This statement, which was effective for exit or disposal activities initiated after December 31, 2002, will change the measurement and timing of costs associated with exit and disposal activities undertaken by the Company in the future.

6

        In the first quarter of 2003, Dow adopted the fair value provisions of SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation," for new grants of equity instruments (which include stock options, deferred stock grants, and subscriptions to purchase shares under the Company's Employees' Stock Purchase Plan) to employees. Dow expects the incremental after-tax expense associated with awards of stock options to be approximately $0.02 per share in 2003, growing to approximately $0.06 per share in 2005. These estimates were based on the terms of Dow's stock option plans and current assumptions for stock option grants and valuation, which may change when stock options are granted in the future. See Note I for disclosures required by SFAS No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation—Transition and Disclosure."

        In November 2002, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation ("FIN") No. 45, "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others." FIN No. 45 clarifies the requirements of SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," relating to the guarantor's accounting for and disclosures of certain guarantees issued. The initial recognition and measurement provisions of the interpretation are applicable on a prospective basis to guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002, irrespective of the guarantor's fiscal year-end. The disclosure requirements of the interpretation are effective for financial statements of interim or annual periods ending after December 15, 2002. The Company's disclosures related to guarantees can be found in Note F.

        In January 2003, the FASB issued FIN No. 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities." FIN No. 46 clarifies the application of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, "Consolidated Financial Statements," to certain entities in which equity investors do not have the characteristics of a controlling financial interest or in which equity investors do not bear the residual economic risks. The interpretation was immediately applicable to variable interest entities ("VIEs") created after January 31, 2003, and to VIEs in which an enterprise obtains an interest after that date. It applies in the fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003, to VIEs in which an enterprise holds a variable interest that was acquired before February 1, 2003. See Note G for disclosures regarding the Company's VIEs, and the expected impact of adoption in the third quarter of 2003.

        In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 150, "Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity." SFAS No. 150 requires the classification of certain financial instruments that embody obligations for the issuer as liabilities (or assets in some circumstances). SFAS No. 150 is effective for financial instruments entered into or modified after May 31, 2003, and otherwise is effective at the beginning of the first interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. The Company has evaluated the preferred securities previously issued by two consolidated subsidiaries and concluded that the $500 million of preferred securities issued by Hobbes Capital S.A. is outside of the scope of the standard and will continue to be classified as preferred securities of subsidiaries. The $500 million of preferred partnership units issued by Tornado Finance V.O.F. ("Tornado") is within the scope of the standard and must be classified as a liability of the Company upon adoption of SFAS No. 150 on July 1, 2003; however, the rights of the holders of Tornado's preferred partnership units were subsequently modified to eliminate the unconditional mandatory redemption feature. Therefore, the preferred partnership units will be classified as preferred securities of subsidiaries when the financial statements are issued for the third quarter of 2003. See Note P to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 for additional information regarding preferred securities of subsidiaries.

NOTE C—MERGER-RELATED EXPENSES AND RESTRUCTURING

Merger-Related Expenses and Restructuring

        On February 6, 2001, the merger of Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide") with a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company was completed, and Union Carbide became a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow. Following the completion of the Union Carbide merger, Dow's management made certain decisions relative to employment levels, duplicate assets and facilities and excess capacity resulting from the merger. These decisions resulted in a pretax special charge in the first quarter of 2001 of $1.4 billion. The planned merger-related program was substantially completed in the third quarter of 2002. Complete disclosures relative to the program and the activity in the merger-related special charge reserve can be found in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. In conjunction with this program, one-time merger and integration costs of $23 million, exclusively related to the merger, were recorded in the second quarter of 2002.

        During the fourth quarter of 2002, an additional charge of $34 million was recorded for merger-related severance. Under this revised severance program, $62 million was paid to 746 former employees in the first quarter of 2003.

7

Other Restructuring

        In late 2002, immediately following the appointment of a new President and CEO, management began a series of studies to determine potential actions relative to under-performing assets and employment levels. Prior to the end of 2002, certain studies were completed and management made decisions relative to certain assets. The economic effects of these decisions resulted in a pretax charge in the fourth quarter of 2002 of $168 million, which included $37 million for severance for 624 employees (included in Unallocated and Other for segment reporting purposes). The charge for severance was based on severance plans communicated to employees. In the first half of 2003, severance of $13 million was paid to approximately 230 former employees, leaving an accrual balance of $24 million to be paid to approximately 415 employees. The program is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2003.

