Back to GetFilings.com

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

FORM 10-Q

Commission file number 1-11840

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

        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

        As of July 31, 2003, the registrant had 703,720,048 common shares, $.01 par value, outstanding.

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION
INDEX TO QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
June 30, 2003

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

1

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

2

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)

1.     Basis of Presentation

        The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of The Allstate Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries, primarily Allstate Insurance Company, a property-liability insurance company with various property-liability and life and investment subsidiaries, including Allstate Life Insurance Company ("ALIC") (collectively referred to as the "Company" or "Allstate").

        The condensed consolidated financial statements and notes as of June 30, 2003, and for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 are unaudited. The condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring accruals) which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for the fair presentation of the financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods. These condensed consolidated financial statements and notes should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in Appendix D of the Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement dated March 28, 2003. The results of operations for the interim periods should not be considered indicative of results to be expected for the full year.

        Non-cash investment exchanges and modifications, which primarily reflect refinancings of fixed income securities and mergers completed with equity securities, totaled $46 million and $112 million for the six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

Adopted accounting standards

        In December 2002, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Statement on Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure", which amends SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation". This amendment enables companies that choose to adopt the fair value based method to report the full effect of employee stock options in their financial statements immediately upon adoption. The statement sets forth clearer and more prominent disclosures about the cost of employee stock options and increases the frequency of those disclosures to include publication in quarterly financial statements. Beginning January 1, 2003, the Company began expensing the fair value of all stock options granted on or after January 1, 2003. Based on estimated 2003 stock option grants, the impact to the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ending December 31, 2003 is expected to be approximately $6 million, after-tax.

4

        The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share as if the fair value based method, adopted prospectively by the Company on January 1, 2003, had been applied to all outstanding and unvested awards in each period.

Pending accounting standards

        In January 2003, the FASB issued Financial Interpretation No. 46 ("FIN 46"), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities". FIN 46 addresses issues related to the consolidation of variable interest entities ("VIEs"). The effective date of this interpretation is the first fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. The Company has four unconsolidated special purpose entities ("SPEs") and two consolidated SPEs that fall within the scope of FIN 46. Of the unconsolidated SPEs, two are used to hold assets under the management of an affiliate on behalf of third-party investors, another was used to acquire a headquarters office building and up to 38 automotive collision repair stores, and the remaining unconsolidated SPE is used to issue Global Medium Term Notes ("GMTNs") to unrelated third parties. Of the consolidated SPEs, one was used to issue Euro Medium Term Notes ("EMTNs") and the other to issue Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Securities. The Company is in the process of assessing whether its investment management SPEs will require consolidation under FIN 46. The SPE used to acquire the headquarters office building and up to 38 automotive collision repair stores will likely require consolidation; however, the SPE used to issue GMTNs will likely not require consolidation as described below. The Company believes the SPEs currently consolidated under existing authoritative accounting guidance will be deconsolidated under FIN 46 as described below.

        Allstate issues funding agreements to an SPE (which the Company believes would be considered a VIE under FIN 46) used to issue GMTNs to unrelated third parties. The Company believes the GMTNs and certain equity interests issued by the SPE, to the extent they are exposed to all the risks and rewards of the funding agreements that collateralize the GMTNs, would be considered variable interests in a VIE. Applying the FIN 46 consolidation model, any entity exposed to a majority of the residual risks or possessing rights to a majority of the residual returns of the VIE is required to consolidate the entity. Because the Company owns none of the variable interests issued by the VIE it should not be required to consolidate the SPE but rather would continue to classify funding agreements issued to the VIE as a component of Contractholder funds. The same FIN 46 consolidation determination will apply to the Company's Euro Medium Term Notes program as of July 1, 2003, and consistent with the GMTN program, will result in the deconsolidation of the EMTNs and recognition of the funding agreements issued to the VIE as a component of Contractholder funds, which is equivalent to the existing accounting for this program.

        Excluding the SPE used to issue GMTNs, the assets and liabilities of the Company's three remaining unconsolidated SPEs totaled $816 million and $797 million, respectively, at June 30, 2003. The Company's maximum exposure to loss from the investment management SPEs is its current carrying value of $11 million. The Company's maximum exposure of loss to the SPE used to acquire a headquarters office building is $85 million both in the form of a residual value guarantee and a guarantee of the SPE's notes. Upon adoption of FIN 46, the Company's debt-to-capital ratio would be negatively impacted if any of the Company's SPEs, with the exception of the SPE used to issue GMTNs

5

for which the Company already reports the liability for the funding agreements as a component of Contractholder funds, is determined to be a VIE requiring consolidation; however, the impact is not anticipated to affect the Company's compliance with existing debt covenants.

        In addition to the preceding, the Company has one SPE, used to issue $200 million of Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Securities of Subsidiary Trust, that is currently consolidated pursuant to existing authoritative accounting guidance, but will be de-consolidated upon adoption of FIN 46. Under FIN 46, the nominal equity capital of the SPE together with other attributes result in the designation of the SPE as a VIE. The Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Securities of Subsidiary Trust issued to un-related third parties are considered the principal variable interests issued by the VIE. The Company does not own any of the Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Securities of Subsidiary Trust issued by the VIE and as a result will not be designated its primary beneficiary and will not be required to consolidate the VIE upon adoption of FIN 46. The adoption of FIN 46, effective July 1, 2003, will result in deconsolidation of the Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Securities of Subsidiary Trust and simultaneous recognition of an equivalent note payable, previously issued by the Company to the SPE and held as collateral for the Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Securities of Subsidiary Trust, as a component of Long-term debt. The impact of this reclassification will not be material to the Company's Consolidated Statements of Financial Position.

        In April 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 149, "Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities". The statement amends, clarifies and codifies financial accounting and reporting for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts and utilized for hedging activities under SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities". The statement applies only to certain derivative contracts and embedded derivatives entered into after June 30, 2003. The impact of adopting the provisions of the statement will not be material to the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations or Financial Position.

        In July 2003, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants issued Statement of Position ("SOP") 03-01 entitled "Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises for Certain Nontraditional Long-Duration Contracts and for Separate Accounts". The accounting guidance contained in the SOP applies to several of the Company's insurance products and product features. The effective date of the SOP is for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2003, with earlier adoption encouraged. If adopted early, the provisions of the SOP must be applied as of the beginning of the fiscal year. Accordingly, if the SOP were adopted during an interim period of 2003, prior interim periods would be restated. A provision of the SOP requires the establishment of a liability in addition to the account balance for contracts and contract features that provide guaranteed death or other insurance benefits and guaranteed income benefits. These liabilities are not currently recognized by the Company, and their establishment may have a material impact on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations depending on the market conditions at the time of adoption, but is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position.

Proposed standards

        The Emerging Issues Task Force ("EITF") issued Topic No. 03-01, "The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments", which attempts to define other-than-temporary impairment and highlight its application to investment securities accounted for under both SFAS No. 115, "Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities" and Accounting Principles Board ("APB") Opinion No. 18, "The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stocks". The current issue summary, which has yet to be finalized, proposes that if, at the evaluation date, the fair value of an investment security is less than its carrying value then an impairment exists for which a determination must be made as to whether that impairment is other-than-temporary. If it is determined that an impairment is other-than-temporary, then an impairment loss should be recognized equal to the difference between the investment's carrying value and its fair value at the reporting date. In its most recent deliberations, the EITF discussed different models to assess whether impairment is other-than-temporary for different types of investments (e.g. SFAS 115 marketable equity securities, SFAS 115 debt securities, and equity and cost method investments subject to APB Opinion No. 18). Due to the uncertainty of the final model or models that may be adopted, the estimated impact to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Financial Position is presently not determinable.

6

2.     Earnings per share

        Basic earnings per share is computed based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per share is computed based on the weighted average number of common and dilutive potential common shares outstanding. For Allstate, dilutive potential common shares consist of the common shares underlying outstanding stock options.

        The computations of basic and diluted earnings per share are presented in the following table.

        Options to purchase 11.3 million and 9.0 million Allstate common shares, with exercise prices ranging from $36.30 to $50.72 and $38.69 to $50.72, were outstanding at June 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the three-month periods ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 since inclusion of these options would have an anti-dilutive effect as the options' exercise prices exceeded the average market price of Allstate common shares in the three-month period. Options to purchase 11.3 million and 11.3 million Allstate common shares, with exercise prices ranging from $35.17 to $50.72 and $36.61 to $50.72, were outstanding at June 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 since inclusion of these options would have an anti-dilutive effect.

7

3.     Reserve for Property-Liability Insurance Claims and Claims Expense

        The Company establishes reserves for claims and claims expense on reported and unreported claims of insured losses. These reserve estimates are based on known facts and interpretations of circumstances and internal factors including the Company's experience with similar cases, historical trends involving claim payment patterns, loss payments, pending levels of unpaid claims, loss management programs and product mix. In addition, the reserve estimates are influenced by external factors including law changes, court decisions, changes to regulatory requirements, economic conditions, and public attitudes. The Company, in the normal course of business, may also supplement its claims processes by utilizing third party adjusters, appraisers, engineers, inspectors, other professionals and information sources to assess and settle catastrophe and non-catastrophe related claims. The effects of inflation are implicitly considered in the reserving process.

        Because reserves are based on estimations of future losses, the establishment of appropriate reserves, including reserves for catastrophes, is an inherently uncertain process. The ultimate costs of losses may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on management's best estimates of future losses. Allstate regularly updates its reserve estimates as new information becomes available and as events unfold that may impact the resolution of unsettled claims. Changes in prior year reserve estimates, which may be material, are reflected in the results of operations in the period such changes are determinable.

        Management believes that the reserve for claims and claims expense, net of reinsurance recoverables, at June 30, 2003 is appropriately established in the aggregate and adequate to cover the ultimate net cost of reported and unreported claims arising from losses which had occurred by the date.

        Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $680 million and $635 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $313 million and $269 million at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002, respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $292 million and $304 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $80 million and $89 million at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002, respectively. Approximately 52% and 54% of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002, respectively, were for incurred but not reported estimated losses.

        Allstate's reserves for asbestos and environmental exposures could be affected by tort reform, class action litigation, and other potential legislation and judicial decisions. Environmental exposures could also be affected by a change in the existing federal Superfund law and similar state statutes. There can be no assurance that any reform legislation will be enacted or that any such legislation will provide for a fair, effective and cost-efficient system for settlement of asbestos or environmental claims. Management is unable to determine the effect, if any, that such legislation will have on results of operations or financial position.

        Management believes its net loss reserves for environmental, asbestos and other discontinued lines exposures are appropriately established based on available facts, technology, laws and regulations. However, due to the inconsistencies of court coverage decisions, unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage, unresolved legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing of exhaustion of policy limits, evolving and plaintiffs' expanded theories of liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, availability and collectibility of recoveries from reinsurance, retrospectively determined premiums and other contractual agreements, and estimating the extent and timing of any contractual liability, and other uncertainties, the ultimate cost of these claims may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded, resulting in an increase in loss reserves. In addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the uncertainties and factors described above, management believes it is not practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional net loss reserves that may be required.

8

4.     Reinsurance

        Property-liability insurance premiums and life and annuity premiums and contract charges are net of the following reinsurance ceded:

        Property-liability insurance claims and claims expense and life and annuity contract benefits are net of the following reinsurance recoveries:

5.     Regulation, Legal Proceedings and Guarantees

Regulation

        The Company is subject to changing social, economic and regulatory conditions. State and federal regulatory initiatives and proceedings have varied and have included efforts to adversely influence and restrict premium rates including requiring the return of excess profits, to restrict the Company's ability to cancel policies, to impose underwriting standards, to remove barriers preventing banks from engaging in the securities and insurance businesses, to change tax laws affecting the taxation of insurance companies and the tax treatment of insurance products which may impact the relative desirability of various personal investment products and to expand overall regulation. The ultimate changes and eventual effects, if any, of these initiatives are uncertain.

Legal proceedings

        There are two active nationwide class action lawsuits against Allstate regarding its specification of after-market (non-original equipment manufacturer) replacement parts in the repair of insured vehicles. One of these suits alleges that the specification of such parts constitutes breach of contract and fraud, and this suit mirrors to a large degree lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry. The plaintiffs allege that after-market parts are not "of like kind and quality" as required by the insurance policy, and they are seeking actual and punitive damages. In the second lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Allstate and three co-defendants have violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to manipulate the price of auto physical damage coverages in such a way that not all savings realized by the use of aftermarket parts are passed on to the policyholders. The plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages. In November 2002, a nationwide class was certified in this case. The defendants filed a petition to appeal the certification, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted review of the certification. The Company has been vigorously defending both of these lawsuits, and their outcome is uncertain.

        There are a number of statewide and nationwide class action lawsuits pending against Allstate alleging that its failure to pay "inherent diminished value" to insureds under the collision, comprehensive, uninsured motorist property damage, or auto property damage liability provisions of auto policies constitutes breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiffs

9

define "inherent diminished value" as the difference between the market value of the insured automobile before an accident and the market value after repair. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to the payment of inherent diminished value under the terms of the policy. To a large degree, these lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry. These lawsuits are pending in various state and federal courts, and they are in various stages of development. A class has been certified in only one case, a multi-state class action. The Company has been vigorously defending these lawsuits and, since 1998, has been implementing policy language in a majority of states reaffirming that its collision and comprehensive coverages do not include diminished value claims. In addition, there are three statewide putative class action lawsuits pending against Allstate alleging that it improperly deducts betterment in connection with the repair of vehicles. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        There are a number of state and nationwide class action lawsuits pending in various state courts challenging the legal propriety of Allstate's medical bill review processes on a number of grounds, including, among other things, the manner in which Allstate determines reasonableness and necessity. One nationwide class action has been certified. These lawsuits, which to a large degree mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry, allege these processes result in a breach of the insurance policy as well as fraud. The Company denies those allegations and has been vigorously defending these lawsuits. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        A number of nationwide and statewide putative class actions are pending against Allstate, which challenge Allstate's use of certain automated database vendors in valuing total loss automobiles. To a large degree, these lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry. Plaintiffs allege that flaws in these databases result in valuations to the detriment of insureds. The plaintiffs are seeking actual and punitive damages. The lawsuits are in various stages of development and Allstate has been vigorously defending them, but the outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        One putative statewide and a number of putative nationwide class action lawsuits have been filed in various courts seeking actual and punitive damages from Allstate and alleging that Allstate violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act or state law by failing to provide appropriate notices to applicants and/or policyholders when adverse action was taken as a result of information in a consumer report or by ordering consumer reports without a permissible purpose. These cases are all pending in federal courts, and all but one, recently filed in federal court in Louisiana, have been centralized in the federal court in Nashville, Tennessee. The Company is also defending a putative nationwide class action that alleges that the Company discriminates against non-Caucasian policyholders, through underwriting and rate-making practices including the use of credit by charging them higher premiums. The Company is also defending two putative statewide class actions challenging its use of credit under certain state insurance statutes. The Company denies these allegations and has been vigorously defending these lawsuits. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        Allstate is defending various lawsuits involving worker classification issues. Examples of these lawsuits include a number of putative class actions challenging the overtime exemption claimed by the Company under the Fair Labor Standards Act or state wage and hour laws. These class actions mirror similar lawsuits filed recently against other carriers in the industry and other employers. Another example involves the worker classification of staff working in agencies. In this putative class action, plaintiffs seek damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act alleging that agency secretaries were terminated as employees by Allstate and rehired by agencies through outside staffing vendors for the purpose of avoiding the payment of employee benefits. A putative nationwide class action filed by former employee agents also includes a worker classification issue; these agents are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes. Allstate has been vigorously defending these and various other worker classification lawsuits. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        The Company is also defending certain matters relating to the Company's agency program reorganization announced in 1999. These matters include an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor and a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") with respect to allegations of retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, breach of contract and age discrimination. Allstate has been vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to its agency program reorganization. In addition, Allstate is defending certain matters

10

relating to its life agency program reorganization announced in 2000. These matters include an investigation by the EEOC with respect to allegations of age discrimination and retaliation. Allstate is cooperating fully with the agency investigation and will continue to vigorously defend these and other claims related to the life agency program reorganization. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        The Company is defending various lawsuits and regulatory proceedings that allege that it engaged in business or sales practices inconsistent with state or federal law. The Company has been vigorously defending these matters, but their outcome is currently uncertain.

        Various other legal and regulatory actions are currently pending that involve the Company and specific aspects of its conduct of business. Like other members of the insurance industry, the Company is the target of an increasing number of class action lawsuits and other types of litigation, some of which involve claims for substantial and/or indeterminate amounts (including punitive and treble damages) and the outcomes of which are unpredictable. This litigation is based on a variety of issues including insurance and claim settlement practices. However, at this time, based on their present status, it is the opinion of management that the ultimate liability, if any, in one or more of these other actions in excess of amounts currently reserved is not expected to have a material effect on the results of operations, liquidity or financial position of the Company.

Shared markets

        As a condition of maintaining its licenses to write personal property and casualty insurance in various states, the Company is required to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint underwriting associations that provide various types of insurance coverage to individuals or entities that otherwise are unable to purchase such coverage from private insurers. Underwriting results related to these arrangements, which tend to be adverse, have been immaterial to the results of operations.

Guarantees

        The Company has guaranteed debt issued by the Allstate Real Estate Trust, an unconsolidated SPE, from which it leases a headquarters office building and up to 38 Sterling Collision centers. The lease contains a residual value guarantee for the properties covered by the lease. The maximum amount of potential future payments for the guarantee of the debt or the residual value guarantee or the combined debt and residual value guarantee was $85 million at June 30, 2003. The guarantees for the headquarters office building and Sterling Collision centers expire December 28, 2006. The Company also provides residual value guarantees on leased automobiles. If all outstanding leases were terminated effective June 30, 2003, the Company's maximum potential amount of future payments, assuming the automobiles have no residual value, is $24 million at June 30, 2003. The term of each residual value guarantee is equal to the term of the underlying lease which range from less than one year to three years. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments pursuant to these guarantees.

        The Company owns certain fixed income securities which contain credit default swaps or credit guarantees which contain obligations to exchange credit risk or to forfeit principal due, depending on the nature or occurrence of specified credit events for the referenced entities. In the event of a specified credit event, the Company's maximum amount at risk, assuming the value of the referenced credits become worthless, is $112 million at June 30, 2003. The credit default swaps and credit guarantees contained in these fixed income securities expire at various times during the next four years.

        Lincoln Benefit Life Company ("LBL"), a wholly owned subsidiary of ALIC has issued universal life insurance contracts to third parties who finance the premium payments on the universal life insurance contracts through a commercial paper program. LBL has issued a repayment guarantee on the outstanding commercial paper balance which is fully collateralized by the cash surrender value of the universal life insurance contracts. At June 30, 2003, the amount due under the commercial paper program is $299 million and the cash surrender value of the policies is $306 million. The repayment guarantee expires April 30, 2006.

        In the normal course of business, the Company provides standard indemnifications to counterparties in contracts in connection with numerous transactions, including indemnifications for breaches of representations and warranties, taxes and certain other liabilities, such as third party lawsuits. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms and were entered into in the normal course of business based on an assessment that the risk of loss would be

11

remote. The terms of the indemnifications vary in duration and nature. In many cases, the maximum obligation is not explicitly stated and the contingencies triggering the obligation to indemnify have not occurred and are not expected to occur. Because the obligated amounts of the indemnifications are not explicitly stated in many cases, the maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnifications is not determinable. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments pursuant to these obligations.

        In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries indemnify their respective directors, officers, non-officer employees and other individuals serving at the request of the Company as a director or officer or in a similar capacity in another entity to the extent provided in their charters and by-laws. Since these indemnifications are generally not subject to limitation with respect to duration or amount, the Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount due under these indemnifications.

        The aggregate liability balance related to all guarantees was not material as of June 30, 2003.

6.     Business Segments

        Summarized revenue data for each of the Company's business segments are as follows:

(1)

For presentation in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, service fees of the Corporate and Other segment are reclassified to Operating costs and expenses.

12

        Summarized financial performance data for each of the Company's reportable segments are as follows:

(1)

For presentation in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, service fees of the Corporate and Other segment are reclassified to Operating costs and expenses.

13

7.     Other Comprehensive Income

        The components of other comprehensive income on a pretax and after-tax basis are as follows:

14

        The components of other comprehensive income on a pretax and after-tax basis are as follows: