Back to GetFilings.com

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2003

Commission File No. 0-3681

MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (323) 937-1060

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act

NONE

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant at June 30, 2003 was approximately $1,184,000,000 (based upon the closing sales price on the New York Stock Exchange for such date, as reported by the Wall Street Journal).

At February 13, 2004, the Registrant had issued and outstanding an aggregate of 54,425,128 shares of its Common Stock.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Registrant to be held on May 12, 2004 are incorporated herein by reference into Part III hereof.

Item 1.    Business

General

Mercury General Corporation (“Mercury General”) and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) are engaged primarily in writing all risk classifications of automobile insurance in a number of states, principally California. During 2003, private passenger automobile insurance and commercial automobile insurance accounted for 87.4% and 4.0%, respectively, of the Company’s total gross premiums written. The percentage of gross automobile insurance premiums written during 2003 by state was 84.0% in California, 7.2% in Florida, 4.5% in Texas, 1.2% in Oklahoma, 0.9% in Illinois, 0.8% in Georgia and 1.4% in all other states. The Company also writes homeowners insurance, mechanical breakdown insurance, commercial and dwelling fire insurance and commercial property insurance. The non-automobile lines of insurance accounted for 8.6% of gross written premiums in 2003, of which approximately 12% was in commercial lines.

The Company offers automobile policyholders the following types of coverage: bodily injury liability, underinsured and uninsured motorist, personal injury protection, property damage liability, comprehensive, collision and other hazards. The Company’s published maximum limits of liability for bodily injury are $250,000 per person, $500,000 per accident and, for property damage, $250,000 per accident. Subject to special underwriting approval, the combined policy limits may be as high as $1,000,000 for vehicles written under the Company’s commercial automobile plan. However, under the majority of the Company’s automobile policies, the limits of liability are equal to or less than $100,000 per person, $300,000 per accident and $50,000 for property damage.

In 2003, all of the Company’s subsidiaries actively writing insurance, except American Mercury Insurance Company (“AMI”) and American Mercury Lloyds Insurance Company (“AML”), maintained a rating of A+ (Superior) by A.M. Best & Co. (“A.M. Best”). This is the second highest of the fifteen rating categories in the A.M. Best rating system, which range from A++ (Superior) to F (In Liquidation). Each of AMI and AML, which accounted for approximately 5% of the Company’s 2003 net written premiums, maintained an A.M. Best rating of A- (Excellent).

The principal executive offices of Mercury General are located in Los Angeles, California. The home office of its California insurance subsidiaries and the Company’s computer and operations center is located in Brea, California. During 2003, the Company opened a new 130,000 square foot office building in Rancho Cucamonga, California which is used to support the Company’s recent growth and future expansion. The Company maintains branch offices in a number of locations in California as well as branch offices in Richmond, Virginia, Latham, New York, Vernon Hills, Illinois, Atlanta, Georgia, Clearwater, Florida, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio, Texas. The Company has approximately 3,800 employees.

Website Access to Information

The internet address for the Company’s website is www.mercuryinsurance.com. The Company makes available on its website its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports (the “SEC Reports”) filed or furnished to the SEC pursuant to Federal securities laws as soon as reasonably practicable after each SEC Report is filed with, or furnished to the SEC. In addition, copies of the SEC Reports are available, without charge, upon written request to the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Mercury General Corporation, 4484 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010.

Organization

Mercury General, an insurance holding company, is the parent of Mercury Casualty Company (“Mercury Casualty” or “MCC”), a California automobile insurer founded in 1961 by George Joseph, Mercury General’s Chief Executive Officer. Including MCC, Mercury General has eighteen subsidiaries. The Company’s insurance operations in California are conducted through three California insurance company subsidiaries, Mercury Casualty, Mercury Insurance Company (“Mercury Insurance or MIC”), and California Automobile Insurance Company (“Cal Auto”). The Company formed two subsidiaries, Mercury Insurance Company of Georgia (“MICGA”) and Mercury Insurance

2

Company of Illinois (“MICIL”) in 1989 to write automobile insurance and added Mercury Indemnity Company of Georgia (“MIDGA”) and Mercury Indemnity Company of Illinois (“MIDIL”) in 1992 to write preferred risk automobile insurance in Georgia and Illinois. In December 1996, the Company acquired American Mercury Insurance Company (formerly, American Fidelity Insurance Company) and AFI Management Company, Inc. (“AFIMC”), a Texas corporation which serves as the attorney-in-fact for American Mercury Lloyds Insurance Company (formerly, American Fidelity Lloyds Insurance Company), a Texas insurer.

In December 1999, the Company acquired control of Concord Insurance Services, Inc. (“Concord”), a Texas insurance agency headquartered in Houston, Texas. In September 2000, the Company acquired the authority and right to manage and control Elm County Mutual Insurance Company, a mutual insurance company organized under Chapter 17 of the Texas Insurance Code. The acquisition was made through the purchase of a management agreement from Employers Reinsurance Corporation. Effective January 2, 2001, Elm County Mutual Insurance Company’s name was changed to Mercury County Mutual Insurance Company (“MCM”). In 2001, the Company expanded its operations into Virginia and New York. In December 2001, the Company received authority to write automobile insurance in the state of Florida through two newly established companies, Mercury Insurance Company of Florida (“MICFL”) and Mercury Indemnity Company of Florida (“MIDFL”). In January 2002, MICFL commenced writing new business as well as renewing business that was previously written through MCC in Florida.

In 2003, MIDFL changed its name to Mercury Indemnity Company of America (“MIDAM”) and in August 2003 commenced writing new business in the state of New Jersey through a network of brokers.

Management services are provided to Mercury General’s subsidiaries by Mercury Insurance Services, LLC (“MISLLC”), a subsidiary of Mercury Casualty. Mercury General and its subsidiaries are referred to collectively as the “Company” unless the context indicates otherwise. Mercury General Corporation individually is referred to as “Mercury General.” All of the subsidiaries as a group, excluding AFIMC, MISLLC and Concord, are referred to as the “Insurance Companies.” The term “California Companies” refers to Mercury Casualty, Mercury Insurance and Cal Auto.