        In the first quarter of 2003, additional studies regarding non-strategic and under-performing assets were completed and management made decisions relative to certain assets. These decisions resulted in the write-down of the net book value of several manufacturing facilities totaling $37 million (the largest of which was $16 million associated with the impairment and planned shutdown of Union Carbide's Seadrift, Texas, ethylene cracker in the third quarter of 2003), the impairment of Union Carbide's chemical transport vessel (sold in the second quarter of 2003) of $11 million, and the write-off of cancelled capital projects totaling $12 million.

NOTE D—INVENTORIES

        The following table provides a breakdown of inventories at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002:

        The reserves reducing inventories from the first-in, first-out ("FIFO") basis to the last-in, first-out ("LIFO") basis amounted to $365 million at June 30, 2003 and $209 million at December 31, 2002.

NOTE E—GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS

        The following table shows changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the six months ended June 30, 2003, by operating segment:

8

        The following table provides information regarding the Company's other intangible assets:

Other Intangible Assets

        The following table provides a summary of acquisitions of intangible assets for the six months ended June 30, 2003:

        Amortization expense for other intangible assets (not including software) was $15 million in the second quarter of 2003, compared with $19 million in the same period last year. Year to date, amortization expense for other intangible assets (not including software) was $30 million, compared with $33 million for the first six months of 2002. Amortization expense for software, which is included in cost of sales, totaled $7 million in the second quarter, compared with $6 million last year. For the first six months of this year, amortization expense for software was $14 million, up from $11 million in the same period last year. Total estimated amortization expense for 2003 and the five succeeding fiscal years is as follows:

9

NOTE F—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Litigation

Breast Implant Matters

        On May 15, 1995, Dow Corning Corporation ("Dow Corning"), in which the Company is a 50 percent shareholder, voluntarily filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve litigation related to Dow Corning's breast implant and other silicone medical products. As a consequence of that action and prior charges taken by Dow Corning, the Company fully reserved its investment in Dow Corning and reserved its 50 percent share of equity earnings through the third quarter of 2000.

        The Company's financial statement exposure for breast implant product liability claims against Dow Corning is limited to its investment in Dow Corning, which, after fully reserving its investment in Dow Corning and reserving its share of equity earnings through the third quarter of 2000, is not material. As a result, any future charges by Dow Corning related to such claims or as a result of the Chapter 11 proceeding would not have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

        The Company is separately named as a defendant in more than 14,000 breast implant product liability cases, of which approximately 4,000 state cases are the subject of summary judgments in favor of the Company. In these situations, plaintiffs have alleged that the Company should be liable for Dow Corning's alleged torts based on the Company's 50 percent stock ownership in Dow Corning and that the Company should be liable by virtue of alleged "direct participation" by the Company or its agents in Dow Corning's breast implant business. These latter, direct participation claims include counts sounding in strict liability, fraud, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, concert of action and negligence.

        Judge Sam C. Pointer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama was appointed by the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to oversee all of the product liability cases involving silicone breast implants filed in the U.S. federal courts. Initially, in a ruling issued on December 1, 1993, Judge Pointer granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no basis on which a jury could conclude that the Company was liable for any claimed defects in the breast implants manufactured by Dow Corning. In an interlocutory opinion issued on April 25, 1995, Judge Pointer affirmed his earlier ruling as to plaintiffs' corporate control claims but vacated that ruling as to plaintiffs' direct participation claims.

        On July 7, 1998, Dow Corning, the Company and Corning Incorporated ("Corning"), on the one hand, and the Tort Claimants' Committee in Dow Corning's bankruptcy on the other, agreed on a binding Term Sheet to resolve all tort claims involving Dow Corning's silicone medical products, including the claims against Corning and the Company (collectively, the "Shareholders"). The agreement set forth in the Term Sheet was memorialized in a Joint Plan of Reorganization (the "Joint Plan") filed by Dow Corning and the Tort Claimants' Committee (collectively, the "Proponents") on November 9, 1998. On February 4, 1999, the Bankruptcy Court approved the disclosure statement describing the Joint Plan. Before the Joint Plan could become effective, however, it was subject to a vote by the claimants, a confirmation hearing and all relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Voting was completed on May 14, 1999, and the confirmation hearing concluded on July 30, 1999.

