UNITED STATES 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 30, 2006

 

Commission file number 1-4171

 

 

 

 

Kellogg Company

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

 

One Kellogg Square

Battle Creek, Michigan 49016-3599

 

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

 

Registrant’s telephone number: (269) 961-2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Act: None

 

 

Indicate by a check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes  þ   No  o

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Yes  o   No  þ

 

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  þ   No  o

 

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 the 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.   o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer” and “large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (Check one)

 

Large accelerated filer  þ                     Accelerated filer  o                     Non-accelerated filer  o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).  Yes  o   No  þ

 

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant (assuming only for purposes of this computation that the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Trust, directors and executive officers may be affiliates) was approximately $14.5 billion, as determined by the June 30, 2006, closing price of $48.43 for one share of common stock, as reported for the New York Stock Exchange — Composite Transactions.

 

As of January 26, 2007, 397,969,170 shares of the common stock of the registrant were issued and outstanding.

 

Parts of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareowners to be held on April 27, 2007 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

names of certain ready-to-eat cereals, including All-Bran, Apple Jacks, Bran Buds, Complete Bran Flakes, Complete Wheat Flakes, Cocoa Krispies, Cinnamon Crunch Crispix, Corn Pops, Cruncheroos, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Cracklin’ Oat Bran, Crispix, Froot Loops, Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, Frosted Mini-Wheats, Frosted Krispies, Just Right, Kellogg’s Low Fat Granola, Mueslix, Nutri-Grain, Pops, Product 19, Kellogg’s Raisin Bran, Rice Krispies, Raisin Bran Crunch, Smacks, Smart Start, Special K and Special K Red Berries in the United States and elsewhere; Zucaritas, Choco Zucaritas, Crusli Sucrilhos, Sucrilhos Chocolate, Sucrilhos Banana, Vector, Musli, Nutridia , and Choco Krispis for cereals in Latin America; Vive and Vector in Canada; Choco Pops, Chocos, Frosties, Muslix, Fruit ’n’ Fibre, Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes, Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut Red Corn Flakes, Honey Loops, Kellogg’s Extra, Sustain, Mueslix, Country Store, Ricicles, Smacks, Start, Smacks Choco Tresor, Pops, and Optima for cereals in Europe; and Cerola, Sultana Bran, Supercharged, Chex, Frosties, Goldies, Rice Bubbles, Nutri-Grain, Kellogg’s Iron Man Food , and BeBig for cereals in Asia and Australia. Additional Company trademarks are the names of certain combinations of Kellogg’s ready-to-eat cereals, including Fun Pak, Jumbo , and Variety. Other Company brand names include Kellogg’s Corn Flake Crumbs; Croutettes for herb season stuffing mix; All-Bran, Choco Krispis, Froot Loops, Nutridia, Kuadri-Krispis, Zucaritas, Special K , and Crusli for cereal bars, Keloketas for cookies, Komplete for biscuits; and Kaos for snacks in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America; Pop-Tarts Pastry Swirls for toaster danish; Pop-Tarts and Pop-Tarts Snak-Stix for toaster pastries; Eggo, Special K, Froot Loops and Nutri-Grain for frozen waffles and pancakes; Rice Krispies Treats for baked snacks and convenience foods; Nutri-Grain cereal bars, Nutri-Grain yogurt bars, All-Bran bars, Smart Start bars and Kellogg’s Crunch bars for convenience foods in the United States and elsewhere; K-Time, Rice Bubbles, Day Dawn, Be Natural, Sunibrite and LCMs for convenience foods in Asia and Australia; Nutri-Grain Squares, Nutri-Grain Elevenses , and Rice Krispies Squares for convenience foods in Europe; Fruit Winders for fruit snacks in the United Kingdom; Kashi and GoLean for certain cereals, nutrition bars, and mixes; TLC for crackers; Vector for meal replacement products; and Morningstar Farms, Loma Linda, Natural Touch , and Worthington for certain meat and egg alternatives.

 

We also market convenience foods under trademarks and tradenames which include Keebler, Cheez-It, E. L. Fudge, Murray, Famous Amos, Austin, Ready Crust, Chips Deluxe, Club, Fudge Shoppe, Hi-Ho, Sunshine, Munch’Ems, Right Bites, Sandies, Soft Batch, Toasteds, Town House, Vienna Fingers, Wheatables , and Zesta. One of our subsidiaries is also the exclusive licensee of the Carr’s brand name in the United States.

 

Our trademarks also include logos and depictions of certain animated characters in conjunction with our products, including Snap!Crackle!Pop! for Cocoa Krispies and Rice Krispies cereals and Rice Krispies Treats convenience foods; Tony the Tiger for Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, Zucaritas, Sucrilhos and Frosties cereals and convenience foods; Ernie Keebler for cookies, convenience foods and other products; the Hollow Tree logo for certain convenience foods; Toucan Sam for Froot Loops; Dig ’Em for Smacks; Coco the Monkey for Coco Pops; Cornelius for Kellogg’s Corn Flakes; Melvin the elephant for certain cereal and convenience foods; Chocos the Bear and Kobi the Bear for certain cereal products.

 

The slogans The Best To You Each Morning, The Original and Best and They’re Gr-r-reat! , used in connection with our ready-to-eat cereals, along with L’ Eggo my Eggo , used in connection with our frozen waffles and pancakes, and Elfin Magic used in connection with convenience food products are also important Kellogg trademarks.

 

The trademarks listed above, among others, when taken as a whole, are important to our business. Certain individual trademarks are also important to our business. Depending on the jurisdiction, trademarks are generally valid as long as they are in use and/or their registrations are properly maintained and they have not been found to have become generic. Registrations of trademarks can also generally be renewed indefinitely as long as the trademarks are in use.

 

We consider that, taken as a whole, the rights under our various patents, which expire from time to time, are a valuable asset, but we do not believe that our businesses are materially dependent on any single patent or group of related patents. Our activities under licenses or other franchises or concessions which we hold are similarly a valuable asset, but are not believed to be material.

 

Seasonality.   Demand for our products has generally been approximately level throughout the year, although some of our convenience foods have a bias for stronger demand in the second half of the year due to events and holidays. We also custom-bake cookies for the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., which are principally sold in the first quarter of the year.

 

Working Capital.   Although terms vary around the world and by business types, in the United States we generally have required payment for goods sold eleven or sixteen days subsequent to the date of invoice as 2% 10/net 11 or 1% 15/net 16. Receipts from goods sold, supplemented as

required by borrowings, provide for our payment of dividends, capital expansion, and for other operating expenses and working capital needs.

 

Customers.   Our largest customer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and its affiliates, accounted for approximately 18% of consolidated net sales during 2006, comprised principally of sales within the United States. At December 30, 2006, approximately 14% of our consolidated receivables balance and 22% of our U.S. receivables balance was comprised of amounts owed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and its affiliates. During 2006, our top five customers, collectively, accounted for approximately 33% of our consolidated net sales and approximately 42% of U.S. net sales. There has been significant worldwide consolidation in the grocery industry in recent years and we believe that this trend is likely to continue. Although the loss of any large customer for an extended length of time could negatively impact our sales and profits, we do not anticipate that this will occur to a significant extent due to the consumer demand for our products and our relationships with our customers. Our products have been generally sold through our own sales forces and through broker and distributor arrangements, and have been generally resold to consumers in retail stores, restaurants, and other food service establishments.

 

Backlog.   For the most part, orders are filled within a few days of receipt and are subject to cancellation at any time prior to shipment. The backlog of any unfilled orders at December 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005, was not material to us.

 

Competition.   We have experienced, and expect to continue to experience, intense competition for sales of all of our principal products in our major product categories, both domestically and internationally. Our products compete with advertised and branded products of a similar nature as well as unadvertised and private label products, which are typically distributed at lower prices, and generally with other food products. Principal methods and factors of competition include new product introductions, product quality, taste, convenience, nutritional value, price, advertising, and promotion.

 

Research and Development.   Research to support and expand the use of our existing products and to develop new food products is carried on at the W.K. Kellogg Institute for Food and Nutrition Research in Battle Creek, Michigan, and at other locations around the world. Our expenditures for research and development were approximately $190.6 million in 2006, $181.0 million in 2005 and $148.9 million in 2004.

 

Regulation.   Our activities in the United States are subject to regulation by various government agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Labor, as well as voluntary regulation by other bodies. Various state and local agencies also regulate our activities. Other agencies and bodies outside of the United States, including those of the European Union and various countries, states and municipalities, also regulate our activities.

 

Environmental Matters.   Our facilities are subject to various U.S. and foreign federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the discharge of material into the environment and the protection of the environment in other ways. We are not a party to any material proceedings arising under these regulations. We believe that compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations will not materially affect our consolidated financial condition or our competitive position.

 

Employees.   At December 30, 2006, we had approximately 26,000 employees.

 

Financial Information About Geographic Areas.   Information on geographic areas is located in Note 14 within Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, which are included herein under Part II, Item 8.

 

Executive Officers.   The names, ages, and positions of our executive officers (as of February 15, 2007) are listed below together with their business experience. Executive officers are generally elected annually by the Board of Directors at the meeting immediately prior to the Annual Meeting of Shareowners.

 

James M. Jenness
Chairman of the Board  60
Mr. Jenness has been our Chairman since February 2005 and has served as a Kellogg director since 2000. From February 2005 until December 2006, he also served as our Chief Executive Officer. He was Chief Executive Officer of Integrated Merchandising Systems, LLC, a leader in outsource management of retail promotion and branded merchandising from 1997 to December 2004. He is also a director of Kimberly-Clark Corporation.

