Attached files
| file | filename |
|---|---|
| 8-K - FORM 8-K - REGIONS FINANCIAL CORP | d295807d8k.htm |
 2012 Credit Suisse
Financial Services Forum
February 9, 2012
David Turner
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1 |
 Why
Regions? •
Strong Southeastern franchise with comprehensive line
of product offerings
•
Leading brand favorability and exceptional service
quality
•
Solid core business performance
•
Aggressively identifying and disposing of problem assets
•
Capital and liquidity remain solid and continue to
improve
2 |
 Regional Bank in the Southeast with Comprehensive
and Diversified Line of Product Offerings
3
›
Associates: 26,813*
›
Assets: $127B
›
Loans: $78B
›
Deposits: $96B
›
Branches: 1,726
›
Insurance Offices: 29
›
ATMs: 2,083
›
Market Cap: $7.0B**
* Includes Morgan Keegan associates
**As of February 3, 2012
Business Services
›
Small and mid-sized C&I lending
›
Commercial Real Estate
›
Equipment Finance
Consumer Services
›
Mortgage
›
Home Equity
›
Credit Card
›
Direct Lending
›
Indirect Auto
Wealth Management
›
Private Banking
›
Insurance
›
Trust Services |
 4
($ in billions)
National Average: 3.9%
Regions’
Footprint is Characterized by Either High
Market Shares, High Growth Markets or Both
Source: SNL Financial
Note: Core Markets include AL, FL, LA, MS, AR, TN
Weighted Average Deposit Market Share
in Regions’
Core Markets
Rank
Name
Market Share
1
Bank of America
11.5%
2
Regions
9.8%
3
Wells Fargo
9.4%
4
SunTrust
6.9%
5
JPMorgan Chase
3.3%
6
BB&T
2.5%
7
Capital One
2.3%
8
First Horizon
2.0%
9
Hancock
1.9%
10
PNC
1.4%
Top 10 MSAs
Deposits
Market
Share
Market
Rank
’10-’15
Population
Growth
Birmingham, AL
$11.0
37.6%
1
Nashville, TN
$6.6
17.3%
1
Miami, FL
$4.8
3.1%
7
Tampa, FL
$4.4
8.7%
4
Memphis, TN
$3.8
16.8%
2
Atlanta, GA
$3.4
3.0%
6
St. Louis, MO
$3.0
4.7%
4
Jackson, MS
$2.8
25.5%
2
New Orleans, LA
$2.4
8.3%
4
Mobile, AL
$2.3
38.2%
1 |
 Competitive Advantage Driven by Customer
Loyalty
5
Regions continues to
perform in the top 10%
in customer loyalty and
top 20% for branch
service quality
(1)
(1)
Based on Gallup survey
(2)
Based on Prime Performance study
(3)
2011 Greenwich Excellence Award
#1 in Customer Service and
“Friendliest”
Bank
(2)
Regions received
Excellence Award
for Small Business
and Middle Market
Banking
(3)
Top Bank in
Customer
Service Study
Ranked 2
nd
in Satisfaction for
Mortgage Servicing
J.D. Power
AND ASSOCIATES |
 Quality Loans Key to Profitable Growth
6
Portfolio Mix
Consumer Services
›
40% of Total Loan Portfolio
›
Growing consumer loans to achieve a more balanced
portfolio
›
Consumer loan growth will be fueled by new businesses
as well as growth in existing businesses
›
Loan production in mortgage grew 18% over prior
quarter
›
Non-real estate consumer portfolio has increased
45% since 2010
›
$1 billion Regions-branded credit portfolio
›
Indirect auto lending grew 16% year-over-
year
Business Services
›
60% of Total Loan Portfolio
›
Focused on middle market & small business
›
Represents over 80% of Business Services
Revenue
›
Broad based middle-market commercial loan
growth across footprint and industries
›
Driven by specialized industries, including health
care, franchise restaurant, as well as technology
and defense |
 Recent
C&I Loan Growth Reflects Slowdown in 2011
Loan Growth Quarter to Quarter
*Balances are on ending basis
•
Commercial & Industrial
loans have grown 9% since
end of 2010
•
Commercial & Industrial
commitments increased
14%
•
Line utilization increased
over 200 basis points since
the end of 2010 |
 Mix
and Cost of Deposits Provides Further Opportunity to Lower Deposit Costs
8
Deposit Cost Opportunity Gap
Note: Peer banks include BAC, BBT, CMA, FITB, KEY, MTB, PNC, STI, USB,
WFC Deposit Mix Compared to Peers
Regions
Peer
Average
•
Regions has additional room to reduce deposit costs
•
Opportunity to reduce deposit costs, most significantly
through profitably re-pricing maturing CDs
•
$11.7 B of higher cost CDs maturing in 2012 at 1.46%
•
Funding costs declined 31 basis points from 4Q10 |
 Funding Mix and Deployment of Cash Reserves
Expected to Result in Improvement to the NIM
9
Impact of Excess Cash Reserves &
Non-Accruals on NIM
1
Regions has closed a portion of its
gap vs. the peers in the last 5 quarters
69 bps
41 bps
Note: Peer banks include BAC, BBT, CMA, FITB, KEY, MTB, PNC, STI, USB,
WFC 1 From Continuing Operations |
 Ability to Adapt Our Business Model Helps
Mitigate New Legislation
10
Fee Income by Quarter
Total 2011 service charges were relatively stable despite the
negative impact of Regulation E and debit interchange legislation.
Offsetting Durbin
•
Ongoing restructuring
of our accounts from
free to fee-eligible
•
Increased hurdle to
obtain free checking
•
Cross-sell new
revenue initiatives |
 Expense control
continues to be a focus 11
Year-over-year
Regions’
expenses
declined 7% while
many peers continued
to grow expenses
While many peers
expenses increased
in the fourth quarter,
Regions expenses
were stable,
excluding Visa charge
Source: SNL Financial –
from continuing operations excludes goodwill impairment; see appendix for reconciliation
Note: Peer banks include BAC, BBT, CMA, FITB, KEY, MTB, PNC, STI, USB, WFC
4Q11 vs. 4Q10 % Change |
 Expenses Per FTE Lowest of All Peers
12
Source: SNL Financial –
4Q11 vs 4Q10 –
from continuing operations excludes goodwill impairment; see appendix for
reconciliation Note: Peer banks include BAC, BBT, CMA, FITB, KEY, MTB, PNC,
STI, USB, WFC NIE Per FTE
Salaries and Benefits Expense Per FTE |
 Significant Reduction in Highest Risk Portfolio
Segments
13
Reduced Investor Real Estate $15.1 B
or
59%
over 5 years
Reduced High Risk Segments $11.8 B
or
87%
over 5 years
Total Investor Real Estate
Higher Risk Investor Real Estate Segments |
 Continued Improvement in Credit Quality Metrics
14
*Includes classified loans and special mention loans |
 Loan
Loss Provision Down 57% Since 4Q10; Allowance Ratio 1.2X Higher Than Peer
Average (1) Loan charge-offs related to Sales and Transfer to Held
for Sale Note: Peer banks include BAC, BBT, CMA, FITB, KEY, MTB, PNC, STI,
USB, WFC 15
Loan Loss Provision
Allowance versus Peers
3.84%
3.92%
3.84%
3.73%
3.54%
3.11%
3.03%
2.78%
2.62%
2.31%
4Q10
1Q11
2Q11
3Q11
4Q11
Regions
Peer Average
402
210
190
160
141
111
106
207
198
141
169
165
151
153
148
(150)
(156)
(134)
$682
$482
$398
$355
$296
4Q10
1Q11
2Q11
3Q11
4Q11
$ in millions
Business Services and HFS
Consumer
Reserve Increase / Reduction
Sales/
HFS
(1) |
 Strong Capital
16
* Non-GAAP –
see appendix for reconciliation; 4Q11 Tier 1 Common and Tier 1 Capital ratios are
estimated ** Non-GAAP -
Subject to change as interpretation of Basel III rules is ongoing and dependent on
guidance from Basel and regulators; see appendix for
reconciliation |
 Liquidity Coverage Ratio
17
Core Deposits as a % of Total Funding
Solid Liquidity
Source: SNL Financial
Note: Peer banks include BAC, BBT, CMA, FITB, KEY, MTB, PNC, STI, USB,
WFC Note 2: Liquidity Coverage Ratio as of 3Q11 Data provided by
Barclay’s Capital based on the their models using publicly
available information and dual deposit run-off assumptions |
 We
reached three important milestones in 2011 Our core franchise strengthened
and we achieved sustainable profitability from our continuing
operations* All of our credit quality related metrics experienced
marked improvement throughout the year
Completed the strategic review of Morgan Keegan,
resulting in the announced sale to Raymond James
18
* Excluding goodwill impairment and regulatory charge (non-GAAP); see appendix
for reconciliation |
 Appendix
19 |
 Forward-Looking Statements
20
This
presentation
may
include
forward-looking
statements
which
reflect
Regions’
current
views
with
respect
to
future
events
and
financial
performance.
The
Private
Securities
Litigation
Reform
Act
of
1995
(“the
Act”)
provides
a “safe harbor”
for forward-looking statements which are identified as such and are accompanied
by the identification of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements.
For these statements, we, together with our subsidiaries, claim the protection
afforded by the safe harbor in the Act. Forward-looking statements are not based on historical information, but rather are related to future
operations,
strategies,
financial
results
or
other
developments.
Forward-looking
statements
are
based
on
management’s
expectations
as
well
as
certain
assumptions
and
estimates
made
by,
and
information
available
to,
management at the time the statements are made. Those statements are based on
general assumptions and are subject to various risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from
the
views,
beliefs
and
projections
expressed
in
such
statements.
These
risks,
uncertainties
and
other
factors
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
those
described
below:
›
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the
“Dodd-Frank Act”)became law on July 21, 2010, and a number of legislative, regulatory and tax proposals remain pending. Additionally, the U.S.
Treasury
and
federal
banking
regulators
continue
to
implement,
but
are
also
beginning
to
wind
down,
a
number
of
programs
to
address
capital
and
liquidity
in
the
banking
system.
Proposed
rules,
including
those
that
are part of the Basel III process, could require banking institutions to increase
levels of capital. All of the foregoing may have significant effects on Regions and the financial services industry, the exact nature of which
cannot be determined at this time.
›
Regions'
ability
to
mitigate
the
impact
of
the
Dodd-Frank
Act
on
debit
interchange
fees
through
revenue
enhancements
and
other
revenue
measures,
which
will
depend
on
various
factors,
including
the
acceptance
by
our customers of modified fee structures for Regions' products and services.
›
The impact of compensation and other restrictions imposed under the Troubled Asset
Relief Program (“TARP”) until Regions repays the outstanding preferred stock and warrant issued under the TARP, including
restrictions on Regions’
ability to attract and retain talented executives and associates.
›
Possible additional loan losses, impairment of goodwill and other intangibles, and
adjustment of valuation allowances on deferred tax assets and the impact on earnings and capital.
›
Possible changes in interest rates may increase funding costs and reduce earning
asset yields, thus reducing margins. Increases in benchmark interest rates would also increase debt service requirements for
customers whose terms include a variable interest rate, which may negatively impact
the ability of borrowers to pay as contractually obligated. ›
Possible changes in general economic and business conditions in the United States in
general and in the communities Regions serves in particular, including any prolonging or worsening of the current unfavorable
economic conditions including unemployment levels.
›
Possible changes in the creditworthiness of customers and the possible impairment of
the collectability of loans. ›
Possible
changes
in
trade,
monetary
and
fiscal
policies,
laws
and
regulations
and
other
activities
of
governments,
agencies,
and
similar
organizations,
may
have
an
adverse
effect
on
business.
›
The current stresses in the financial and real estate markets, including possible
continued deterioration in property values. ›
Regions' ability to manage fluctuations in the value of assets and liabilities and
off-balance sheet exposure so as to maintain sufficient capital and liquidity to support Regions' business.
›
Regions' ability to expand into new markets and to maintain profit margins in the
face of competitive pressures. ›
Regions' ability to develop competitive new products and services in a timely manner
and the acceptance of such products and services by Regions' customers and potential customers.
›
Regions' ability to keep pace with technological changes.
›
Regions' ability to effectively manage credit risk, interest rate risk, market risk,
operational risk, legal risk, liquidity risk, and regulatory and compliance risk.
›
Regions’
ability to ensure adequate capitalization which is impacted by inherent
uncertainties in forecasting credit losses. ›
The cost and other effects of material contingencies, including litigation
contingencies, and any adverse judicial, administrative or arbitral rulings or proceedings.
›
The effects of increased competition from both banks and non-banks.
›
The effects of geopolitical instability and risks such as terrorist attacks.
›
Possible changes in consumer and business spending and saving habits could affect
Regions' ability to increase assets and to attract deposits. ›
The effects of weather and natural disasters such as floods, droughts, wind,
tornados and hurricanes, and the effects of man-made disasters.
›
Possible downgrades in ratings issued by rating agencies.
›
Potential
dilution
of
holders
of
shares
of
Regions’
common
stock
resulting
from
the
U.S.
Treasury’s
investment
in
TARP.
›
Possible
changes
in
the
speed
of
loan
prepayments
by
Regions’
customers
and
loan
origination
or
sales
volumes.
›
Possible acceleration of prepayments on mortgage-backed securities due to low
interest rates and the related acceleration of premium amortization on those securities.
›
The
effects
of
problems
encountered
by
larger
or
similar
financial
institutions
that
adversely
affect
Regions
or
the
banking
industry
generally.
›
Regions’
ability to receive dividends from its subsidiaries.
›
The
effects
of
the
failure
of
any
component
of
Regions’
business
infrastructure
which
is
provided
by
a
third
party.
›
Changes in accounting policies or procedures as may be required by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board or other regulatory agencies. ›
The effects
of
any
damage
to
Regions’
reputation
resulting
from
developments
related
to
any
of
the
items
identified
above.
›
With regard to the sale of Morgan Keegan:
the possibility that regulatory and other approvals and conditions to the
transaction are not received on a timely basis or at all; the possibility that modifications to the terms of the transaction may be required in
order
to
obtain
or
satisfy
such
approvals
or
conditions;
changes
in
the
anticipated
timing
for
closing
the
transaction;
business
disruption
during
the
pendency
of
or
following
the
transaction;
diversion
of
management
time
on
transaction-related
issues;
reputational
risks
and
the
reaction
of
customers
and
counterparties
to
the
transaction
›
The
foregoing
list
of
factors
is
not
exhaustive.
For
discussion
of
these
and
other
factors
that
may
cause
actual
results
to
differ
from
expectations,
look
under
the
captions
“Forward-Looking
Statements”
and
“Risk
Factors”
in Regions’
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and quarterly
report on Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended September 30, 2011, June 30, 2011 and March 31, 2011, as on
file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
›
The words "believe," "expect," "anticipate,"
"project," and similar expressions often signify forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of
the date made. We assume no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking
statements that are made from time to time. |
 Non-GAAP Reconciliation: Pre-Tax Pre-Provision
Income and Adjusted Expenses
21
1
Adjusted non-interest expense declined 5% for the full year 2011 and 12%
comparing 4Q10 to 4Q11, while increasing 2% on a linked quarter basis in
4Q11 2011
2010
4Q11
3Q11
2Q11
1Q11
4Q10
Pre-Tax Pre-Provision Income (non-GAAP)
Income (loss) from continuing operations available to common shareholders
(GAAP) $ (25)
$ (682)
$ (135)
$ 87
$ 25
$ (2)
$ 14
Preferred dividends and accretion (GAAP)
214
224
54
54
54
52
53
Income tax expense (GAAP)
(28)
(376)
18
17
(34)
(29)
44
Pre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations (GAAP)
161
(834)
(63)
158
45
21
111
Provision for loan losses (GAAP)
1,530
2,863
295
355
398
482
682
Pre-tax pre-provision income from continuing operations
(non-GAAP) $ 1,691
$ 2,029
$ 232
$ 513
$ 443
$ 503
$ 793
Goodwill impairment from continuing operations
253
-
253
-
-
-
-
Regulatory Charge from continuing operations
-
75
-
-
-
-
-
Pre-tax pre-provision income from continuing operations, excluding goodwill
impairment and regulatory charge (non-GAAP)
$ 1,944
$ 2,104
$ 485
$ 513
$ 443
$ 503
$ 793
Non-interest Expense (GAAP)
$ 3,862
$ 3,859
$ 1,124
$ 850
$ 956
$ 932
$ 990
Adjustments:
Goodwill impairment from continuing operations
253
-
253
-
-
-
-
Regulatory Charge from continuing operations
-
75
-
-
-
-
-
Adjusted non-interest expense (non-GAAP)
(1)
$ 3,609
$ 3,784
$ 871
$ 850
$ 956
$ 932
$ 990
As of and for Quarter Ended
Year Ended December 31
The tables below present computations of earnings (loss) and certain other financial measures,
excluding goodwill impairment and regulatory charge and related tax benefit
(non-GAAP). The goodwill impairment charge and the regulatory charge and related tax benefit are included in financial results presented in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). A table also presents computations of
full year and quarterly pre-tax pre-provision income (non- GAAP). Non-interest
expense (GAAP) is presented excluding certain adjustments to arrive at adjusted non-interest expense (non-GAAP). Regions believes that
the exclusion of the goodwill impairment and the regulatory charge and related tax benefit in
expressing earnings (loss) and certain other financial measures, including "earnings (loss)
per common share, excluding goodwill impairment and regulatory charge and related tax benefit“ provides a meaningful base for period-
to-period comparisons, which management believes will assist investors in analyzing the operating
results of the Company and predicting future performance. These non-GAAP financial
measures are also used by management to assess the performance of Regions' business because management does not consider
the goodwill impairment and regulatory charge and related tax benefit to be relevant to ongoing
operating results. Management and the Board of Directors utilize these non-GAAP
financial measures for the following purposes: preparation of Regions' operating budgets; monthly financial performance reporting; monthly
close-out "flash" reporting of consolidated results (management only); and
presentations to investors of company performance. Management uses these measures to monitor
performance and believes these measures provide meaningful information to investors.
Continuing Operations - Non-interest Expense
|
 The following table
provides a reconciliation of stockholder’s equity to "Tier 1 common equity" (non-GAAP). Traditionally, the Federal Reserve and other
banking regulatory bodies have assessed a bank's capital adequacy based on Tier 1 capital, the
calculation of which is codified in federal banking regulations. In connection with the
Company's Comprehensive Capital Assessment and Review ("CCAR"), these regulators are supplementing their
assessment of the capital adequacy of a bank based on a variation of Tier 1 capital, known as Tier 1
common equity. While not codified, analysts and banking regulators have assessed Regions'
capital adequacy using the Tier 1 common equity measure. Because Tier 1 common equity is not formally
defined by GAAP or codified in the federal banking regulations, this measure is considered to be a
non-GAAP financial measure and other entities may calculate it differently than Regions'
disclosed calculations. Since analysts and banking regulators may assess Regions' capital adequacy using Tier 1
common equity, we believe that it is useful to provide investors the ability to assess Regions'
capital adequacy on the same basis. Tier 1 common equity is often expressed as a percentage of risk-weighted assets. Under the
risk-based capital framework, a company's balance sheet assets and credit equivalent
amounts of off-balance sheet items are assigned to one of four broad risk categories. The aggregated dollar amount in each
category is then multiplied by the risk-weighted category. The resulting weighted values
from each of the four categories are added together and this sum is the risk-weighted
assets total that, as adjusted, comprises the denominator of certain risk-based capital ratios. Tier 1 capital is then divided by this
denominator (risk-weighted assets) to determine the Tier 1 capital ratio. Adjustments are
made to Tier 1 capital to arrive at Tier 1 common equity. Tier 1 common equity is also
divided by the risk-weighted assets to determine the Tier 1 common equity ratio. The amounts disclosed as risk-weighted assets
are calculated consistent with banking regulatory requirements.
Non-GAAP Reconciliation: Tier 1 Common
22
($ amounts in millions)
12/31/11
9/30/11
6/30/11
3/31/11
12/31/10
TIER 1 COMMON RISK-BASED RATIO CONSOLIDATED
-
Stockholders' equity (GAAP)
16,499
$
17,263
$
16,888
$
16,619
$
16,734
$
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss
69
(92)
177
387
260
Non-qualifying goodwill and intangibles
(4,900)
(5,649)
(5,668)
(5,686)
(5,706)
Disallowed deferred tax assets
(432)
(506)
(498)
(463)
(424)
Disallowed servicing assets
(35)
(35)
(35)
(28)
(27)
Qualifying non-controlling interests
92
92
92
92
92
Qualifying trust preferred securities
846
846
846
846
846
Tier 1 capital (regulatory)
12,139
$
11,919
$
11,802
$
11,767
$
11,775
$
Qualifying non-controlling interests
(92)
(92)
(92)
(92)
(92)
Qualifying trust preferred securities
(846)
(846)
(846)
(846)
(846)
Preferred stock
(3,419)
(3,409)
(3,399)
(3,389)
(3,380)
Tier 1 common equity (non-GAAP)
7,782
$
7,572
$
7,465
$
7,440
$
7,457
$
Risk-weighted assets (regulatory)
91,663
92,786
93,865
93,929
94,966
Tier 1 common risk-based ratio (non-GAAP)
8.5%
8.2%
7.9%
7.9%
7.9%
As of and for Quarter Ended |
 Non-GAAP Reconciliation: Basel III
23
($ amounts in millions)
12/31/11
BASEL III
Stockholders' equity (GAAP)
16,499
$
Non-qualifying goodwill and intangibles
(1)
(5,065)
Adjustments, including other comprehensive income related to cash flow hedges,
disallowed deferred tax assets, threshold deductions and other
adjustments (857)
10,577
$
Qualifying non-controlling interests
4
Basel III Tier 1 Capital (non-GAAP)
10,581
$
Basel III Tier 1 Capital (non-GAAP)
10,581
$
Preferred Stock
(3,419)
Qualifying non-controlling interests
(4)
Basel III Tier 1 Common (non-GAAP)
7,158
$
Basel I risk-weighted assets
91,663
Basel III risk-weighted assets
(2)
93,267
Minimum
Basel III Tier 1 Capital Ratio
11.3%
8.5%
Basel III Tier 1 Common Ratio
7.7%
7.0%
The following table provides calculations of Tier 1 capital and Tier 1 common, based on Regions’
current understanding of Basel III requirements. Regions currently calculates its
risk-based capital ratios under guidelines adopted by the Federal Reserve based on the 1988 Capital Accord
(“Basel I”) of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel
Committee”). In December 2010, the Basel Committee released its final framework for
Basel III, which will strengthen international capital and liquidity regulation. When implemented by U.S. bank regulatory agencies
and fully phased-in, Basel III will change capital requirements and place greater emphasis on
common equity. Implementation of Basel III will begin on January 1, 2013, and will be
phased in over a multi-year period. The U.S. bank regulatory agencies have not yet finalized regulations
governing the implementation of Basel III. Accordingly, the calculations provided below are
estimates, based on Regions’ current understanding of the framework, including the
Company’s reading of the requirements, and informal feedback received through the regulatory process. Regions’
understanding of the framework is evolving and will likely change as the regulations are
finalized. Because the Basel III implementation regulations are not formally defined by
GAAP and have not yet been finalized and codified, these measures are considered to be non-GAAP
financial measures, and other entities may calculate them differently from Regions’ disclosed
calculations. Since analysts and banking regulators may assess Regions’ capital
adequacy using the Basel III framework, we believe that it is useful to provide investors the ability to assess Regions’
capital adequacy on the same basis. 1
Under Basel III, regulatory capital must be reduced by purchased credit card relationship
intangible assets. These assets are partially allowed in Basel I capital.
2
Regions continues to develop systems and internal controls to precisely calculate risk-weighted
assets as required by Basel III. The amount included above is a reasonable approximation,
based on our understanding of the requirements. |
 Continued Improvement in Credit Quality Metrics
24
NPL Balances Paying
Current and as Agreed
Total NPLs (excluding HFS) |
 Credit Quality Metrics
25
Allowance for Loan Losses to NPLs
(excl HFS)
Investor Real Estate Gross NPA Migration
NPAs + 90 Day Delinquencies/Loans + OREO
+ HFS
NPAs + 90 day Delinquencies
* Previous presentation showed 2Q11 on a pro-forma basis to include completed
bulk sale after quarter-end. Current presentation shows actual 2Q11 and
3Q11 numbers as reported. |
 |