        On November 30, 1999, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Order confirming the Joint Plan, but then issued an Opinion on December 21, 1999, that, in the view of the Proponents and the Shareholders, improperly interpreted or attempted to modify certain provisions of the Joint Plan affecting the resolution of tort claims involving Dow Corning's silicone medical products against various entities, including the Shareholders. Many of the parties in interest, including the Shareholders, filed various motions and appeals seeking, among other things, a clarification of the December 21, 1999 Opinion. These motions and appeals were heard by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Page Hood on April 12 and 13, 2000, and on November 13, 2000, Judge Hood affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's November 30, 1999 Order confirming the Joint Plan and reversed, in part, the Bankruptcy Court's December 21, 1999 Opinion, including that portion of the Opinion the Shareholders had appealed. In turn, various parties in interest appealed Judge Hood's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which heard oral arguments in the matter on October 23, 2001. On January 29, 2002, the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion which, among other things, affirmed Judge Hood's determination that claims against various entities, including the Shareholders, may be enjoined where "unusual circumstances" exist, and remanded the case to the District Court for certain factual determinations. On December 11, 2002, Judge Hood found that the release and injunction provisions of the Plan were appropriate based on the factual determination that "unusual circumstances" do exist in this case. The effectiveness of the Joint Plan remains subject to any subsequent appellate action. Accordingly, there can be no assurance at this time that the Joint Plan will become effective.

10

        It is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that plaintiffs will prevail on the theory that the Company should be liable in the breast implant litigation because of its shareholder relationship with Dow Corning. The Company's management believes that there is no merit to plaintiffs' claims that the Company is liable for alleged defects in Dow Corning's silicone products because of the Company's alleged direct participation in the development of those products, and the Company intends to contest those claims vigorously. Management believes that the possibility is remote that a resolution of plaintiffs' direct participation claims, including the vigorous defense against those claims, would have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or cash flows. Nevertheless, in light of Judge Pointer's April 25, 1995 ruling, it is possible that a resolution of plaintiffs' direct participation claims, including the vigorous defense against those claims, could have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations for a particular period, although it is impossible at this time to estimate the range or amount of any such impact.

DBCP Matters

        Numerous lawsuits have been brought against the Company and other chemical companies, both inside and outside of the United States, alleging that the manufacture, distribution or use of pesticides containing dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") has caused personal injury and property damage, including contamination of groundwater. It is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that the resolution of such lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Environmental Matters

        Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated, based on current law and existing technologies. The Company had accrued obligations of $394 million at December 31, 2002, for environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $43 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. At June 30, 2003, the Company had accrued obligations of $388 million for environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $37 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. This is management's best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the Company has accrued liabilities, although the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to twice that amount. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and evolving technologies for handling site remediation and restoration.

        Separately, on June 12, 2003, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") issued a Hazardous Waste Operating License to the Company's Midland, Michigan manufacturing site, which included provisions requiring the Company to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of off-site contamination in Midland area soils; Tittabawassee and Saginaw River sediment and floodplain soils; and Saginaw Bay. The operating license requires the Company, by August 11, 2003, to propose a detailed Statement of Work for the off-site investigation, for review and approval by the MDEQ.

        It is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of those accrued or disclosed will have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Asbestos-Related Matters of Union Carbide Corporation

        Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages, often in very large amounts. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide's products.

        The rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits against various companies, including Union Carbide and Amchem, increased in both 2001 and 2002, influenced by the bankruptcy filings of numerous defendants in asbestos-related litigation. Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future. Union Carbide will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims.

11

        Typically, Union Carbide is only one of many named defendants, many of which, including Union Carbide and Amchem, were members of the Center for Claims Resolution ("CCR"), an entity that defended and resolved asbestos cases on behalf of its members. As members of the CCR, Union Carbide's and Amchem's strategy was to resolve the claims against them at the relatively small percentage allocated to them pursuant to the CCR's collective defense. The CCR ceased operating in February 2001, except to administer certain settlements. Union Carbide then began using Peterson Asbestos Claims Enterprise, but only for claims processing and insurance invoicing.

        Certain members of Dow's legal department and certain Dow management personnel have been retained to provide their experience in mass tort litigation to assist Union Carbide in responding to asbestos-related matters. In early 2002, Union Carbide hired new outside counsel to serve as national trial counsel. In connection with these actions, aggressive defense strategies were designed to reduce the cost of resolving all asbestos-related claims, including the elimination of claims that lack demonstrated illness or causality.

        At the end of 2001 and through the third quarter of 2002, Union Carbide had concluded it was not possible to estimate its cost of disposing of asbestos-related claims that might be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future due to a number of reasons, including its lack of sufficient comparable loss history from which to assess either the number or value of future asbestos-related claims. During the third and fourth quarters of 2002, Union Carbide worked with Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation ("ARPC"), a consulting firm with broad experience in estimating resolution costs associated with mass tort litigation, including asbestos, to explore whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of disposing of pending and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against Union Carbide and Amchem.

        Union Carbide provided ARPC with all relevant data regarding asbestos-related claims filed against Union Carbide and Amchem through November 6, 2002. ARPC concluded that it was not possible to estimate the full range of the cost of resolving future asbestos-related claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, because of various uncertainties associated with the litigation of those claims. These uncertainties, which hindered Union Carbide's ability to project future claim volumes and resolution costs, included the following:

•

Until a series of bankruptcies led to the CCR ceasing operations in early 2001, Union Carbide and Amchem generally settled claims filed against CCR members according to a sharing formula that would not necessarily reflect the cost of resolving those claims had they been separately litigated against Union Carbide or Amchem.



•

The bankruptcies in the years 2000 to 2002 of other companies facing large asbestos liability were a likely contributing cause of a sharp increase in filings against many defendants, including Union Carbide and Amchem.



•

It was not until the CCR ceased operating in early 2001 that Union Carbide took direct responsibility for the defense of claims against itself and Amchem.



•

New defense counsel for Union Carbide and Amchem implemented more aggressive defense strategies in mid-2002.

        Despite its inability to estimate the full range of the cost of resolving future asbestos-related claims, ARPC advised Union Carbide that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims likely to face Union Carbide and Amchem, if certain assumptions were made. Specifically, ARPC advised Union Carbide that for purposes of determining an estimate it is reasonable to assume that in the near term asbestos-related claims filed against Union Carbide and Amchem are unlikely to return to levels below those experienced prior to 2001—when the recent spike in filings commenced—and that average claim values are unlikely to return to levels below those experienced in 2001-2002, the years immediately following CCR's cessation of operations. ARPC advised Union Carbide that, by assuming that future filings were unlikely to exceed the levels experienced prior to 2001 and extrapolating from 2001 and 2002 average claim values, ARPC could make a reasonable forecast of the cost of resolving asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. ARPC also advised Union Carbide that forecasts of resolution costs for a 10 to 15 year period from the date of the forecast are likely to be more accurate than forecasts for longer periods of time.

        In projecting Union Carbide's resolution costs for future asbestos-related claims, ARPC applied two methodologies that have been widely used for forecasting purposes. Applying these methodologies, ARPC forecast the number and allocation by disease category of those potential future claims on a year-by-year basis through 2049. ARPC then calculated the percentage of claims in each disease category that had been closed with payments in 2001 and 2002. Using those percentages, ARPC calculated the number of future claims by disease category that would likely require payment by Union Carbide and Amchem and multiplied the number of such claims by the mean values paid by Union Carbide and Amchem, respectively, to dispose of such claims in 2001 and 2002. In estimating Union Carbide's cost of resolving pending claims, ARPC used a process similar to that used for calculating the cost of resolving future claims.

12

        As of December 31, 2002, ARPC estimated the undiscounted cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, excluding future defense and processing costs, for the 15-year period from the present through 2017 to be between approximately $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion, depending on which of the two accepted methodologies was used.

        Although ARPC provided estimates for a longer period of time, based on ARPC's advice that forecasts for shorter periods of time are more accurate and in light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, Union Carbide determined that the 15-year period through 2017 is the reasonable time period for projecting the cost of disposing of its future asbestos-related claims. Union Carbide concluded that it is probable that the undiscounted cost of disposing of asbestos-related pending and future claims ranges from $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion, which is the range for the 15-year period ending in 2017 as estimated by ARPC using both methodologies. Accordingly, Union Carbide increased its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims at December 31, 2002 to $2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. At June 30, 2003, Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $2.1 billion.

        Union Carbide also increased the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35 billion at December 31, 2002, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability coverage. This resulted in a net income statement impact to Union Carbide of $828 million, $522 million on an after-tax basis, in the fourth quarter of 2002. At June 30, 2003, Union Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was $1.2 billion. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was determined by Union Carbide after a thorough review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which Union Carbide and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance carriers. In addition, Union Carbide had receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers for reimbursement of $219 million at December 31, 2002 and $254 million at June 30, 2003.

        The amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability and related insurance receivable described above were based upon currently known facts. However, projecting future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among insurers, and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Union Carbide expenses defense and processing costs as incurred. Accordingly, defense and processing costs incurred by Union Carbide in the future for asbestos-related litigation, net of insurance, will impact Union Carbide's results of operations in future periods.

        Because of the uncertainties described above, Union Carbide's management cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. Union Carbide's management believes that it is reasonably possible that the cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including future defense and processing costs, could have a material adverse impact on Union Carbide's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of Union Carbide.

        It is the opinion of Dow's management that it is reasonably possible that the cost of Union Carbide disposing of its asbestos-related claims, including future defense and processing costs, could have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of the Company.

Other Litigation Matters

        In addition to the breast implant, DBCP and environmental remediation matters, the Company is party to a number of other claims and lawsuits arising out of the normal course of business with respect to commercial matters, including product liability, governmental regulation and other actions. Certain of these actions purport to be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts. All such claims are being contested. Dow has an active risk management program consisting of numerous insurance policies secured from many carriers at various times. These policies provide coverage that will be utilized to minimize the impact, if any, of the contingencies described above.

        Except for the possible effect of Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability described above and the possible effect on the Company's net income for breast implant litigation, also described above, it is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that the aggregate of all claims and lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

13

Purchase Commitments

        The Company has three major agreements for the purchase of ethylene-related products in Canada. The purchase prices are determined on a cost-of-service basis, which, in addition to covering all operating expenses and debt service costs, provides the owner of the manufacturing plants with a specified return on capital. Total purchases under the agreements were $293 million in 2002, $221 million in 2001 and $178 million in 2000.

        At December 31, 2002, the Company had various outstanding commitments for take or pay and throughput agreements, including the purchase agreements referred to above, with terms extending from one to 25 years. In general, such commitments were at prices not in excess of current market prices. The fixed and determinable portion of obligations under these purchase commitments at December 31, 2002 are presented in the following table:

        In addition to the take or pay obligations at December 31, 2002, the Company had outstanding purchase commitments which ranged from one to 23 years for steam, electrical power, materials, property and other items used in the normal course of business of approximately $158 million. In general, such commitments were at prices not in excess of current market prices. At December 31, 2002, the Company was also committed to lease manufacturing facilities under construction in The Netherlands and a pipeline under construction in Germany. At June 30, 2003, the Company was also committed to lease manufacturing facilities under construction in Germany.

Guarantees

        The Company provides a variety of guarantees, as described more fully in the following sections.

Guarantees

        Guarantees arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with customers and nonconsolidated affiliates when the Company undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others (via delivery of cash or other assets) if specified triggering events occur. Non-performance under a contract by the guaranteed party triggers the obligation of the Company. Such non-performance usually relates to commercial obligations or loans.

Residual Value Guarantees

        The Company provides guarantees related to leased assets specifying the residual value that will be available to the lessor at lease termination through sale of the assets to the lessee or third parties.

        The following tables provide a summary of the aggregate terms, maximum future payments and associated liability reflected in the consolidated balance sheet for each type of guarantee:

14

NOTE G—VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES

        At March 31, 2003, Dow had operating leases with nine special purpose entities that qualified as variable interest entities ("VIEs") under FIN No. 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities." Seven of the VIEs were dissolved during the second quarter of 2003, and the rights and obligations of the dissolved VIEs under the existing lease agreements were assumed by lessors that do not qualify as VIEs.

        During the second quarter of 2003, Dow terminated its lease of an ethylene facility in The Netherlands with a VIE and entered into a lease with a new owner trust, which qualifies as a VIE. Dow is not the primary beneficiary of the owner trust and is, therefore, not required to consolidate the owner trust. At June 30, 2003, the facility was valued at $394 million. Upon expiration of the lease, which matures in 2014, Dow may purchase the facility for an amount based upon a fair market value determination. At June 30, 2003, Dow had provided to the owner trust a residual value guarantee of $365 million, which represents Dow's maximum exposure to loss under the lease. Given the productive nature of the facility, it is probable that the facility will have continuing value to Dow or the owner trust in excess of the residual value guarantee.