Underwriting

The Company sets its own automobile insurance premium rates, subject to rating regulations issued by the Insurance Commissioners of the applicable states. Automobile insurance rates on voluntary business in California are subject to prior approval by the California Department of Insurance (“DOI”). The Company uses its own extensive data base to establish rates and classifications. The California DOI has in effect rating factor regulations that influence the weight the Company ascribes to various classifications of data.

At December 31, 2003, “good drivers” (as defined by the California Insurance Code) accounted for approximately 77% of all voluntary private passenger automobile policies in force in California, while the higher risk categories accounted for approximately 23%. The private passenger automobile renewal rate in California (the rate of acceptance of offers to renew) averages approximately 96%. The Company also offers homeowners insurance to California residents.

In states outside of California, the Company offers non-standard, standard and preferred private passenger automobile insurance. In addition the Company offers homeowners insurance in Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma and Georgia. Private passenger automobile policies in force for non-California operations represent approximately 15% of total private passenger automobile policies in force at December 31, 2003.

Production and Servicing of Business

The Company sells its policies through more than 3,300 independent agents and brokers, of which approximately 1,000 are located in each of California and Florida and approximately 400 represent AMI in Oklahoma and Texas. The remainder are located in Georgia, Illinois, Texas, New York, New Jersey and Virginia. Over half of

3

the agents and brokers in California have represented the Company for more than ten years. The agents and brokers, most of whom also represent one or more competing insurance companies, are independent contractors selected and appointed by the Company.

Other than one broker that produced approximately 16%, 16% and 17% during 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively, of the Company’s total direct premiums written, no agent or broker accounted for more than 2% of direct premiums written.

The Company believes that it compensates its agents and brokers above the industry average. During 2003, total commissions and bonuses incurred were 17.0% of net premiums written.

The Company’s advertising budget is allocated among television, newspaper, internet and direct mailing media to provide the best coverage available within defined media markets. While the majority of these advertising costs are borne by the Company, a portion of these costs are reimbursed by the Company’s agents and brokers based upon the number of account leads generated by the advertising. The Company believes that its advertising program is important to create brand awareness and to remain competitive in the current insurance climate and intends to maintain or possibly expand the current level of advertising in 2004 (See Competitive Conditions).

Claims

Claims operations are conducted by the Company. The claims staff administers all claims and directs all legal and adjustment aspects of the claims process. The Company adjusts most claims without the assistance of outside adjusters.

Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves

The Company maintains reserves for the payment of losses and loss adjustment expenses for both reported and unreported claims. Loss reserves are estimated based upon a case-by-case evaluation of the type of claim involved and the expected development of such claim. The amount of loss reserves and loss adjustment expense reserves for unreported claims are determined on the basis of historical information by line of insurance. Inflation is reflected in the reserving process through analysis of cost trends and reviews of historical reserving results.

The ultimate liability may be greater or less than stated loss reserves. Reserves are closely monitored and are analyzed quarterly by the Company’s actuarial consultants using current information on reported claims and a variety of statistical techniques. The Company does not discount to a present value that portion of its loss reserves expected to be paid in future periods. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 does, however, require the Company to discount loss reserves for Federal income tax purposes.

4

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of beginning and ending reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses, net of reinsurance deductions, as shown on the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the periods indicated:

The increase in the provision for insured events of prior years in 2003 relates largely to an increase in the ultimate liability for physical damage and collision claims over what was originally estimated. For 2002 and 2001, the increase largely relates to an increase in the ultimate liability for bodily injury, physical damage and collision claims over what was originally estimated. The increases in these claims relate to increased severity over what was originally recorded and are the result of inflationary trends in health care costs, auto parts and body shop labor costs.

In October 2003, the Southern California region was devastated by sweeping fire storms. The Company has estimated that its pre-tax loss exposure resulting from these fire storms is approximately $16 million.

The difference between the reserves reported in the Company’s consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and those reported in the statements filed with the DOI in accordance with statutory accounting principles (“SAP”) is shown in the following table:

5

Under SAP, reserves are stated net of reinsurance recoverable in contrast to GAAP where reserves are stated gross of reinsurance recoverable.

The following table represents the development of loss reserves for the period 1993 through 2003. The top line of the table shows the reserves at the balance sheet date, net of reinsurance recoverable for each of the indicated years. This represents the estimated amount of losses and loss adjustment expenses for claims arising in all prior years that are unpaid at the balance sheet date, including an estimate for losses that had been incurred but not yet reported to the Company. The upper portion of the table shows the cumulative amounts paid as of successive years with respect to that reserve liability. The middle portion of the table shows the re-estimated amount of the previously recorded reserves based on experience as of the end of each succeeding year, including cumulative payments made since the end of the respective year. The estimate changes as more information becomes known about the frequency and severity of claims for individual years. The bottom line shows the redundancy (deficiency) that exists when the original reserve estimates are greater (less) than the re-estimated reserves at December 31, 2003.

In evaluating the information in the table, it should be noted that each amount includes the effects of all changes in amounts for prior periods. This table does not present accident or policy year development data. Conditions and trends that have affected development of the liability in the past may not necessarily occur in the future. Accordingly, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate future redundancies or deficiencies based on this table.

6

For calendar years 1998 through 2002, the Company’s previously estimated loss reserves produced a deficiency which was reflected in the following years incurred losses. The Company attributes a large portion of the deficiency to an increase in the ultimate liability for bodily injury, physical damage and collision claims over what was originally estimated. The increases in these claims relate to increased severity over what was originally recorded and are the result of inflationary trends in health care costs, auto parts and body shop labor costs.

Throughout the 1990’s average bodily injury costs decreased until 1998 when they began to rise. Since individual losses for this coverage tend to develop slower than they do for the collision or physical damage line, it is difficult for the actuaries to identify such a change in trend until well after the year has closed. Furthermore, once the Company knows it is in an inflationary trend, it is difficult to determine the magnitude of the inflation due to the slower developing nature of the bodily injury claims.

During 2002, the Company increased the bodily injury severity inflation rate that it recorded for the 2001 and 2002 accident years from approximately 4% to approximately 8% on its California automobile lines which contributed significantly to the Company’s total adverse development on 2001 and prior accident years. During 2003, the Company increased the 2001 bodily injury severity inflation rate again to approximately 9%, reduced the 2002 rate to approximately 6% and recorded 2003 severity inflation at approximately 7%. Management monitors inflation trends closely and adjusts assumptions based on its best estimate from the information available at the time. Future information will become available which could change management’s assumptions.

For calendar year 1997, the Company’s previously estimated loss reserves produced a small deficiency indicating that the Company was reasonably accurate in establishing the initial reserve for that year.

For calendar years 1995 and 1996, the Company’s previously estimated loss reserves produced deficiencies. These deficiencies relate to increases in the Company’s ultimate estimates for loss adjustment expenses, which are based principally on the Company’s actual experience. The adverse development on such reserves reflects the increases in the legal expenses of defending the Company’s insureds arising from the Company’s policy of aggressively defending, including litigating, exaggerated bodily injury claims arising from minimal impact automobile accidents.

For calendar years 1994 and 1993, the Company’s previously estimated loss reserve produced a small deficiency and a small redundancy, respectively, indicating that the Company was reasonably accurate in establishing the initial reserve for those years.

Operating Ratios

Loss and Expense Ratios

Loss and underwriting expense ratios are used to interpret the underwriting experience of property and casualty insurance companies. Losses and loss adjustment expenses, on a statutory basis, are stated as a

7

percentage of premiums earned because losses occur over the life of a policy. Underwriting expenses on a statutory basis are stated as a percentage of premiums written rather than premiums earned because most underwriting expenses are incurred when policies are written and are not spread over the policy period. The statutory underwriting profit margin is the extent to which the combined loss and underwriting expense ratios are less than 100%. The Company’s loss ratio, expense ratio and combined ratio, and the private passenger automobile industry combined ratio, on a statutory basis, are shown in the following table. The Company’s ratios include lines of insurance other than private passenger automobile. Since these other lines represent only a small percentage of premiums written, the Company believes its ratios can be compared to the industry ratios included in the table.

Under GAAP, the loss ratio is computed in the same manner as under statutory accounting, but the expense ratio is determined by matching underwriting expenses to the period over which net premiums were earned, rather than to the period that net premiums were written. The following table sets forth the Company’s loss ratio, expense ratio and combined ratio determined in accordance with GAAP for the last five years.

Premiums to Surplus Ratio

The following table shows, for the periods indicated, the Insurance Companies’ statutory ratios of net premiums written to policyholders’ surplus. Widely recognized guidelines established by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) indicate that this ratio should be no greater than 3 to 1.

Risk Based Capital

The NAIC employs a risk-based capital formula for casualty insurance companies which establishes recommended minimum capital requirements for casualty companies. The formula was designed to capture the widely varying elements of risks undertaken by writers of different lines of insurance having differing risk characteristics, as well as writers of similar lines where differences in risk may be related to corporate structure,

8

investment policies, reinsurance arrangements and a number of other factors. Based on the formula adopted by the NAIC, the Company has calculated the Risk-Based Capital Requirements of each of the Insurance Companies as of December 31, 2003. Each of the companies exceeded the highest level of minimum required capital.

Statutory Accounting Principles

The Company’s results are reported in accordance with GAAP, which differ from amounts reported in accordance with SAP as prescribed by insurance regulatory authorities. Specifically, under GAAP:

Investments and Investment Results

The investments of the Company are directed by the Company’s Chief Investment Officer under the supervision of the Company’s Board of Directors. The Company follows an investment policy which is regularly reviewed and revised. The Company’s policy emphasizes investment grade, fixed income securities and maximization of after-tax yields and places certain restrictions to limit portfolio concentrations and market exposure. Sales of securities are undertaken, with resulting gains or losses, in order to enhance after-tax yield and keep the portfolio in line with current market conditions. Tax considerations are important in portfolio management, and have been made more so since 1986 when the alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) was imposed on casualty companies. Changes in loss experience, growth rates and profitability produce significant changes in the Company’s exposure to AMT liability, requiring appropriate shifts in the investment asset mix between taxable bonds, tax-exempt bonds and equities in order to maximize after-tax yield.

9

The following table sets forth the composition of the investment portfolio of the Company at the dates indicated:

The Company continually evaluates the recoverability of its investment holdings. When a decline in value of fixed maturities or equity securities is considered other than temporary, the Company writes the security down to fair value by recognizing a loss in the Consolidated Statement of Income. The Company recognized losses of $9.1 million in 2003 and $71.7 million in 2002 of investment write-downs considered to be other than temporarily impaired. Declines in value considered to be temporary are charged as unrealized losses to shareholders’ equity as accumulated other comprehensive income. At December 31, 2003, the Company had a net unrealized gain on all investments of $130.5 million before income taxes which is comprised of unrealized gains of $140.8 million offset by unrealized losses of $10.3 million. Of these unrealized losses, approximately $7.7 million relate to fixed maturities which are current on their debt servicing obligations. The remaining unrealized losses of approximately $2.6 million relate to equity securities. The Company has concluded that the gross unrealized losses of $10.3 million at December 31, 2003 were temporary in nature. However, facts and circumstances may change which could result in a decline in market value considered to be other than temporary.

At year-end, approximately 62% of the Company’s total investment portfolio, at market values, and 81% of its total fixed maturity investments, at market values, were invested in medium term, investment grade tax-exempt revenue and municipal bonds. Shorter duration sinking fund preferred stocks and collateralized mortgage obligations represented approximately 6.9% of the Company’s total investment portfolio, at market values, and 8.9% of its total fixed maturity investments, at market value, at December 31, 2003. The average Standard & Poor’s rating of the Company’s bond holdings was AA at December 31, 2003.

The nominal average maturity of the overall bond portfolio which includes collateralized mortgage obligations and short-term cash investments was 12.2 years at December 31, 2003 which reflects a heavier portfolio mix in medium term, investment grade tax-exempt revenue and municipal bonds. The call-adjusted average maturity of the overall bond portfolio was shorter, approximately 4.8 years, because holdings are heavily weighted with high coupon issues which are expected to be called prior to maturity. The modified duration of the overall bond portfolio reflecting anticipated early calls was 3.8 years at December 31, 2003 which includes collateralized mortgage obligations with modified durations of approximately 0.9 years and short-term cash investments that carry no duration. Modified duration measures the length of time it takes, on average, to receive the present value of all the cash flows produced by a bond, including reinvestment of interest. Because it measures four factors (maturity, coupon rate, yield and call terms) which determine sensitivity to changes in interest rates, modified duration is

10

considered a much better indicator of price volatility than simple maturity alone. The longer the duration, the greater the price volatility in relation to changes in interest rates. Holdings of lower than investment grade bonds constitute approximately 2% of total assets.

Equity holdings consist of perpetual preferred stocks and dividend-bearing common stocks on which dividend income is partially tax-sheltered by the 70% corporate dividend exclusion. At year end, short-term cash investments consisted of highly rated short duration securities redeemable on a daily or weekly basis. This component of the portfolio was increased by management when longer term investment opportunities were considered unattractive as a result of the current interest rate environment.

The Company writes covered call options through listed exchanges and over the counter with the intent of generating additional income or return on capital. The total investment under the covered call program in 2003 was approximately $30 million. The Company as a writer of an option bears the market risk of an unfavorable change in the price of the security underlying the written option. The Board of Directors has authorized the Company’s management to commence selling put options in 2004 and to increase its option writing program up to $40 million.

The following table summarizes the investment results of the Company for the five years ended December 31, 2003:

Competitive Conditions

The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive. The insurance industry consists of a large number of companies, many of which operate in more than one state, offering automobile, homeowners and commercial property insurance, as well as insurance coverage in other lines. Many of the Company’s competitors have larger volumes of business and greater financial resources than the Company. Based on the most recent regularly published statistical compilations, the Company in 2002 was the sixth largest writer of private passenger automobile insurance in California. All of the Company’s competitors having greater shares of the California market sell insurance either directly and/or through exclusive agents, rather than through independent agents and brokers.

11

The property and casualty insurance industry is highly cyclical, characterized by periods of high premium rates and shortages of underwriting capacity (“hard market”) followed by periods of severe price competition and excess capacity (“soft market”). In the Company’s view, the overall profitability of the California marketplace during the 1996 through 1998 time period created a favorable environment for automobile insurance writers. Many major automobile insurers attempted to capitalize on the favorable climate by increasing their marketing efforts and reducing rates in attempts to capture more business. These industry wide rate reductions and increased severity trends on bodily injury, collision and physical damage coverages contributed to the deterioration of industry loss ratios in the years 1999 through 2002 (See Operating Ratios—Loss and Expense Ratios). Many of the Company’s major competitors have announced better results in 2003 which typically signals a softening in the market, and consequently, the Company expects that it will be more difficult to grow in 2004, particularly in California. The Company expects to offset some of the expected reduction in growth through expansion into new states.

Price and reputation for service are the principal means by which the Company competes with other automobile insurers. The Company believes that it has a good reputation for service, and it has, historically, been among the lowest-priced insurers doing business in California according to surveys conducted by the California DOI. In addition to good service and competitive pricing, for those insurers dealing through independent agents or brokers, as the Company does, the marketing efforts of agents and brokers is also a means of competition.

All rates charged by private passenger automobile insurers are subject to the prior approval of the California DOI. (See Regulation—Automobile Insurance Rating Factor Regulations).

The Company encounters similar competition in each state and each line of business in which it operates outside California.

Reinsurance

The Company maintains property reinsurance under a treaty with Swiss Re, which is rated A++ by A.M. Best, effective January 1, 1999. Prior to October 1, 2002, the treaty provided $750,000 coverage in excess of $250,000 for each risk subject to a maximum of $2,250,000 for any one occurrence. A second layer of coverage provides an additional $1,000,000 in excess of the first $1,000,000 per risk. Effective March 1, 2002, a third layer of coverage provides an additional $3,000,000 in excess of the first $2,000,000 for coverage which exceeds $2,000,000 in insured value. On October 1, 2002, the first layer of the treaty was amended from $750,000 in excess of $250,000 to $500,000 in excess of $500,000. Effective January 1, 2004, the first layer of the treaty was amended to $250,000 in excess of $750,000 and a fourth layer of $5,000,000 in excess of $5,000,000 was added.

This treaty was utilized during 2003 for the Southern California fire storms in October. At December 31, 2003, the Company estimates its total reinsurance recovery from losses caused by the fires will be approximately $1.5 million.

The Company has in place a treaty reinsurance agreement with Swiss Re, where risks written under personal umbrella policies are ceded to Swiss Re on a quota share basis. Prior to May 1, 2003 the treaty was on a 100% quota share basis and provided $4 million coverage in excess of $1 million for each risk. Effective May 1, 2003, the treaty was replaced with a 33% quota share agreement for umbrella policies with coverage amounts up to but not exceeding $2 million. Consequently, there is no reinsurance on the portion of umbrella policy limits over $2 million.

The Company does not maintain catastrophe reinsurance for property and automobile physical damage business because the Company believes it has adequate capitalization to absorb catastrophe losses in these lines. The Company periodically reviews its requirements for catastrophic reinsurance particularly in areas that are prone to catastrophes such as Florida and California. For California, the Company has reduced its catastrophe exposure from earthquakes due to the placement of earthquake risks, written in conjunction with California homeowners policies, with the California Earthquake Authority. (See Regulation—California Earthquake Authority). Although the Company’s catastrophe exposure to earthquakes has been reduced, the Company continues to have catastrophe exposure for fire following an earthquake.

12

The Employer’s Reinsurance Corporation (“ERC”) reinsures AMI through working layer treaties for property and casualty losses in excess of $500,000 up to $4 million. AMI has other reinsurance treaties and facultative arrangements in place for various smaller lines of business.

All new business written by MCM is ceded to either MCC or AMI. MCM continues to maintain reinsurance treaties with several different reinsurers covering policies prior to January 1, 2001. The Company also holds a formal guarantee from ERC which reimburses MCM if any of the reinsurers fail to satisfy their obligations under their respective reinsurance agreements.

If the reinsurers were unable to perform their obligations under the reinsurance treaty, the Company would be required, as primary insurer, to discharge all obligations to its insureds in their entirety.

Regulation

The Company’s business in California is subject to regulation and supervision by the California DOI, which has broad regulatory, supervisory and administrative powers.

The powers of the California DOI primarily include the prior approval of insurance rates and rating factors and the establishment of capital and surplus requirements and standards of solvency which must be met and maintained, restrictions on dividend payments and transactions with affiliates. The regulation and supervision by the California DOI are designed principally for the benefit of policyholders and not for insurance company shareholders.

The California DOI’s Market Conduct Division is responsible for conducting periodic examinations of companies to ensure compliance with California Insurance Code and California Code of Regulations with respect to rating, underwriting and claims handling practices. The most recent examination covered the underwriting and rating practices applied to its homeowners multiple peril, personal automobile, commercial multiple peril and commercial automobile insurance of the California Companies and AMI during the period January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2001. The report on the examination is pending finalization by the California DOI. The California DOI is conducting a periodic financial examination of the Company’s California domiciled insurance subsidiaries for the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003.

In February 2004, the Department of Insurance issued a Notice of Non-Compliance (“NNC”) to the California Companies. The NNC alleges that the California Companies willfully misrepresented the actual price insurance consumers could expect to pay for insurance by the amount of a one-time fee charged by the consumer’s insurance broker. The NNC carries penalties which include fines for each policy issued whose premium including the broker fee exceeded the premium level approved by the Department of Insurance and fines for each comparative advertisement used in print media that failed to disclose the broker fees amongst other things. The California Companies are preparing a Notice of Defense in advance of an administrative hearing which will be based primarily on the same grounds formed by the Company’s defense in the Robert Krumme case. The outcome of this matter is uncertain and the impact to the Company cannot be determined at the present time (See Item 3. Legal Proceedings).

The insurance subsidiaries outside California are subject to the regulatory powers of the insurance departments of those states. Those powers are similar to the regulatory powers in California enumerated above. Generally, the regulations relate primarily to standards of solvency and are designed for the benefit of policyholders and not of insurance company shareholders.

In California, Georgia, New York and New Jersey, insurance rates require prior approval from the State DOI, while Illinois, Texas and Virginia only require that rates be filed with the DOI. Oklahoma and Florida have a modified version of prior approval laws. In all states, the insurance code provides that rates must not be “excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.”

13

The California DOI required all insurers offering persistency discounts to make class plan filings by January 15, 2003, removing the portability of these discounts. Persistency discounts represent discounts on policy rates extended to consumers based upon the number of consecutive years that the consumers carried insurance coverage. These class plans were never implemented because Senate Bill 841 was enacted during 2003 amending the California Insurance Code to allow insurers to offer products with portable persistency discounts. In January 2004, this legislation was overturned through judicial proceedings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The Company intervened in the original proceedings and intends to seek appellate review of this ruling. The outcome of such action is uncertain. The changes made during the class plan filing indicated that removing persistency discounts is revenue neutral for the Company’s existing business. The removal of persistency discounts could have an impact on the Company’s price competitiveness in attracting new business and would cause many existing customers’ rates to change. However, this impact, if any, is undeterminable.

The Georgia DOI conducted an examination of MICGA and MIDGA as of December 31, 2000. The exam resulted in no adjustments or material findings. The Illinois DOI conducted an examination of MICIL and MIDIL as of December 31, 2000. The reports on that examination are not yet available. The Oklahoma DOI conducted an examination of AMI as of December 31, 2001. The exam resulted in no material findings or recommendations. The State of Texas conducted an examination of MCM in the fall of 2002. The exam resulted in no adjustments or material findings. The State of Florida conducted examinations of MICFL and MIDFL (now MIDAM) for the period August 27, 2001 through December 31, 2002. The report on examination is pending finalization.

The operations of the Company are dependent on the laws of the state in which it does business and changes in those laws can materially affect the revenue and expenses of the Company. The Company retains its own legislative advocates in California. The Company also makes financial contributions to officeholders and candidates. In 2003 and 2002, those contributions amounted to $789,600 and $726,950, respectively. The Company believes in supporting the political process and intends to continue to make such contributions in amounts which it determines to be appropriate.

Insurance Guarantee Association

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (the “Association”) was created to provide for payment of claims for which insolvent insurers of most casualty lines are liable but which cannot be paid out of such insurers’ assets. The Company is subject to assessment by the Association for its pro-rata share of such claims based on premiums written in the particular line in the year preceding the assessment by insurers writing that line of insurance in California. Insurance subsidiaries in the other states are also subject to the provisions of similar insurance guaranty associations. Such assessments are based upon estimates of losses to be incurred in liquidating an insolvent insurer. In a particular year, the Company cannot be assessed an amount greater than 2% of its premiums written in the preceding year. Assessments are recouped through a mandated surcharge to policyholders the year after the assessment. The Company accounts for assessments in accordance with AICPA Statement of Position 97-3 (“SOP 97-3”), which requires the recognition of a liability when an assessment is levied or information is available indicating that an assessment is probable. In addition, SOP 97-3 prohibits the recognition of an asset for recoveries related to new business or renewal of short duration policies. There were no assessments levied against the Company during 2003.

Holding Company Act

The California Companies are subject to regulation by the California DOI pursuant to the provisions of the California Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act (the “Holding Company Act”). The California DOI may examine the affairs of each of the California Companies at any time. The Holding Company Act requires disclosure of any material transactions among the companies. Certain transactions and dividends defined to be of an “extraordinary” type may not be effected if the California DOI disapproves the transaction within 30 days after notice. Such transactions include, but are not limited to, certain reinsurance transactions and sales, purchases, exchanges, loans and extensions of credit, and investments, in the net aggregate, involving more than the lesser of

14

3% of the respective California Company’s admitted assets or 25% of surplus as to policyholders, as of the preceding December 31. An extraordinary dividend is a dividend which, together with other dividends or distributions made within the preceding 12 months, exceeds the greater of 10% of the insurance company’s statutory policyholders’ surplus as of the preceding December 31 or the insurance company’s statutory net income for the preceding calendar year. An insurance company is also required to notify the California DOI of any dividend after declaration, but prior to payment.

The Holding Company Act also provides that the acquisition or change of “control” of a California domiciled insurance company or of any person who controls such an insurance company cannot be consummated without the prior approval of the Insurance Commissioner. In general, a presumption of “control” arises from the ownership of voting securities and securities that are convertible into voting securities, which in the aggregate constitute 10% or more of the voting securities of a California insurance company or of a person that controls a California insurance company, such as Mercury General. A person seeking to acquire “control,” directly or indirectly, of the Company must generally file with the Insurance Commissioner an application for change of control containing certain information required by statute and published regulations and provide a copy of the application to the Company. The Holding Company Act also effectively restricts the Company from consummating certain reorganizations or mergers without prior regulatory approval.

The insurance subsidiaries in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Oklahoma and Texas are subject to holding company acts in those states, the provisions of which are substantially similar to those of the Holding Company Act. Regulatory approval was obtained from California, Oklahoma and Texas before the acquisition of AMI was completed. Approval was granted by Texas for the transaction in which the Company acquired control of MCM.

Assigned Risks

Automobile liability insurers in California are required to sell bodily injury liability, property damage liability, medical expense and uninsured motorist coverage to a proportionate number (based on the insurer’s share of the California automobile casualty insurance market) of those drivers applying for placement as “assigned risks.” Drivers seek placement as assigned risks because their driving records or other relevant characteristics, as defined by Proposition 103, make them difficult to insure in the voluntary market. Premium rates for assigned risk business are set by the California DOI. In October 1990, more stringent rules for gaining entry into the Assigned Risk Program were approved, resulting in a substantial reduction in the number of assigned risks insured by the Company since 1991. Since January 1, 1994, the California Insurance Code has required that rates established for this program be adequate to support this program’s losses and expenses. The Commissioner approved a rate decrease of 28.3% effective February 1, 1999. Effective November 1, 2003, the Commissioner approved a rate increase of 15.5% on new and renewal assigned risk business. While the number of assignments has increased in each of 2001, 2002 and 2003, the total assignments were not material. In 2003, assigned risks represented 0.2% of total automobile direct premiums written and 0.2% of total automobile direct premium earned. The Company attributes the low level of assignments to the competitive voluntary market.

Automobile Insurance Rating Factor Regulations

California Proposition 103 requires that property and casualty insurance rates be approved by the Insurance Commissioner prior to their use, and that no rate be approved which is excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory or otherwise in violation of the provisions of the initiative. The proposition specifies four statutory factors required to be applied in “decreasing order of importance” in determining rates for private passenger automobile insurance: (1) the insured’s driving safety record, (2) the number of miles the insured drives annually, (3) the number of years of driving experience of the insured and (4) whatever optional factors are determined by the Insurance Commissioner to have a substantial relationship to risk of loss and adopted by regulation. The statute further provides that insurers are required to give at least a 20% discount to “good drivers,” as defined, from rates that would otherwise be charged to such drivers and that no insurer may refuse to insure a “good driver.”

15

The California Insurance Commissioner uses rating factor regulations which are designed to implement the Proposition 103 guidelines. The Company’s rate plan was approved by the California Insurance Commissioner and operates under these rating factor regulations.

The Company, and most other insurers charge different rates for residents of different geographical areas within California. The Company’s geographical rate differentials have been derived by actuarial analysis of the claims costs in a given area. The rates for urban areas, particularly in Los Angeles, have been generally higher than for suburban and rural areas. The California Insurance Commissioner is conducting townhall meetings to discuss modifying how territory is used as a rating factor. The outcome of this matter is uncertain and the impact to the Company can not be determined at this time.

California Financial Responsibility Law

California requires proof of insurance for the registration (new or renewal) of a motor vehicle. It also provides for substantial penalties for failure to supply proof of insurance if a driver is stopped for a traffic violation. In addition, California provides that uninsured drivers who are injured in an automobile accident are able to recover only actual, out-of-pocket medical expenses and lost wages and are not entitled to receive awards for general damages, i.e., “pain and suffering.” This restriction also applies to drunk drivers and fleeing felons. The law has helped in controlling loss costs.

Third Party “Bad Faith” Legislation

Recent initiatives in California to reinstate third party “bad faith” lawsuits have been unsuccessful. If such legislation is enacted, it could have a significant detrimental effect on the Company’s operating results. This would particularly be the case if the Company had difficulty in implementing rate increases to compensate for increased loss costs.

California Earthquake Authority

The California Earthquake Authority (“CEA”) is a quasi-governmental organization that was established to provide a market for earthquake coverage to California homeowners. Since 1998, the Company places all new and renewal earthquake coverage offered with its homeowners policy through the California Earthquake Authority. The Company receives a small fee for placing business with the CEA.

Upon the occurrence of a major seismic event, the CEA has the ability to assess participating companies for losses. These assessments are made after CEA capital has been expended and are based upon each company’s participation percentage multiplied by the amount of the total assessment. Based upon the most recent information provided by the CEA, the Company’s maximum total exposure to CEA assessments at April 17, 2003, is approximately $38.9 million.

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002

On November 26, 2002, the federal government enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (the “Act”), which established a temporary Federal program that provides for a system of shared public and private compensation for insured commercial property and casualty losses resulting from acts of terrorism, as defined within the Act. The Terrorism Insurance Program (the “Program”) requires all commercial property and casualty insurers licensed in the United States to participate. The Program provides that in the event of a terrorist attack, as defined, resulting in insurance industry losses exceeding $5 million, the U.S. government will provide funding to the insurance industry on an annual aggregate basis of 90% of covered losses up to $100 billion. Each insurance company is subject to a deductible based upon a percentage of the previous year’s direct earned premium; with the percentage increasing each year. The Program required insurers to notify in-force commercial policyholders by February 24, 2003 that coverage for terrorism acts is provided and the cost for this coverage. The Company is

16

required to offer this coverage at each subsequent renewal even if the policyholder elected to exclude this coverage in the previous policy period. The Program became effective upon enactment and runs through December 31, 2005.

The Company writes a limited amount of commercial property policies and does not write policies on properties considered to be a target of terrorist activities such as airports, hotels, large office structures, amusement parks, landmark defined structures or other public facilities. In addition, there is not a high concentration of commercial policies in any one area where increased exposure to terrorist threats exist. Consequently, the Company believes its exposure relating to acts of terrorism is low and consequently, few policyholders will buy this coverage.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY

The following table sets forth certain information concerning the executive officers of the Company as of February 13, 2004:

17

Mr. Joseph, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Chairman of its Board of Directors, has served in those capacities since 1961. Mr. Joseph has more than 45 years experience in the property and casualty insurance business.

Mr. Tirador, President and Chief Operating Officer, served as the Company’s assistant controller from March 1994 to December 1996. During January 1997 to February 1998 he served as the Vice President and Controller of the Automobile Club of Southern California. He rejoined the Company in February 1998 as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. He was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer in October 2001. Mr. Tirador has over fifteen years experience in the property and casualty insurance industry and is a Certified Public Accountant.

Mr. Blanton, Executive Vice President, joined the Company in 1966 and supervised its underwriting activities from 1967 until September 1995. He was appointed Executive Vice President of Mercury Casualty and Mercury Insurance in 1983 and was named Executive Vice President of Mercury General in 1985. In May 1995, he was named President of the Georgia and Illinois insurance company subsidiaries and in February 1996 he was elected to the Board of Directors of those companies. In January 1999, he was named Chairman of the Board of AMIC and President in April 2000. Mr. Blanton has over 40 years of experience in underwriting and other aspects of the property and casualty insurance business.

Mr. Norman, Senior Vice President in charge of Marketing, has been employed by the Company since 1971. Mr. Norman was named to his current position in February 1999, and has been a Vice President since October 1985 and a Vice President of Mercury Casualty since 1983. Mr. Norman has supervised the selection and training of agents and managed relations between agents and the Company since 1977. In February 1996, he was elected to the Board of Directors of each of the California Companies.

Ms. Moore, Vice President and Chief Claims Officer, joined the Company in the claims department in March 1981. She was named Vice President of Claims of Mercury General in August 1991 and has held her present position since July 1995.

Mr. Kitzmiller, Vice President in charge of Underwriting, has been employed by the Company in the underwriting department since 1972. In August 1991, he was appointed Vice President of Underwriting of Mercury General and has supervised the underwriting activities of the Company since early 1996.

Mr. Stalick, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, joined the Company as Corporate Controller in June 1997. In October 2000, he was named Chief Accounting Officer, a role he held until appointed to his current position in October 2001. Mr. Stalick is a Certified Public Accountant.

Ms. Walters has been employed by the Company since 1967, and has served as its Secretary since 1982. Ms. Walters was named Vice President—Corporate Affairs in June 1998.

Mr. Graves, Vice President and Chief Investment Officer, has been employed by the Company in the investment department since 1986. Mr. Graves was appointed Chief Investment Officer in June 1998, and named Vice President in April 2001.

Mr. Toney, Vice President and Chief Actuary, joined the Company in May 1984 as a programmer/analyst. In 1994 he earned his Fellowship in the Casualty Actuarial Society and was appointed to his current position.

Ms. Fitzpatrick, Vice President and Chief Information Officer, joined the Company in February 2004, and is responsible for information technology operations. Prior to joining Mercury, she served as the Senior Vice President—Chief Information Officer for Pacificare Health Systems from 2000 to 2003 and Vice President of Systems Development at Pacificare Health Systems since 1996.

Mr. Simon, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, has been employed by the Company since 1980. He was appointed to his current position in 2003. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Simon served as a Vice President in the Information Systems Department since December 1999.

18

Item 2.    Properties

The home office of the California Companies and the Company’s computer facilities are located in Brea, California in 238,000 square feet of office space owned by the Company.

The Company’s executive offices are located in a 36,000 square foot office building in Los Angeles, California, owned by Mercury Casualty. The Company occupies approximately 95% of the building and leases the remaining office space to others.

In September 2003, the Company opened a new 130,000 square foot office building in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The Company capitalized approximately $24 million in costs to construct this facility including land of approximately $6 million. This space is used to support the Company’s recent growth and future expansion. Any space in the building that is not occupied by the Company may be leased to outside parties.

The Company leases all of its other office space. Office location is not material to the Company’s operations, and the Company anticipates no difficulty in extending these leases or obtaining comparable office space.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

The Company is, from time to time, named as a defendant in various lawsuits incidental to its insurance business. In most of these actions, plaintiffs assert claims for punitive damages which are not insurable under judicial decisions. The Company has established reserves for lawsuits which the Company is able to estimate its potential exposure and the likelihood that the court will rule against the Company is probable. The Company vigorously defends these actions, unless a reasonable settlement appears appropriate. The Company believes that adverse results, if any, in the actions currently pending should not have a material effect on the Company’s operations or financial position.

In Robert Krumme, On Behalf Of The General Public vs. Mercury Insurance Company, Mercury Casualty Company, and California Automobile Insurance Company (Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco), initially filed June 30, 2000, the plaintiff has asserted an unfair trade practices claim under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. Specifically, the case involves a dispute over the legality of broker fees (generally less than $100 per policy) charged by independent brokers who sell the Company’s products to consumers that purchase insurance policies written by the California Companies. The plaintiff asserts that the brokers who sell the Company’s products should not charge broker fees and that the Company benefits from these fees and should be liable for them. The plaintiff sought an elimination of the broker fees and restitution of previously paid broker fees. In April 2003, the court ruled that the brokers involved in the suit were in fact agents of the Company; however, the court also held that the Company was not responsible for retroactive restitution. The court issued an injunction on May 16, 2003 that prevents Mercury from either (a) selling auto or homeowners insurance through any producer that is not appointed as an agent under Insurance Code, Section 1704, (b) selling auto or homeowners insurance through any producer that charges broker fees and (c) engaging in comparative rate advertising and failing to disclose the possibility that a broker fee may be charged. Mercury has appealed, which has the effect of staying all but the advertising aspects of the court’s injunction. The Company’s appeal is based on the fact that the broker fees are subject to direct—and, if they could be attributed to Mercury, exclusive—regulation by the Insurance Commissioner. The law allows a broker to perform agent functions without giving up broker status. In the past, the Insurance Commissioner never found broker fees were either being improperly charged or attributable to Mercury. However, in February 2004, the Department of Insurance issued a Notice of Non-Compliance (“NNC”) to the California Companies based on this litigation’s outcome. The NNC alleges that the California Companies willfully misrepresented the actual price insurance consumers could expect to pay for insurance by the amount of a one-time fee charged by the consumer’s insurance broker. The California Companies are preparing a Notice of Defense in advance of an administrative hearing which will be based on the same grounds forming the Company’s defense in the Robert Krumme case. The impact of this NNC as it relates to this case can not be determined at the present time. However, the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this case.

19

In Sheila Leivas, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Mercury Insurance Company (Orange County Superior Court), filed July 12, 2002, the Company is defending a suit involving a dispute over premium retained by the Company during a time when the plaintiff was not covered following a voluntary cancellation of the policy and prior to reinstatement of the policy. The plaintiff’s motion seeking to have the case certified as a class action was denied without prejudice. The court also overruled plaintiffs’ Demurrer to Mercury’s cross complaint, thereby allowing Mercury to proceed with its action for the return of premium owed to Mercury if plaintiff’s action proceeds. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this case.

Dan O’Dell, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mercury Insurance Company, Mercury General Corporation (Los Angeles Superior Court), filed July 12, 2002, involves a dispute over whether Mercury’s use of certain automated database vendors to help determine the value of total loss claims is proper. In 2003, the court granted Mercury’s motion to stay the action pending compliance with a contractual arbitration provision. After completion of the arbitration which should occur in June 2004, Mercury and its attorneys intend to challenge the pleadings and seek a dismissal.

In Marissa Goodman, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercury Insurance Company (Los Angeles Superior Court), filed June 16, 2002, the plaintiff is challenging the Company’s use of certain automated database vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical payments. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case certified as a class action. As with the O’Dell case above, and the other cases in the coordinated proceedings, plaintiff alleges that these automated databases systematically undervalue medical payment claims to the detriment of insureds. The plaintiff is seeking actual and punitive damages. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other insurance carriers in the industry. The case has been coordinated with two other similar cases, and also with ten other cases relating to total loss claims. The Company and the other defendants were successful on demurrer. Plaintiffs were given leave to file amended complaints, which are expected in 2004. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit jointly with the other defendants in the coordinated proceedings.

The Company is also involved in proceedings relating to assessments and rulings made by the California Franchise Tax Board. (See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations—General,” and “Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”)

Item 4.    Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders by the Company during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this report.

20

PART II

Item 5.    Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Security Holder Matters and Issuer Purchase of Equity Securities

Price Range of Common Stock

The common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: MCY). The following table shows the high and low sales prices per share in each quarter during the past two years as reported in the consolidated transaction reporting system.

The closing price of the Company’s common stock on February 13, 2004 was $48.83.

Dividends

Following the public offering of its common stock in November 1985, the Company has paid regular quarterly dividends on its common stock. During 2003 and 2002, the Company paid dividends on its common stock of $1.32 per share and $1.20 per share, respectively. On January 30, 2004, the Board of Directors declared a $0.37 quarterly dividend payable on March 31, 2004 to stockholders of record on March 15, 2004.

The common stock dividend rate has been increased twenty times since dividends were initiated in January, 1986, at an annual rate of $0.05, adjusted for the two-for-one stock splits in September 1992 and September 1997. For financial statement purposes, the Company records dividends on the declaration date. The Company expects to continue the payment of quarterly dividends; however, the continued payment and amount of cash dividends will depend upon, among other factors, the Company’s operating results, overall financial condition, capital requirements and general business conditions.

As a holding company, Mercury General is largely dependent upon dividends from its subsidiaries to pay dividends to its shareholders. These subsidiaries are subject to state laws that restrict their ability to distribute dividends. The state laws permit a casualty insurance company to pay dividends and advances within any 12-month period, without any prior regulatory approval, in an amount up to the greater of 10% of statutory earned surplus at the preceding December 31, or statutory net income for the calendar year preceding the date the dividend is paid. Under this test, the direct insurance subsidiaries of the Company are entitled to pay dividends to Mercury General during 2004 of up to approximately $121 million. (See Item 1. Business—Regulation—Holding Company Act, and Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). Mercury General is contesting a recent FTB ruling which disallows the dividend-received deductions from all insurance holding companies, regardless of domicile. The ultimate outcome of this matter could affect future dividend policy (See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations—General, and Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements).

21

Shareholders of Record

The approximate number of holders of record of the Company’s common stock as of February 13, 2004 was 229. The approximate number of beneficial holders as of February 13, 2004 was 7,300.

Item 6.    Selected Consolidated Financial Data