 

A. D. David Mackay
President and Chief Executive Officer  51
Mr. Mackay became our President and Chief Executive Officer on December 31, 2006 and has served as a Kellogg director since February 2005. Mr. Mackay joined Kellogg Australia in 1985 and held several positions with Kellogg USA, Kellogg Australia and Kellogg New Zealand before leaving Kellogg in 1992. He rejoined Kellogg Australia in 1998 as managing

director and was appointed managing director of Kellogg United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland later in 1998. He was named Senior Vice President and President, Kellogg USA in July 2000, Executive Vice President in November 2000, and President and Chief Operating Officer in September 2003. He is also a director of Fortune Brands, Inc.

 

John A. Bryant
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer, Kellogg Company and
President, Kellogg International  41
Mr. Bryant joined Kellogg in March 1998, working in support of the global strategic planning process. He was appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Kellogg USA, in August 2000, was appointed as our Chief Financial Officer in February 2002 and was appointed Executive Vice President later in 2002. He also assumed responsibility for the Natural and Frozen Foods Division, Kellogg USA, in September 2003. He was appointed Executive Vice President and President, Kellogg International in June 2004 and was appointed to his current position in December 2006.

 

Jeffrey W. Montie
Executive Vice President and President,
Kellogg North America  45
Mr. Montie joined Kellogg Company in 1987 as a brand manager in the U.S. ready-to-eat cereal (RTEC) business and held assignments in Canada, South Africa and Germany, and then served as Vice President, Global Innovation for Kellogg Europe before being promoted. In December 2000, Mr. Montie was promoted to President, Morning Foods Division of Kellogg USA and, in August 2002, to Senior Vice President, Kellogg Company. Mr. Montie has been Executive Vice President of Kellogg Company, President of the Morning Foods Division of Kellogg North America since September 2003 and President of Kellogg North America since June 2004.

 

Donna J. Banks
Senior Vice President, Global Supply Chain  50
Dr. Banks joined Kellogg in 1983. She was appointed to Senior Vice President, Research and Development in 1997, to Senior Vice President, Global Innovation in 1999 and to Senior Vice President, Research, Quality and Technology in 2000. She was appointed to her current position in June 2004.

 

Celeste Clark
Senior Vice President, Global Nutrition and
Corporate Affairs  53
Dr. Clark has been Kellogg’s Senior Vice President of Global Nutrition and Corporate Affairs since June 2006. She joined Kellogg in 1977 and served in several roles of increasing responsibility before being appointed to Vice President, Worldwide Nutrition Marketing in 1996 and then to Senior Vice President, Nutrition and Marketing Communications, Kellogg USA in 1999. She was appointed to Vice President, Corporate and Scientific Affairs in October 2002, and to Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs in August 2003.

 

Gary H. Pilnick
Senior Vice President, General Counsel,
Corporate Development and Secretary  42
Mr. Pilnick was appointed Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary in August 2003 and assumed responsibility for Corporate Development in June 2004. He joined Kellogg as Vice President — Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Secretary in September 2000 and served in that position until August 2003. Before joining Kellogg, he served as Vice President and Chief Counsel of Sara Lee Branded Apparel and as Vice President and Chief Counsel, Corporate Development and Finance at Sara Lee Corporation.

 

Kathleen Wilson-Thompson
Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources  49
Kathleen Wilson-Thompson has been Kellogg Company’s Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources since July 2005. She served in various legal roles until 1995, when she assumed the role of Human Resources Manager for one of our plants. In 1998, she returned to the legal department as Corporate Counsel, and was promoted to Chief Counsel, Labor and Employment in November 2001, a position she held until October 2003, when she was promoted to Vice President, Chief Counsel, U.S. Businesses, Labor and Employment.

 

Alan R. Andrews
Vice President and Corporate Controller  51
Mr. Andrews joined Kellogg Company in 1982. He served in various financial roles before relocating to China as general manager of Kellogg China in 1993. He subsequently served in several leadership innovation and finance roles before being promoted to Vice President, International Finance, Kellogg International in 2000. In 2002, he was appointed to Assistant Corporate Controller and assumed his current position in June 2004.

 

Availability of Reports; Website Access; Other Information.   Our internet address is http://www.kelloggcompany.com . Through “Investor Relations” — “Financials” — “SEC Filings” on our home page, we make available free of charge our proxy statements, our annual report on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, our current reports on Form 8-K, SEC Forms 3, 4 and 5 and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically

file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Our reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission are also made available to read and copy at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information about the Public Reference Room by contacting the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Reports filed with the SEC are also made available on its website at www.sec.gov.

 

Copies of the Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Charters of the Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Governance Committees of the Board of Directors, the Code of Conduct for Kellogg Company directors and Global Code of Ethics for Kellogg Company employees (including the chief executive officer, chief financial officer and corporate controller) can also be found on the Kellogg Company website. Amendments or waivers to the Global Code of Ethics applicable to the chief executive officer, chief financial officer and corporate controller can also be found in the “Investor Relations” section of the Kellogg Company website. We will provide copies of any of these documents to any Shareowner upon request.

 

Forward-Looking Statements.   This Report contains “forward-looking statements” with projections concerning, among other things, our strategy, financial principles, and plans; initiatives, improvements and growth; sales, gross margins, advertising, promotion, merchandising, brand building, operating profit, and earnings per share; innovation; investments; capital expenditure; asset write-offs and expenditures and costs related to productivity or efficiency initiatives; the impact of accounting changes and significant accounting estimates; our ability to meet interest and debt principal repayment obligations; minimum contractual obligations; future common stock repurchases or debt reduction; effective income tax rate; cash flow and core working capital improvements; interest expense; commodity and energy prices; and employee benefit plan costs and funding. Forward-looking statements include predictions of future results or activities and may contain the words “expect,” “believe,” “will,” “will deliver,” “anticipate,” “project,” “should,” or words or phrases of similar meaning. For example, forward-looking statements are found in this Item 1 and in several sections of Management’s Discussion and Analysis. Our actual results or activities may differ materially from these predictions. Our future results could be affected by a variety of factors, including the impact of competitive conditions; the effectiveness of pricing, advertising, and promotional programs; the success of innovation and new product introductions; the recoverability of the carrying value of goodwill and other intangibles; the success of productivity improvements and business transitions; commodity and energy prices, and labor costs; the availability of and interest rates on short-term and long-term financing; actual market performance of benefit plan trust investments; the levels of spending on systems initiatives, properties, business opportunities, integration of acquired businesses, and other general and administrative costs; changes in consumer behavior and preferences; the effect of U.S. and foreign economic conditions on items such as interest rates, statutory tax rates, currency conversion and availability; legal and regulatory factors; business disruption or other losses from war, terrorist acts, or political unrest and the risks and uncertainties described in Item 1A below. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they were made, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update them.

 

Item 1A.   Risk Factors

 

In addition to the factors discussed elsewhere in this Report, the following risks and uncertainties could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations and financial condition.

 

Our performance is affected by general economic and political conditions and taxation policies.

 

Our results in the past have been, and in the future may continue to be, materially affected by changes in general economic and political conditions in the United States and other countries, including the interest rate environment in which we conduct business, the financial markets through which we access capital and currency, political unrest and terrorist acts in the United States or other countries in which we carry on business.

 

The enactment of or increases in tariffs, including value added tax, or other changes in the application of existing taxes, in markets in which we are currently active or may be active in the future, or on specific products that we sell or with which our products compete, may have an adverse effect on our business or on our results of operations.

 

We operate in the highly competitive food industry.

 

We face competition across our product lines, including ready-to-eat cereals and convenience foods, from other companies which have varying abilities to withstand changes in market conditions. Some of our competitors have substantial financial, marketing and other resources, and competition with them in our various markets and

product lines could cause us to reduce prices, increase capital, marketing or other expenditures, or lose category share, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results. Category share and growth could also be adversely impacted if we are not successful in introducing new products.

 

Our consolidated financial results and demand for our products are dependent on the successful development of new products and processes.

 

There are a number of trends in consumer preferences which may impact us and the industry as a whole. These include changing consumer dietary trends and the availability of substitute products.

 

Our success is dependent on anticipating changes in consumer preferences and on successful new product and process development and product relaunches in response to such changes. We aim to introduce products or new or improved production processes on a timely basis in order to counteract obsolescence and decreases in sales of existing products. While we devote significant focus to the development of new products and to the research, development and technology process functions of our business, we may not be successful in developing new products or our new products may not be commercially successful. Our future results and our ability to maintain or improve our competitive position will depend on our capacity to gauge the direction of our key markets and upon our ability to successfully identify, develop, manufacture, market and sell new or improved products in these changing markets.

 

An impairment in the carrying value of goodwill or other acquired intangible could negatively affect our consolidated operating results and net worth.

 

The carrying value of goodwill represents the fair value of acquired businesses in excess of identifiable assets and liabilities as of the acquisition date. The carrying value of other intangibles represents the fair value of trademarks, trade names, and other acquired intangibles as of the acquisition date. Goodwill and other acquired intangibles expected to contribute indefinitely to our cash flows are not amortized, but must be evaluated by management at least annually for impairment. If carrying value exceeds current fair value, the intangible is considered impaired and is reduced to fair value via a charge to earnings. Events and conditions which could result in an impairment include changes in the industries in which we operate, including competition and advances in technology; a significant product liability or intellectual property claim; or other factors leading to reduction in expected sales or profitability. Should the value of one or more of the acquired intangibles become impaired, our consolidated earnings and net worth may be materially adversely affected.

 

As of December 30, 2006, the carrying value of intangible assets totaled approximately $4.87 billion, of which $3.45 billion was goodwill and $1.42 billion represented trademarks, tradenames, and other acquired intangibles compared to total assets of $10.71 billion and shareholders’ equity of $2.07 billion.

 

We may not achieve our targeted cost savings from cost reduction initiatives.

 

Our success depends in part on our ability to be an efficient producer in a highly competitive industry. We have invested a significant amount in capital expenditures to improve our operational facilities. Ongoing operational issues are likely to occur when carrying out major production, procurement, or logistical changes and these, as well as any failure by us to achieve our planned cost savings, could have a material adverse effect on our business and consolidated financial position and on the consolidated results of our operations and profitability.

 

We have a substantial amount of indebtedness.

 

We have indebtedness that is substantial in relation to our shareholders’ equity. As of December 30, 2006, we had total debt of approximately $5.04 billion and shareholders’ equity of $2.07 billion.

 

Our substantial indebtedness could have important consequences, including:

 

 

Our ability to make scheduled payments or to refinance our obligations with respect to indebtedness will depend on our financial and operating performance, which in turn, is subject

to prevailing economic conditions, the availability of, and interest rates on, short-term financing, and to financial, business and other factors beyond our control.

 

Our results may be materially and adversely impacted as a result of increases in the price of raw materials, including agricultural commodities, fuel and labor.

 

Agricultural commodities, including corn, wheat, soybean oil, sugar and cocoa, are the principal raw materials used in our products. Cartonboard, corrugated, and plastic are the principal packaging materials used by us. The cost of such commodities may fluctuate widely due to government policy and regulation, weather conditions, or other unforeseen circumstances. To the extent that any of the foregoing factors affect the prices of such commodities and we are unable to increase our prices or adequately hedge against such changes in prices in a manner that offsets such changes, the results of our operations could be materially and adversely affected.

 

Cereal processing ovens at major domestic and international facilities are regularly fuelled by natural gas or propane, which are obtained from local utilities or other local suppliers. Short-term stand-by propane storage exists at several plants for use in case of interruption in natural gas supplies. Oil may also be used to fuel certain operations at various plants. In addition, considerable amounts of diesel fuel are used in connection with the distribution of our products. The cost of fuel may fluctuate widely due to economic and political conditions, government policy and regulation, war, or other unforeseen circumstances which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated operating results or financial condition.

 

A shortage in the labor pool or other general inflationary pressures or changes in applicable laws and regulations could increase labor cost, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated operating results or financial conditions.

 

Additionally, our labor costs include the cost of providing benefits for employees. We sponsor a number of defined benefit plans for employees in the United States and various foreign locations, including pension, retiree health and welfare, active health care, severance and other postemployment benefits. We also participate in a number of multiemployer pension plans for certain of our manufacturing locations. Our major pension plans and U.S. retiree health and welfare plans are funded with trust assets invested in a globally diversified portfolio of equity securities with smaller holdings of bonds, real estate and other investments. The annual cost of benefits can vary significantly from year to year and is materially affected by such factors as changes in the assumed or actual rate of return on major plan assets, a change in the weighted-average discount rate used to measure obligations, the rate or trend of health care cost inflation, and the outcome of collectively-bargained wage and benefit agreements.

 

We may be unable to maintain our profit margins in the face of a consolidating retail environment. In addition, the loss of one of our largest customers could negatively impact our sales and profits.

 

Our largest customer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and its affiliates, accounted for approximately 18% of consolidated net sales during 2006, comprised principally of sales within the United States. At December 30, 2006, approximately 14% of our consolidated receivables balance and 22% of our U.S. receivables balance was comprised of amounts owed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and its affiliates. During 2006, our top five customers, collectively, accounted for approximately 33% of our consolidated net sales and approximately 42% of U.S. net sales. As the retail grocery trade continues to consolidate and mass marketers become larger, our large retail customers may seek to use their position to improve their profitability through improved efficiency, lower pricing and increased promotional programs. If we are unable to use our scale, marketing expertise, product innovation and category leadership positions to respond, our profitability or volume growth could be negatively affected. The loss of any large customer for an extended length of time could negatively impact our sales and profits.

 

Our intellectual property rights are valuable, and any inability to protect them could reduce the value of our products and brands.

 

We consider our intellectual property rights, including particularly and most notably our trademarks, but also including patents, trade secrets, copyrights and licensing agreements, to be a significant and valuable aspect of our business. We attempt to protect our intellectual property rights through a combination of patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret laws, as well as licensing agreements, third party nondisclosure and assignment agreements and policing of third party misuses of our intellectual property. Our failure to obtain or adequately protect our trademarks, products, new features of our products, or our technology, or any change in law or other changes that serve to lessen or remove the current legal protections of our intellectual property, may diminish our competitiveness and could materially harm our business.

 

We may be unaware of intellectual property rights of others that may cover some of our technology, brands or products.

Any litigation regarding patents or other intellectual property could be costly and time-consuming and could divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. Third party claims of intellectual property infringement might also require us to enter into costly license agreements. We also may be subject to significant damages or injunctions against development and sale of certain products.

 

Changes in tax, environmental or other regulations or failure to comply with existing licensing, trade and other regulations and laws could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition.

 

Our activities, both in and outside of the United States, are subject to regulation by various federal, state, provincial and local laws, regulations and government agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Labor, as well as similar and other authorities of the European Union and various state, provincial and local governments, as well as voluntary regulation by other bodies. Various state and local agencies also regulate our activities.

 

The manufacturing, marketing and distribution of food products is subject to governmental regulation that is becoming increasingly onerous. Those regulations control such matters as ingredients, advertising, relations with distributors and retailers, health and safety and the environment. We are also regulated with respect to matters such as licensing requirements, trade and pricing practices, tax and environmental matters. The need to comply with new or revised tax, environmental or other laws or regulations, or new or changed interpretations or enforcement of existing laws or regulations, may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

 

Our operations face significant foreign currency exchange rate exposure which could negatively impact our operating results.

 

We hold assets and incur liabilities, earn revenue and pay expenses in a variety of currencies other than the U.S. dollar, primarily the British Pound, Euro, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and Mexican peso. Because our consolidated financial statements are presented in U.S. dollars, we must translate our assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses into U.S. dollars at then-applicable exchange rates. Consequently, increases and decreases in the value of the U.S. dollar may negatively affect the value of these items in our consolidated financial statements, even if their value has not changed in their original currency. To the extent we fail to manage our foreign currency exposure adequately, our consolidated results of operations may be negatively affected.

 

If our food products become adulterated or misbranded, we might need to recall those items and may experience product liability if consumers are injured as a result.

 

We may need to recall some of our products if they become adulterated or misbranded. We may also be liable if the consumption of any of our products causes injury. A widespread product recall could result in significant losses due to the costs of a recall, the destruction of product inventory, and lost sales due to the unavailability of product for a period of time. We could also suffer losses from a significant product liability judgment against us. A significant product recall or product liability case could also result in a loss of consumer confidence in our food products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business results and the value of our brands.

 

 

None.

 

Germany, Great Britain, Guatemala, India, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, and Venezuela.

 

We generally own our principal properties, including our major office facilities, although some manufacturing facilities are leased, and no owned property is subject to any major lien or other encumbrance. Distribution facilities (including related warehousing facilities) and offices of non-plant locations typically are leased. In general, we consider our facilities, taken as a whole, to be suitable, adequate, and of sufficient capacity for our current operations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kellogg Company and Subsidiaries

 

of our enterprise-wide product groups. In fact, we achieved growth in retail cereal sales within each of our operating segments.

 

For 2006, our North America operating segment reported a net sales increase of 8%. Internal net sales growth was also 8%, with each major product group contributing as follows: retail cereal +3%; retail snacks (cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks) +11%; frozen and specialty (food service, vending, convenience, drug stores, custom manufacturing) channels +8%. The significant growth achieved by our North America snacks business represented nearly one-half of the total dollar increase in consolidated internal net sales for 2006. The 2006 growth in North America retail cereal sales was on top of 8% growth in 2005 and represented the 6th consecutive year in which we’ve increased our dollar share of category sales. Although North America consumer retail cereal consumption remained steady throughout 2006, our shipment revenues declined in the fourth quarter of 2006 by approximately 2% versus the prior-year period. We believe this decline was largely attributable to year-end retail trade inventory adjustments, which brought inventories in line with year-end 2005 levels after several successive quarters of slight inclines.

 

Our International operating segments collectively achieved net sales growth of approximately 6% or 5% on an internal basis, with leading dollar contributions from our UK, France, Mexico, and Venezuela business units. Internal sales of our Asia Pacific operating segment (which represents less than 5% of our consolidated results) were approximately even with the prior year, as solid growth in Australia cereal and Asian markets was offset by weak performance in our Australia snack business.

 

Consolidated operating profit for 2006 grew 1%, with internal operating profit up 4% versus 2005. As discussed on page 11, our measure of internal operating profit growth is consistent with our measure of internal sales growth, except that during 2006, internal operating profit growth also excluded the impact of incremental stock compensation expense associated with our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). We used this non-GAAP financial measure during our first year of adopting this FASB standard in order to assist management and investors in assessing the Company’s financial operating performance against comparative periods, which did not include stock option-related compensation expense. Accordingly, corporate selling, general, and administrative (SGA) expense was higher and operating profit was lower by $65.4 million for 2006, reducing consolidated operating profit growth by approximately four percentage points. Refer to the section beginning on page 21 entitled “ Stock compensation ” for further information on the Company’s adoption of SFAS No. 123(R).

 

As further discussed beginning on page 14, our measure of internal operating profit growth includes up-front costs related to cost-reduction initiatives. Although total 2006 up-front costs of $82 million were not significantly changed from the 2005 amount of $90 million, a year-over-year shift in operating segment allocation of such costs affected relative segment performance. The 2006 versus 2005 change in project cost allocation was a $44 million decline in North America (improving 2006 segment operating profit performance by approximately 4%) and a $28 million increase in Europe (reducing 2006 segment operating profit performance by approximately 8%).

 

Our current-year operating profit growth was affected by significant cost pressures as discussed in the “ Margin performance ” section beginning on page 13. Expenditures for brand-building activities increased at a low single-digit rate; this rate of growth incorporates savings reinvestment from our recent focus on media buying efficiencies and global leverage of promotional campaigns. Within our total brand-building metric, advertising expenditures grew at a high single-digit rate for 2006, which is a dynamic that we expect to continue through 2007 due to a relatively heavier focus on promotional efficiencies. Consistent with our long-term commitment, we expect to return to higher rates of growth for total brand-building expenditures, beginning in 2008.

 

2005 compared to 2004

 

The following tables provide an analysis of net sales and operating profit performance for 2005 versus 2004:

 

 

 

 

 

During 2005, consolidated net sales increased nearly 6%. Internal net sales also grew approximately 6%, which was on top of 5% internal sales growth in 2004.

 

For 2005, successful innovation and brand-building investment drove strong growth across our North American business units, which collectively reported a 7% increase in net sales versus 2004. Internal net sales of our North America retail cereal business increased 8%, with strong performance in both the United States and Canada. Internal net sales of our North America retail snacks business increased 7% on top of 8% growth in 2004. This growth was attributable principally to sales of fruit snacks, toaster pastries, cracker products, and major cookie brands. Partially offsetting this growth was the impact of proactively managing discontinuation of marginal cookie innovations. Internal net sales of our North America frozen and specialty channel businesses collectively increased approximately 8%, led by solid contributions from our Eggo ^® frozen foods and food service businesses.

 

In 2005, our International operating segments collectively achieved net sales growth of nearly 4% on both a reported and internal basis, with our Latin America operating segment contributing approximately two-thirds of the total dollar increase. Nevertheless, we achieved our long-term annual growth targets of low single-digit for internal net sales in our Europe and Asia Pacific operating segments due primarily to solid innovation performance in southern Europe and Asia.

 

Consolidated operating profit increased 4% during 2005, with our Europe operating segment contributing approximately one-half of the total dollar increase. This disproportionate contribution was attributable to a year-over-year shift in segment allocation of charges from cost-reduction initiatives. As discussed in the section beginning on page 14, the 2005 versus 2004 change in project cost allocation was a $65 million decline in Europe (improving 2005 segment operating profit performance by approximately 22%) and a $46 million increase in North America (reducing 2005 segment operating profit performance by approximately 4%).

 

Internal growth in consolidated operating profit was 5%. This internal growth was achieved despite-double digit growth in brand-building and innovation expenditures and significant cost pressures on gross margin, as discussed in the following section. During 2005, we increased our consolidated brand-building (advertising and consumer promotion) expenditures by more than 1 1 / 2  times the rate of sales growth.

 

Corporate operating profit for 2004 included a charge of $9.5 million related to CEO transition expenses, which arose from the departure of Carlos Gutierrez, the Company’s former CEO, related to his appointment as U.S. Secretary of Commerce in early 2005. The total charge (net of forfeitures) of $9.5 million was comprised principally of $3.7 million for special pension termination benefits and $5.5 million for accelerated vesting of 606,250 stock options. Segment operating profit for 2004 included intangibles impairment losses of $10.4 million, comprised of $7.9 million to write off the carrying value of a contract-based intangible asset in North America and $2.5 million to write off goodwill in Latin America.

 

Margin performance

 

Margin performance is presented in the following table.

 

 

 

We strive for gross margin expansion to reinvest in brand-building and innovation expenditures. Our strategy for expanding our gross margin is to manage external cost pressures through product pricing and mix improvements, productivity savings, and technological initiatives to reduce the cost of product ingredients and packaging.

 

Our gross margin performance for 2005 and 2006 reflects the impact of significant fuel, energy, and commodity price inflation experienced throughout most of that time, as well as increased employee benefit costs. In the aggregate, these input cost pressures reduced our consolidated gross margin by approximately 150 basis points for 2006 and 60 basis points in 2005. For 2006, our gross margin performance was also unfavorably impacted by incremental logistics and

innovation start-up costs related to the recent, significant sales growth within our North America operating segment.

 

While the majority of the inflationary pressure during 2005 and 2006 was commodity and energy-driven, employee benefit costs (the majority of which are recorded in cost of goods sold) also increased during that time period, with total active and retired employee benefits expense reaching approximately $325 million in 2006 versus $290 million in 2005 and $260 million in 2004. For 2007, the combined effect of favorable trust asset performance and rising interest rates is expected to have a moderating effect on underlying health care cost inflation. As a result, we expect 2007 benefits expense to be approximately even with the 2006 amount.

 

For 2007, we expect this inflationary trend to continue, with input cost (fuel, energy, commodity, and benefits) pressures forecasted to exceed realized savings. As compared to 2006 results, we currently expect $110-$130 million of incremental cost inflation, primarily associated with the prices of our 2007 ingredient purchases. Accordingly, we believe our 2007 consolidated gross margin could decline by up to 50 basis points.

 

In addition to external cost pressures, our discretionary investment in cost-reduction initiatives (refer to following section) has created variability in our gross margin performance during the periods presented. Although total annual program-related charges were relatively steady over the past several years, the amount recorded in cost of goods sold varied by year (in millions): 2006−$74; 2005−$90; 2004−$46. Additionally, cost of goods sold for 2005 includes a charge of approximately $12 million, related to a lump-sum payment to members of the major union representing the hourly employees at our U.S. cereal plants for ratification of a wage and benefits agreement with the Company covering the four-year period ended October 2009.

 

For 2006, both our SGA% and operating margin were affected by our fiscal 2006 adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). During 2006, we reported incremental stock compensation expense of $65.4 million, which increased our SGA% and reduced our operating margin by approximately 60 basis points. Refer to the section beginning on page 21 entitled “ Stock compensation ” for further information on this subject.

 

Cost-reduction initiatives

 

We view our continued spending on cost-reduction initiatives as part of our ongoing operating principles to reinvest earnings so as to provide greater reliability in meeting long-term growth targets. Initiatives undertaken must meet certain pay-back and internal rate of return (IRR) targets. We currently require each project to recover total cash implementation costs within a five-year period of completion or to achieve an IRR of at least 20%. Each cost-reduction initiative is normally one to three years in duration. Upon completion (or as each major stage is completed in the case of multi-year programs), the project begins to deliver cash savings and/or reduced depreciation, which is then used to fund new initiatives. To implement these programs, the Company has incurred various up-front costs, including asset write-offs, exit charges, and other project expenditures, which we include in our measure and discussion of operating segment profitability within the “ Net sales and operating profit  ” section beginning on page 11.

 

In 2006, we commenced a multi-year European manufacturing optimization plan to improve utilization of our facility in Manchester, England and to better align production in Europe. Based on forecasted foreign exchange rates, the Company currently expects to incur approximately $60 million in total up-front costs (including those already incurred in 2006), comprised of approximately 80% cash and 20% non-cash asset write-offs, to complete this initiative. The cash portion of the total up-front costs results principally from our plan to eliminate approximately 220 hourly and salaried positions from the Manchester facility by the end of 2008 through voluntary early retirement and severance programs. For 2006, we incurred approximately $28 million of total up-front costs and expect to incur a similar amount in 2007, leaving a relatively insignificant amount to be incurred in 2008. Cash requirements for this initiative are expected to exceed projected cash charges by approximately $10 million in total due to incremental pension trust funding requirements of early retirements; most of this incremental funding occurred in 2006.

 

Also during 2006, we implemented several short-term initiatives to enhance the productivity and efficiency of our U.S. cereal manufacturing network and streamlined our sales distribution system in a Latin American market. In 2005, we undertook an initiative to consolidate U.S. snacks bakery capacity, resulting in the closure and sale of two facilities by mid 2006. Major initiatives commenced in 2004 were the global rollout of the SAP information technology system, reorganization of pan-European operations, consolidation of U.S. veggie foods manufacturing operations, and relocation of our U.S. snacks business unit to Battle Creek, Michigan. Except for the aforementioned European manufacturing optimization plan, our other initiatives were substantially complete at December 30, 2006. Details of each initiative are described in Note 3 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

For 2006, the Company recorded total program-related charges of approximately $82 million, comprised of $20 million of asset write-offs, $30 million for severance and other exit costs, $9 million for other cash expenditures, $4 million for a multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability, and $19 million for pension and other postretirement plan curtailment losses and special termination benefits. Approximately $74 million of the total 2006 charges were recorded in cost of goods sold within operating segment results, with approximately $8 million recorded in SGA expense within corporate results. The Company’s operating segments were impacted as follows (in millions): North America−$46; Europe−$28.

 

For 2005, total program-related charges were approximately $90 million, comprised of $16 million for a multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability, $44 million of asset write-offs, $21 million in severance and other exit costs, and $9 million for other cash expenditures. All of the charges were recorded in cost of goods sold within our North America operating segment.

 

For 2004, total program-related charges were approximately $109 million, comprised of $41 million in asset write-offs, $1 million for special pension termination benefits, $15 million in severance and other exit costs, and $52 million in other cash expenditures such as relocation and consulting. Approximately $46 million of the total 2004 charges were recorded in cost of goods sold, with approximately $63 million recorded in SGA expense. The 2004 charges impacted our operating segments as follows (in millions): North America−$44; Europe−$65.

 

For the periods presented, cash requirements to implement these programs approximated the exit costs and other cash charges incurred in each year, except for approximately $8 million of incremental pension trust funding that occurred in 2006 in connection with the European manufacturing optimization plan. At December 30, 2006, the Company’s remaining cash commitments to complete the executed programs were comprised of: 1) exit cost reserves of $14 million expected to be paid out in 2007; 2) approximately $25 million of projected spending and pension trust funding during 2007 and 2008 associated with the European manufacturing optimization plan; and 3) an estimated multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability of $20 million, which will not be finally determined until 2008 and once determined, is payable to the pension fund over a 20-year maximum period. We expect these cash requirements to be funded by operating cash flow.

 

Our 2007 earnings target includes total projected charges related to in-progress and potential cost-reduction initiatives of approximately $80 million or $.14 per share. Approximately one-third of this total is allocated to the European manufacturing optimization plan. However, the specific cash versus non-cash mix or cost of goods sold versus SGA expense impact of the remainder has not yet been determined. Other potential initiatives to be commenced in 2007 are still in the planning stages and individual actions will be announced as we commit to these discretionary investments.

 

Interest expense

 

As illustrated in the following table, annual interest expense for the 2004-2006 period has been relatively steady at approximately $300 million per year, which reflects a stable effective interest rate on total debt and a relatively constant debt balance throughout most of that time. Interest income (recorded in other income) has trended upward from approximately $7 million in 2004 to $11 million in 2006, resulting in net interest expense of approximately $296 million for 2006. We currently expect that our 2007 net interest expense will approximate the 2006 level.

 

 

Other income (expense), net

 

Other income (expense), net includes non-operating items such as interest income, charitable donations, and foreign exchange gains and losses. Other income (expense), net for the periods presented was (in millions): 2006−$13.2; 2005−($24.9); 2004−($6.6). The variability in other income (expense), net, among years reflects the timing of certain significant charges explained in the following paragraph and net foreign exchange transaction losses included therein of (in millions): 2006−$2; 2005−$2; 2004−$15.

 

Other expense includes charges for contributions to the Kellogg’s Corporate Citizenship Fund, a private trust established for charitable giving, as follows (in millions): 2006−$3; 2005−$16; 2004−$9. Other expense for 2005 also includes a charge of approximately $7 million to reduce the carrying value of a corporate commercial facility to estimated selling value. This facility was sold in August 2006.

 

Income taxes

 

Our long-term objective is to achieve a consolidated effective income tax rate of approximately 31-32%. In comparison to a U.S. federal statutory income tax rate of 35%, we pursue planning initiatives globally in order to move toward our long-term target. Excluding the impact of discrete adjustments, our sustainable consolidated effective income tax rate for both 2006 and 2005 was approximately 33%, which is what we currently expect for 2007. Our reported rates of approximately 32% for 2006 and 31% for 2005 were lower due to the favorable effect of various discrete adjustments such as audit settlements, statutory rate changes, and other deferred tax liability adjustments. (Refer to Note 11 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.) Similarly, our 2007 consolidated effective income tax rate could be up to 200 basis points lower than the aforementioned sustainable rate if pending uncertain tax matters, including tax positions that could be affected by planning initiatives, are resolved more favorably than we currently expect. We expect that any incremental benefits from such discrete events would be invested in cost-reduction initiatives and other growth opportunities.

 

The consolidated effective income tax rate for 2004 of nearly 35% was higher than the rates for 2006 and 2005 primarily because this period preceded the final reorganization of our European operations which favorably affected the country-weighting impact on our rate. (Refer to Note 3 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on this initiative.) Additionally, the 2004 consolidated effective income tax rate included a provision of approximately $28 million (net of related foreign tax credits) for approximately $1.1 billion of dividends from foreign subsidiaries which we elected to repatriate in 2005 under the American Jobs Creation Act. Finally, 2005 was the first year in which we were permitted to claim a phased-in deduction from U.S. taxable income equal to a stipulated percentage of qualified production income (“QPI”).

 

funding practices, we currently believe that we will not be required to make any contributions under the new PPA requirements until after 2012. Accordingly, we do not expect to have significant statutory or contractual funding requirements for our major retiree benefit plans during the next several years, with total 2007 U.S. and foreign plan contributions currently estimated at approximately $54 million. Actual 2007 contributions could exceed our current projections, as influenced by our decision to undertake discretionary funding of our benefit trusts versus other competing investment priorities, future changes in government requirements, renewals of union contracts, or higher-than-expected health care claims experience. Additionally, our projections concerning timing of PPA funding requirements are subject to change primarily based on general market conditions affecting trust asset performance and our future decisions regarding certain elective provisions of the PPA.

 

In comparison to 2005, the unfavorable movement in core working capital during 2006 was related to trade payables performance and higher inventory balances. At December 30, 2006, our consolidated trade payables balance was within 3% of the balance at year-end 2005. In contrast, our trade payables balance increased approximately 22% during 2005, from a historically-low level at the end of 2004. The higher inventory balance was principally related to higher commodity prices for our raw material and packaging inventories and to a lesser extent, the overall increase in the average number of weeks of inventory on hand. Our consolidated inventory balances were unfavorably affected by U.S. capacity limitations during 2006; nevertheless, our consolidated inventory balances remain at industry-leading levels.

 

Despite the unfavorable movement in the absolute balance, average core working capital continues to improve as a percentage of net sales. For the trailing fifty-two weeks ended December 30, 2006, core working capital was 6.8% of net sales, as compared to 7.0% as of year-end 2005 and 7.3% as of year-end 2004. We have achieved this multi-year reduction primarily through faster collection of accounts receivable and extension of terms on trade payables. Up until 2006, we had also been successful in implementing logistics improvements to reduce inventory on hand while continuing to meet customer requirements. We believe the opportunity to reduce inventory from year-end 2006 levels could represent a source of operating cash flow during 2007.

 

For 2005, the net favorable movement in core working capital was related to the aforementioned increase in trade payables, partially offset by an unfavorable movement in trade receivables, which returned to historical levels (in relation to sales) in early 2005 from lower levels at the end of 2004. We believe these lower levels were related to the timing of our 53rd week over the 2004 holiday period, which impacted the core working capital component of our operating cash flow throughout 2005.

 

As presented in the table on page 16, other working capital was a source of cash in 2006 versus a use of cash in 2005. The year-over-year favorable variance of approximately $116 million was attributable to several factors including lower debt-related currency swap payments in 2006 as well as business-related growth in accrued compensation and promotional liabilities. The unfavorable movement in other working capital for 2004, as compared to succeeding years, primarily relates to a decrease in current income tax liabilities which is offset in the deferred income taxes line item.

 

Our management measure of cash flow is defined as net cash provided by operating activities reduced by expenditures for property additions. We use this non-GAAP financial measure of cash flow to focus management and investors on the amount of cash available for debt repayment, dividend distributions, acquisition opportunities, and share repurchase. Our cash flow metric is reconciled to the most comparable GAAP measure, as follows:

 

 

Our 2006 and 2005 cash flow (as defined) performance reflects increased spending for selected capacity expansions to accommodate our Company’s strong sales growth over the past several years. This increased capital spending represented 4.2% of net sales in 2006 and 3.7% of net sales in 2005, as compared to 2.9% in 2004. For 2007, we currently expect property expenditures to remain at approximately 4% of net sales, which is consistent with our long-term target for capital spending. This forecast includes expenditures associated with the construction of a new manufacturing facility in Ontario, Canada, which represents approximately 15% of our 2007 capital plan. This facility is being constructed to satisfy existing capacity needs in our North America business, which we believe will partially ease certain of the aforementioned logistics and inventory management issues which we encountered during 2006.

 

For 2007, we are targeting cash flow of $950-$1,025 million. We expect to achieve our target principally through operating

profit growth, which is forecasted to offset higher levels of capital spending and income tax payments during 2007.

 

In order to support the continued growth of our North American fruit snacks business, we completed two separate business acquisitions during 2005 for a total of approximately $50 million in cash, including related transaction costs. In June 2005, we acquired a fruit snacks manufacturing facility and related assets from Kraft Foods Inc. The facility is located in Chicago, Illinois and employs approximately 400 active hourly and salaried employees. In November 2005, we acquired substantially all of the assets and certain liabilities of a Washington State-based manufacturer of natural and organic fruit snacks.

 

For 2006, our Board of Directors authorized stock repurchases for general corporate purposes and to offset issuances for employee benefit programs of up to $650 million, which we spent to repurchase approximately 14.9 million shares. This activity consisted principally of a February 2006 private transaction with the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) to repurchase approximately 12.8 million shares for $550 million. Pursuant to similar Board authorizations applicable to those years, we paid $664 million in 2005 to repurchase approximately 15.4 million shares and $298 million in 2004 for approximately 7.3 million shares. The 2005 activity consisted principally of a November 2005 private transaction with the Trust to repurchase approximately 9.4 million shares for $400 million. For 2007, our Board of Directors has authorized a stock repurchase program of up to $650 million.

 

In July 2005, we redeemed $723.4 million of long-term debt, representing the remaining principal balance of our 6.0% U.S. Dollar Notes due April 2006. In October 2005, we repaid $200 million of maturing 4.875% U.S. Dollar Notes. In December 2005, we redeemed $35.4 million of U.S. Dollar Notes due June 2008. These payments were funded principally through issuance of U.S. Dollar short-term debt.

 

During November 2005, subsidiaries of the Company issued approximately $930 million of foreign currency-denominated debt in offerings outside of the United States, consisting of Euro 550 million of floating rate notes due 2007 (the “Euro Notes”) and approximately C$330 million of Canadian commercial paper. These debt issuances were guaranteed by the Company and net proceeds were used primarily for the payment of dividends pursuant to the American Jobs Creation Act and the purchase of stock and assets of other direct or indirect subsidiaries of the Company, as well as for general corporate purposes.

 

To utilize excess cash and reduce financing costs, on January 31, 2007, we announced an early redemption of the Euro Notes, effective February 28, 2007. To partially refinance this redemption, we established a program to issue euro-commercial paper notes up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding at any time of $750 million or its equivalent in alternative currencies. The notes may have maturities ranging up to 364 days and will be senior unsecured obligations of the applicable issuer, with subsidiary issuances guaranteed by the Company. In connection with these financing activities, we increased our short-term lines of credit from $2.2 billion at December 30, 2006 to approximately $2.6 billion, via a $400 million unsecured 364-Day Credit Agreement effective January 31, 2007. The 364-Day Agreement contains customary covenants, warranties, and restrictions similar to those applicable to our existing $2.0 billion Five-Year Credit Agreement, which expires in 2011. These facilities are available for general corporate purposes, including commercial paper back-up, although the Company does not currently anticipate any usage under the facilities. (Refer to Note 7 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on our debt issuances and credit facilities.)

 

At December 30, 2006, our total debt was approximately $5.0 billion, approximately even with the balances at year-end 2005 and 2004. During 2005, we increased our benefit trust investments through plan funding by approximately 13%, reduced the Company’s common stock outstanding through repurchase programs by approximately 4%, and implemented a mid-year increase in the shareholder dividend level of approximately 10%. Similarly, during 2006, we further reduced our common stock outstanding through repurchase programs by approximately 4% and implemented a mid-year increase in the shareholder dividend level of approximately 5%. Primarily due to the prioritization of these uses of cash flow, plus the aforementioned need to selectively invest in production capacity, we did not reduce our total debt balance during the past two years, but remain committed to net debt reduction (total debt less cash) over the long term. We currently expect the total debt balance at year-end 2007 to be slightly higher than the 2006 year-end level.

 

We believe that we will be able to meet our interest and principal repayment obligations and maintain our debt covenants for the foreseeable future, while still meeting our operational needs, including the pursuit of selected growth opportunities, through our strong cash flow, our program of issuing short-term debt, and maintaining credit facilities on a global basis. Our significant long-term debt issues do not

contain acceleration of maturity clauses that are dependent on credit ratings. A change in the Company’s credit ratings could limit its access to the U.S. short-term debt market and/or increase the cost of refinancing long-term debt in the future. However, even under these circumstances, we would continue to have access to our credit facilities, which are in amounts sufficient to cover our outstanding commercial paper balance, which was $1.3 billion at December 30, 2006. In addition, assuming continuation of market liquidity, we believe it would be possible to term out certain short-term maturities or obtain additional credit facilities such that the Company could further extend its ability to meet its long-term borrowing obligations through 2008.

 

 

 Off-balance Sheet Arrangements and Other Obligations

 

Off-balance sheet arrangements

 

Our off-balance sheet arrangements are generally limited to a residual value guarantee on one operating lease of approximately $13 million, which will expire in July 2007, and guarantees on loans to independent contractors for their purchase of DSD route franchises up to $17 million. We record the estimated fair value of these loan guarantees on our balance sheet, which was insignificant for the periods presented. Refer to Note 6 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.

 

Contractual obligations

 

The following table summarizes future estimated cash payments to be made under existing contractual obligations. Further information on debt obligations is contained in Note 7 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Further information on lease obligations is contained in Note 6.

 

 

 

 Critical Accounting Policies and

 Significant Accounting Estimates

 

Our significant accounting policies are discussed in Note 1 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. During 2006, we adopted two new accounting pronouncements which had a significant impact on our Company’s financial statements. At the beginning of 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123(R) “Share-Based Payment,” which materially reduced our fiscal 2006 results, due primarily to the first-time recognition of compensation expense associated with employee and director stock option grants. This topic is further discussed in the section beginning on page 21.

 

Secondly, at the end of 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 158 “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans,” which required us to reflect the net over- or under-funded position of our defined postretirement and postemployment benefit plans as an asset or liability on the balance sheet, with unrecognized prior service cost and net experience losses recorded in shareholders’ equity. Under pre-existing guidance, these unrecognized amounts, which totaled approximately $890.8 million at December 30, 2006, were disclosed only in financial statement footnotes. Accordingly, the after-tax presentation of these amounts on the balance sheet reduced consolidated net assets and shareholders’ equity by $591.9 million at year-end 2006. Nevertheless, we do not believe this impact is economically significant because our net earnings, cash flow, liquidity, debt covenants, and plan funding requirements were not affected by this change in accounting principle. Refer to Note 1 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on SFAS No. 158. Refer to the section beginning on page 22 for information on our process for estimating benefit obligations.

 

At the beginning of our 2007 fiscal year, we adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48 “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income

Taxes” (FIN No. 48), which affects our process for estimating tax benefits and liabilities, as further discussed in the “ Income taxes ” section beginning on page 24. The initial application of FIN No. 48 resulted in a net decrease to accrued income tax and related interest liabilities of approximately $2 million, with an offsetting increase to retained earnings. Refer to Note 1 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on FIN No. 48.

 

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157 “Fair Value Measurements” to provide enhanced guidance for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities. The standard also expands disclosure requirements for assets and liabilities measured at fair value, how fair value is determined, and the effect of fair value measurements on earnings. The standard applies whenever other authoritative literature requires (or permits) certain assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value, but does not expand the use of fair value. SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those years. Early adoption is permitted. We plan to adopt SFAS No. 157 in the first quarter of our 2008 fiscal year. For the Company, balance sheet items carried at fair value consist primarily of derivatives and other financial instruments, assets held for sale, exit liabilities, and the trust asset component of net benefit plan obligations. Relevant to the “ Intangibles ” section beginning on this page, we also use fair value concepts to test various long-lived assets for impairment and to initially measure assets and liabilities acquired in a business combination. We are currently evaluating the impact of adoption on how these assets and liabilities are currently measured.

 

Our critical accounting estimates, which require significant judgments and assumptions likely to have a material impact on our financial statements, are discussed in the following sections on pages 20-25.

 

Promotional expenditures

 

Our promotional activities are conducted either through the retail trade or directly with consumers and involve in-store displays and events; feature price discounts on our products; consumer coupons, contests, and loyalty programs; and similar activities. The costs of these activities are generally recognized at the time the related revenue is recorded, which normally precedes the actual cash expenditure. The recognition of these costs therefore requires management judgment regarding the volume of promotional offers that will be redeemed by either the retail trade or consumer. These estimates are made using various techniques including historical data on performance of similar promotional programs. Differences between estimated expense and actual redemptions are normally insignificant and recognized as a change in management estimate in a subsequent period. On a full-year basis, these subsequent period adjustments have rarely represented in excess of .4% (.004) of our Company’s net sales. However, as our Company’s total promotional expenditures (including amounts classified as a revenue reduction) represented nearly 30% of 2006 net sales, the likelihood exists of materially different reported results if different assumptions or conditions were to prevail.

 

Intangibles

 

We follow SFAS No. 142 “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” in evaluating impairment of intangibles. We perform this evaluation at least annually during the fourth quarter of each year in conjunction with our annual budgeting process. Under SFAS No. 142, goodwill impairment testing first requires a comparison between the carrying value and fair value of a reporting unit with associated goodwill. Carrying value is based on the assets and liabilities associated with the operations of that reporting unit, which often requires allocation of shared or corporate items among reporting units. The fair value of a reporting unit is based primarily on our assessment of profitability multiples likely to be achieved in a theoretical sale transaction. Similarly, impairment testing of other intangible assets requires a comparison of carrying value to fair value of that particular asset. Fair values of non-goodwill intangible assets are based primarily on projections of future cash flows to be generated from that asset. For instance, cash flows related to a particular trademark would be based on a projected royalty stream attributable to branded product sales. These estimates are made using various inputs including historical data, current and anticipated market conditions, management plans, and market comparables. We periodically engage third-party valuation consultants to assist in this process.

 

We also follow SFAS No. 142 in evaluating the useful life over which a non-goodwill intangible asset is expected to contribute directly or indirectly to the cash flows of the Company. An intangible asset with a finite useful life is amortized; an intangible asset with an indefinite useful life is not amortized, but is evaluated annually for impairment. Reaching a determination on useful life requires significant judgments and assumptions regarding the future effects of obsolescence, demand, competition, other economic factors (such as the stability of the industry, known technological advances, legislative action that results in an uncertain or changing regulatory environment, and expected changes in

distribution channels), the level of required maintenance expenditures, and the expected lives of other related groups of assets.

 

At December 30, 2006, intangible assets, net, were $4.9 billion, consisting primarily of goodwill and trademarks associated with the 2001 acquisition of Keebler Foods Company. Within this total, approximately $1.4 billion of non-goodwill intangible assets were classified as indefinite-lived, comprised principally of Keebler trademarks. While we currently believe that the fair value of all of our intangibles exceeds carrying value and that those intangibles so classified will contribute indefinitely to the cash flows of the Company, materially different assumptions regarding future performance of our North American snacks business or the weighted-average cost of capital used in the valuations could result in significant impairment losses and/or amortization expense.

 

Stock compensation

 

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123(R) “Share-Based Payment,” which generally requires public companies to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair value and to recognize this cost over the requisite service period. We adopted SFAS No. 123(R) as of the beginning of our 2006 fiscal year, using the modified prospective method. Accordingly, prior years were not restated, but our 2006 results include compensation expense associated with unvested equity-based awards, which were granted prior to 2006. With the adoption of this pronouncement, stock-based compensation represents a critical accounting policy of the Company, which is further described in Note 1 within Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

For 2006, our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) has resulted in an increase in the Company’s corporate SGA expense and a corresponding reduction to earnings and net earnings per share, due primarily to recognition of compensation expense associated with employee and director stock option grants. No such expense was recognized under our previous accounting method in pre-2006 periods; however, we were required to disclose pro forma results under the alternate fair value method prescribed by SFAS No. 123 “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.” Using reported results for 2006 and pro forma results for 2005, the comparable impact of stock compensation expense is presented in the following table:

 

 

As illustrated in the preceding table, the pro forma incremental impact of stock compensation was $.09 per share for 2005 versus an $.11 impact of adopting SFAS No. 123(R) in 2006. The $.02 year-over-year increase in the per-share impact is due principally to an increase in the number of options granted during 2006 and a lower average number of shares outstanding on which the calculation is based. As explained in the following paragraphs, the amount of stock compensation recognized for any particular year is highly dependent on market conditions and other factors outside of our control. Based on historical patterns and predicted market conditions existing at December 30, 2006, we currently expect the 2007 earnings per share impact of stock option expense to be within the range of actual 2005 and 2006 results.

 

Accounting for stock compensation under SFAS No. 123(R) represents a critical accounting estimate, which requires significant judgments and assumptions likely to have a material impact on our financial statements. Due to the need to determine the grant-date fair value of equity instruments that have not yet been awarded, the actual impact on future results will depend, in part, on actual awards during any reporting period and various market factors that affect the fair value of those awards. Additionally, while the timing and volume of grants associated with a particular year’s long-term incentive compensation are within our control, the timing and volume of “reload” option grants are not. Reload options are awarded to eligible employees and directors to replace previously-owned Company stock used by those individuals to pay the exercise price, including related employment taxes, of vested pre-2004 option awards containing this accelerated ownership feature. Under SFAS No. 123(R), these reload options result in additional compensation expense in the year of grant and for 2006, represented approximately one-third of the Company’s total stock option expense. The

Company has not granted options containing an accelerated ownership feature since 2003; however, the potential requirement to award reload options over the contractual 10-year term of the original grants could continue to significantly impact the amount of our stock-based compensation expense for a number of years.

 

We estimate the fair value of each stock option award on the date of grant using a lattice-based option valuation model for annual grants and a Black-Scholes model for reload grants. These models require us to make predictive assumptions regarding future stock price volatility, employee exercise behavior, and dividend yield. Our methods for selecting these valuation assumptions are explained in Note 8 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. In particular, our estimate of stock price volatility is based principally on historical volatility of the options granted, and to a lesser extent, on implied volatilities from traded options on the Company’s stock. For the lattice-based model, historical volatility corresponds to the 10-year contractual term of the options granted; whereas, for the Black-Scholes model, historical volatility corresponds to the expected term, which is currently 2.5 years. We decided to rely more heavily on historical volatility due to the greater availability of data and reliability of trends over longer periods of time, as compared to the terms of more thinly-traded options, which rarely extend beyond two years. At year-end 2006, historical volatilities using weekly price observations ranged from approximately 23% for 10 years to 12% for 2.5 years. In comparison, implied volatilities averaged approximately 16% for traded options with terms in excess of six months. Based on this data, our weighted-average composite volatility assumption for purposes of valuing our option grants during 2006 was 17.9%, as compared to 22.0% for 2005. All other assumptions held constant, a one percentage point increase or decrease in our 2006 volatility assumption would increase or decrease the grant-date fair value of our 2006 option awards by approximately 4%.

 

To the extent that actual outcomes differ from our assumptions, we are not required to true up grant-date fair value-based expense to final intrinsic values. However, these differences can impact the classification of cash tax benefits realized upon exercise of stock options, as explained in the following two paragraphs. Furthermore, as historical data has a significant bearing on our forward-looking assumptions, significant variances between actual and predicted experience could lead to prospective revisions in our assumptions, which could then significantly impact the year-over-year comparability of stock-based compensation expense.

 

SFAS No. 123(R) also provides that any corporate income tax benefit realized upon exercise or vesting of an award in excess of that previously recognized in earnings (referred to as a “windfall tax benefit”) will be presented in the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows as a financing (rather than an operating) cash flow. If this standard had been adopted in 2005, operating cash flow would have been lower (and financing cash flow would have been higher) by approximately $20 million as a result of this provision. For 2006, the corresponding reduction in operating cash flow attributable to windfall tax benefits classified as financing cash flow was $21.5 million. The actual impact on future years’ operating cash flow will depend, in part, on the volume of employee stock option exercises during a particular year and the relationship between the exercise-date market value of the underlying stock and the original grant-date fair value previously determined for financial reporting purposes.

 

For balance sheet classification purposes, realized windfall tax benefits are credited to capital in excess of par value within the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Realized shortfall tax benefits (amounts which are less than that previously recognized in earnings) are first offset against the cumulative balance of windfall tax benefits, if any, and then charged directly to income tax expense, potentially resulting in volatility in our consolidated effective income tax rate. Under the transition rules for adopting SFAS No. 123(R) using the modified prospective method, we were permitted to calculate a cumulative memo balance of windfall tax benefits from post-1995 years for the purpose of accounting for future shortfall tax benefits. We completed such study prior to the first period of adoption and currently have sufficient cumulative memo windfall tax benefits to absorb projected arising shortfalls, such that 2007 earnings are not currently expected to be affected by this provision. However, as employee stock option exercise behavior is not within our control, the likelihood exists of materially different reported results if different assumptions or conditions were to prevail.

 

Retirement benefits

 

Our Company sponsors a number of U.S. and foreign defined benefit employee pension plans and also provides retiree health care and other welfare benefits in the United States and Canada. Plan funding strategies are influenced by tax regulations. A substantial majority of plan assets are invested in a globally diversified portfolio of equity securities with smaller holdings of debt securities and other investments. We follow SFAS No. 87 “Employers’ Accounting for Pensions” and SFAS No. 106 “Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions” (as amended by SFAS No. 158, effective as of our fiscal year-end 2006) for the measurement and recognition of obligations and expense related to our retiree benefit plans. Embodied in both of these standards is

the concept that the cost of benefits provided during retirement should be recognized over the employees’ active working life. Inherent in this concept is the requirement to use various actuarial assumptions to predict and measure costs and obligations many years prior to the settlement date. Major actuarial assumptions that require significant management judgment and have a material impact on the measurement of our consolidated benefits expense and accumulated obligation include the long-term rates of return on plan assets, the health care cost trend rates, and the interest rates used to discount the obligations for our major plans, which cover employees in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.

 

To conduct our annual review of the long-term rate of return on plan assets, we work with third-party financial consultants to model expected returns over a 20-year investment horizon with respect to the specific investment mix of each of our major plans. The return assumptions used reflect a combination of rigorous historical performance analysis and forward-looking views of the financial markets including consideration of current yields on long-term bonds, price-earnings ratios of the major stock market indices, and long-term inflation. Our U.S. plan model, corresponding to approximately 70% of our trust assets globally, currently incorporates a long-term inflation assumption of 2.8% and an active management premium of 1% (net of fees) validated by historical analysis. Although we review our expected long-term rates of return annually, our benefit trust investment performance for one particular year does not, by itself, significantly influence our evaluation. Our expected rates of return are generally not revised, provided these rates continue to fall within a “more likely than not” corridor of between the 25th and 75th percentile of expected long-term returns, as determined by our modeling process. Our assumed rate of return for U.S. plans in 2006 of 8.9% equated to approximately the 50th percentile expectation of our 2006 model. Similar methods are used for various foreign plans with invested assets, reflecting local economic conditions. Foreign trust investments represent approximately 30% of our global benefit plan assets.

 

Based on consolidated benefit plan assets at December 30, 2006, a 100 basis point reduction in the assumed rate of return would increase 2007 benefits expense by approximately $42 million. Correspondingly, a 100 basis point shortfall between the assumed and actual rate of return on plan assets for 2007 would result in a similar amount of arising experience loss. Any arising asset-related experience gain or loss is recognized in the calculated value of plan assets over a five-year period. Once recognized, experience gains and losses are amortized using a declining-balance method over the average remaining service period of active plan participants, which for U.S. plans is presently about 13 years. Under this recognition method, a 100 basis point shortfall in actual versus assumed performance of all of our plan assets in 2007 would reduce pre-tax earnings by approximately $1 million in 2008, increasing to approximately $7 million in 2012. For each of the three years ending December 30, 2006, our actual return on plan assets exceeded the recognized assumed return by the following amounts (in millions): 2006−$257.1; 2005−$39.4; 2004−$95.6.

 

To conduct our annual review of health care cost trend rates, we work with third-party financial consultants to model our actual claims cost data over a five-year historical period, including an analysis of pre-65 versus post-65 age groups and other important demographic components of our covered retiree population. This data is adjusted to eliminate the impact of plan changes and other factors that would tend to distort the underlying cost inflation trends. Our initial health care cost trend rate is reviewed annually and adjusted as necessary to remain consistent with recent historical experience and our expectations regarding short-term future trends. In comparison to our actual five-year compound annual claims cost growth rate of approximately 8%, our initial trend rate for 2007 of 9.5% reflects the expected future impact of faster-growing claims experience for certain demographic groups within our total employee population. Our initial rate is trended downward by 1% per year, until the ultimate trend rate of 4.75% is reached. The ultimate trend rate is adjusted annually, as necessary, to approximate the current economic view on the rate of long-term inflation plus an appropriate health care cost premium. Based on consolidated obligations at December 30, 2006, a 100 basis point increase in the assumed health care cost trend rates would increase 2007 benefits expense by approximately $18 million. A 100 basis point excess of 2007 actual health care claims cost over that calculated from the assumed trend rate would result in an arising experience loss of approximately $9 million. Any arising health care claims cost-related experience gain or loss is recognized in the calculated amount of claims experience over a four-year period. Once recognized, experience gains and losses are amortized using a straight-line method over 15 years, resulting in at least the minimum amortization prescribed by SFAS No. 106. The net experience gain arising from recognition of 2006 claims experience was approximately $6 million.

 

To conduct our annual review of discount rates, we use several published market indices with appropriate duration weighting to assess prevailing rates on high quality debt securities, with a primary focus on the Citigroup Pension Liability Index ^® for our U.S. plans. To test the appropriateness of these indices, we periodically engage third-party financial consultants to conduct a matching exercise between the expected settlement cash flows of our plans and bond maturities, consisting principally of AA-rated (or the equivalent in foreign jurisdictions) non-callable issues with at least $25 million principal outstanding. The model does not assume any reinvestment rates and assumes that bond investments mature just in time to pay benefits as they become due. For those years where no suitable bonds are available, the portfolio utilizes a linear interpolation approach to impute a hypothetical bond whose maturity matches the cash flows required in those years. As of four different interim dates during 2005 and 2006, this matching exercise for our U.S. plans produced a discount rate within +/− 15 basis points of the equivalent-dated Citigroup Pension Liability Index ^® . The measurement dates for our defined benefit plans are consistent with our Company’s fiscal year end. Thus, we select discount rates to measure our benefit obligations that are consistent with market indices during December of each year. Based on consolidated obligations at December 30, 2006, a 25 basis point decline in the weighted-average discount rate used for benefit plan measurement purposes would increase 2007 benefits expense by approximately $17 million. All obligation-related experience gains and losses are amortized using a straight-line method over the average remaining service period of active plan participants.

 

Despite the previously-described rigorous policies for selecting major actuarial assumptions, we periodically experience material differences between assumed and actual experience. As of December 30, 2006, we had consolidated unamortized prior service cost and net experience losses of approximately $.9 billion, as compared to approximately $1.4 billion at December 31, 2005. The year-over-year decline in net unamortized amounts was attributable largely to trust asset performance and the favorable impact of rising interest rates on our benefit obligations. Of the total unamortized amounts at December 30, 2006, approximately 80% was related to discount rate reductions, with the remainder primarily related to net unfavorable health care claims cost experience (including upward revisions in the assumed trend rate.) For 2007, we currently expect total amortization of prior service cost and net experience losses to be approximately $25 million lower than the actual 2006 amount of approximately $123 million. As discussed on page 14, total employee benefits expense for 2007 is expected to be approximately even with the 2006 amount, with higher active health care claims cost and postretirement service and interest cost components offsetting the lower amortization expense.

 

Assuming actual future experience is consistent with our current assumptions, annual amortization of accumulated prior service cost and net experience losses during each of the next several years would remain approximately level with the 2007 amount.

 

Income taxes

 

Our consolidated effective income tax rate is influenced by tax planning opportunities available to us in the various jurisdictions in which we operate. Significant judgment is required in determining our effective tax rate and in evaluating our tax positions. We establish reserves when, despite our belief that our tax return positions are supportable, we believe that certain positions are likely to be challenged and that we may not succeed. We adjust these reserves in light of changing facts and circumstances, such as the progress of a tax audit. Our effective income tax rate includes the impact of reserve provisions and changes to reserves that we consider appropriate. For the periods presented, our income tax and related interest reserves have averaged approximately $150 million. Reserve adjustments for individual issues have rarely exceeded 1% of earnings before income taxes annually. Nevertheless, the accumulation of individually insignificant discrete adjustments throughout a particular year has historically impacted our consolidated effective income tax rate by up to 200 basis points. As discussed on page 16, for 2007, we believe our rate could be up to 200 basis points lower if pending uncertain tax matters, including tax positions that could be affected by planning initiatives, are resolved more favorably than we currently expect.

 

For the periods presented, our policy was to establish reserves that reflected the probable outcome of known tax contingencies. Favorable resolution was recognized as a reduction to our effective tax rate in the period of resolution. As compared to a contingency approach, FIN No. 48 (which we adopted at the beginning of 2007) is

based on a benefit recognition model, which we believe could result in a greater amount of benefit (and a lower amount of reserve) being initially recognized in certain circumstances. Provided that the tax position is deemed more likely than not of being sustained, FIN No. 48 permits a company to recognize the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being ultimately realized upon settlement. The tax position must be derecognized when it is no longer more likely than not of being sustained. Despite this difference in conceptual approach, we do not currently expect the adoption of FIN No. 48 to have a significant impact on the amount of benefits recognized in connection with our uncertain tax positions during 2007. The current portion of our tax reserves is presented in the balance sheet within accrued income taxes and the amount expected to be settled after one year is recorded in other noncurrent liabilities. Significant tax reserve adjustments impacting our effective tax rate would be separately presented in the rate reconciliation table of Note 11 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

 Future Outlook

 

Our 2007 forecasted consolidated results are generally based on our long-term annual growth targets as discussed on page 11, although we currently expect our internal net sales could increase as much as four percent, slightly exceeding our low single-digit growth target. We expect this higher-than-targeted growth to come principally from continued category expansion in Latin America and strong innovation performance in North America. Despite a projected decline in gross margin of up to 50 basis points, we believe the higher-than-targeted sales growth will support mid single-digit consolidated operating profit growth. As discussed on page 15, net interest expense for 2007 is expected to be approximately even with 2006 results and our consolidated effective income tax rate could be lower than the 2006 rate of approximately 32%. These two factors are expected to provide leverage for purposes of achieving our target of high single-digit growth in 2007 net earnings per share. In addition, we remain committed to reinvesting in brand building, cost-reduction initiatives, and other growth opportunities. Lastly, we expect our cash flow performance to remain strong and are currently targeting a level of $950-$1,025 million for 2007.

 

 

Interest rate risk

 

Our Company is exposed to interest rate volatility with regard to future issuances of fixed rate debt and existing and future issuances of variable rate debt. Primary exposures include movements in U.S. Treasury rates, London Interbank Offered Rates (LIBOR), and commercial paper rates. We periodically use interest rate swaps and forward interest rate contracts to reduce interest rate volatility and funding costs associated with certain debt issues, and to achieve a desired proportion of variable versus fixed rate debt, based on current and projected market conditions.

 

Note 7 within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements provides information on our significant debt issues. There were no interest rate derivatives outstanding at year-end 2006 and 2005. Assuming average variable rate debt levels during the year, a one percentage point increase in interest rates would have increased interest expense by approximately $20 million in 2006 and $9 million in 2005.

 

Price risk

 

Our Company is exposed to price fluctuations primarily as a result of anticipated purchases of raw and packaging materials, fuel, and energy. Primary exposures include corn, wheat, soybean oil, sugar, cocoa, paperboard, natural gas, and diesel fuel. We have historically used the combination of long-term contracts with suppliers, and

exchange-traded futures and option contracts to reduce price fluctuations in a desired percentage of forecasted raw material purchases over a duration of generally less than 18 months. During 2006, we entered into two separate 10-year over-the-counter commodity swap transactions to reduce fluctuations in the price of natural gas used principally in its manufacturing processes. The notional amount of the swaps totaled approximately $209 million, which currently equates to approximately 50% of our North America manufacturing needs.

 

The total notional amount of commodity derivative instruments at year-end 2006, including the natural gas swaps, was $239 million, representing a settlement obligation of approximately $11 million. Assuming a 10% decrease in year-end commodity prices, the settlement obligation would increase by approximately $17 million, generally offset by a reduction in the cost of the underlying commodity purchases. The total notional amount of commodity derivative instruments at year-end 2005 was $22 million, representing a settlement receivable of approximately $1 million. Assuming a 10% decrease in year-end commodity prices, this settlement receivable would convert to an obligation of approximately $1 million, generally offset by a reduction in the cost of the underlying material purchases.

 

In addition to the derivative commodity instruments discussed above, we use long-term contracts with suppliers to manage a portion of the price exposure. It should be noted that the exclusion of these positions from the analysis above could be a limitation in assessing the net market risk of our Company.

 

 

 

 

Refer to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

 

 

Refer to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.