        Dow has an operating lease with an entity that qualifies as a VIE under FIN No. 46. The VIE, which was established in 1998, is a foreign trust that leases ethylene and polyethylene manufacturing facilities in Argentina. Based on the terms of the lease agreement, which matures in 2017, and the residual value guarantee Dow provides to the lessor, the Company will be the primary beneficiary of the VIE, as defined in FIN No. 46. As a result, Dow will be required to consolidate the assets of $500 million and liabilities of $523 million held by the VIE in the third quarter of 2003. Upon adoption of FIN No. 46, accumulated depreciation expense of $23 million (after tax and minority interest) will be included in "Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles." Upon termination or expiration of the lease, Dow may return the assets to the lessor, renew the lease, or purchase the assets for an amount based on a fair market value determination. Dow had provided a residual value guarantee to the lessor of $455 million at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002, which represents Dow's maximum exposure to loss under the lease. Given the productive nature of the assets, it is probable they will have continuing value to Dow or another company in excess of the residual value guarantee.

        In September 2001, Hobbes Capital S.A. ("Hobbes"), a consolidated foreign subsidiary of the Company, issued $500 million of preferred securities in the form of equity certificates. The certificates provide a floating rate return (which may be reinvested) based on London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR"), and may be redeemed in 2008 and at seven-year intervals thereafter. The equity certificates have been classified as "Preferred Securities of Subsidiaries" in the consolidated balance sheets. The preferred return is included in "Minority interests' share in income" in the consolidated statements of income. Reinvested preferred returns are included in "Minority Interest in Subsidiaries" in the consolidated balance sheets. Hobbes qualifies as a VIE under FIN No. 46 and the Company will be the primary beneficiary of the VIE. Accordingly, upon adoption of FIN No. 46, Hobbes will continue to be a consolidated subsidiary.

NOTE H—ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS

        In accordance with SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations," the Company has recognized asset retirement obligations related to demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing sites in the United States, Germany, France and The Netherlands. In addition, the Company has recognized obligations related to capping activities at landfill sites in the United States, Canada and Brazil. At June 30, 2003, the aggregate carrying amount of asset retirement obligations recognized by the Company was $45 million. These obligations are included in the consolidated balance sheets as "Other noncurrent obligations."

15

        If the asset retirement obligation measurement and recognition provisions of SFAS No. 143 had been in effect on January 1, 2002, the aggregate carrying amount of those obligations on that date would have been $46 million. If the amortization of asset retirement cost and accretion of asset retirement obligation provisions of SFAS No. 143 had been in effect during 2001 and 2002, the impact on "Income before Cumulative Effect of Changes in Accounting Principles" and "Net Income Available for Common Stockholders" each year would have been immaterial. Further, the impact on earnings per common share (both basic and diluted) would have been less than $0.01 per share each year.

NOTE I—STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

        Prior to 2003, the Company accounted for its stock-based compensation plans (which include stock options, deferred stock grants, and subscriptions to purchase shares under the Company's Employees' Stock Purchase Plan ("ESPP")) using the intrinsic value method of accounting prescribed by APB Opinion No. 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees." Given the terms of the Company's plans, no compensation cost was recognized for its stock option plans or the ESPP in prior periods.

        Effective January 1, 2003, the Company began expensing stock-based compensation newly issued in 2003 to employees in accordance with the fair value based method of accounting set forth in SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation." The fair value of equity instruments issued to employees is measured on the date of grant and recognized as compensation expense over the applicable vesting period. The Company estimates the fair value of stock options and subscriptions to purchase shares under the ESPP using a binomial option-pricing model. The weighted-average assumptions used to calculate total stock-based compensation expense for 2003 and the pro forma results provided below for 2002 were as follows:

        The following table provides pro forma results as if the fair value based method had been applied to all outstanding and unvested awards, including stock options, deferred stock grants, and subscriptions to purchase shares under the ESPP, in each period:

16

NOTE J—OPERATING SEGMENTS AND GEOGRAPHIC AREAS

(1)

Dow uses "Earnings before Interest, Income Taxes and Minority Interests" ("EBIT") as its measure of profit/loss for segment reporting purposes. EBIT includes all operating items relating to the businesses and excludes items that principally apply to the Company as a whole. A reconciliation of EBIT to "Net Income Available for Common Stockholders" is provided below:

17

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

        The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a "safe harbor" for forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of The Dow Chemical Company and its subsidiaries ("Dow" or the "Company"). This section covers the current performance and outlook of the Company and each of its operating segments. The forward-looking statements contained in this section and in other parts of this document involve risks and uncertainties that may affect the Company's operations, markets, products, services, prices and other factors as more fully discussed elsewhere and in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, economic, competitive, legal, governmental and technological factors. Accordingly, there is no assurance that the Company's expectations will be realized. The Company assumes no obligation to provide revisions to any forward-looking statements should circumstances change, except as otherwise required by securities and other applicable laws.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Selected data for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002: