DowDuPont reported a GAAP loss per share from continuing operations of $0.52. Adjusted earnings1 per share increased 41 percent to $0.83, compared with pro forma adjusted earnings per share in the year-ago period of $0.59. Adjusted earnings per share excludes significant items in the quarter totaling net charges of $1.26 per share, as well as a $0.09 per share charge for DuPont amortization of intangible assets.
Net sales increased 13 percent to $20.1 billion, with gains in all operating segments and geographies, from pro forma net sales of $17.7 billion in the year-ago period. The primary sales growth drivers by division were: Materials Science – Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure (27 percent) and Packaging & Specialty Plastics (17 percent); Specialty Products – Transportation & Advanced Polymers and Nutrition & Biosciences (10 percent each); and Agriculture (5 percent). Regional sales increases were led by Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) (25 percent) and North America (10 percent), with gains in all divisions, led by the Materials Science operating segments.
Volume grew 6 percent on a pro forma basis, with increases in all operating segments and geographies on broad-based, consumer-led and investment-driven demand. Volume gains were led by Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure (13 percent), Packaging & Specialty Plastics (8 percent), Electronics & Imaging (6 percent) and Transportation & Advanced Polymers (5 percent). Regional volume growth was led by EMEA (10 percent) and Asia Pacific (6 percent).
Local price rose 5 percent on a pro forma basis, led by increases in all geographies and double-digit gains in Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure (12 percent) and Performance Materials & Coatings (10 percent).
Operating EBITDA1 increased 24 percent on a pro forma basis to $3.9 billion, driven by volume and price gains, including new capacity additions in the U.S. Gulf Coast and Saudi Arabia; cost synergies; lower pension/OPEB costs2; and higher equity earnings. These gains more than offset higher feedstock costs and startup expenses related to new assets on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The Company achieved an annual cost synergy run-rate of more than $800 million and more than $200 million of realized savings in the fourth quarter. DowDuPont is announcing today that it is increasing its cost synergy commitment from $3 billion to $3.3 billion.
Cash flow from operations in the quarter was $4.2 billion, driven by increased cash earnings and Agriculture's seasonal cash inflow, partly offset by contributions to pension plans.
The Company returned nearly $2 billion to shareholders in the quarter through dividends ($0.9 billion) and share repurchases ($1 billion).
Fourth quarter GAAP results include net tax benefits of $1.1 billion (a significant item of $0.46 per share) related to remeasurements and charges as a result of new U.S. tax legislation. The Company expects this new legislation to translate into a 1-2 percentage point reduction in its 2018 tax rate versus previous expectations.
The Company is announcing today that it has updated the timing and sequence of the intended separation of the companies: Materials Science is expected to separate by the end of the first quarter of 2019, and Agriculture and Specialty Products are expected to separate by June 1, 2019.
GAAP earnings per share from continuing operations was $0.95. Pro forma adjusted earnings per share increased 22 percent to $3.40 versus the year-ago period. Pro forma adjusted earnings per share excludes significant items totaling net charges of $1.90 per share, as well as a $0.33 per share charge for DuPont amortization of intangible assets.
GAAP net sales increased 30 percent. Pro forma net sales increased to $79.5 billion, up 12 percent versus the year-ago period, with gains in all operating segments and all geographies. Primary sales growth drivers were: Materials Science – Performance Materials & Coatings (37 percent), Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure (17 percent) and Packaging & Specialty Plastics (13 percent); Specialty Products – Transportation & Advanced Polymers (14 percent) and Electronics & Imaging (12 percent); and Agriculture (2 percent). Sales rose double-digits in EMEA (17 percent), Asia Pacific (15 percent) and North America (10 percent). Sales in Latin America grew 5 percent.
Pro forma operating EBITDA increased 15 percent to $16.2 billion, driven by volume and price gains, including new capacity additions; cost synergies and productivity actions; higher equity earnings; lower pension/OPEB costs; and the full-year contribution of silicones. These gains more than offset higher feedstock costs, startup expenses on the U.S. Gulf Coast and the unfavorable impact of hurricanes. Increases were achieved in most operating segments, led by double-digit growth in Performance Materials & Coatings; Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure; Electronics & Imaging; Transportation & Advanced Polymers; and Agriculture.
Less than two weeks following merger close, DowDuPont announced certain targeted portfolio adjustments to the Materials Science and Specialty Products divisions to better align with end-markets and further enhance the competitive advantages of the intended companies.
DowDuPont satisfied key regulatory remedies required of the merger transaction, including: divesting DuPont's cereal broadleaf herbicides and chewing insecticides portfolios, as well as certain parts of its crop protection R&D pipeline and organization to FMC; divesting Dow's PRIMACOR™ ethylene acrylic acid copolymers and ionomers business; and divesting a select portion of Dow AgroSciences' corn seed business in Brazil. The Company also closed its acquisition of FMC's Health and Nutrition business.
Sales of $2.8 billion were up 5 percent from pro forma net sales of $2.7 billion in the year-ago period. Volume and currency improvements of 2 percent and 1 percent, respectively, were partially offset by local price declines. Portfolio-related actions increased sales by 3 percent.
Organic revenue growth was realized in both seed and crop protection. Seed volume and price rose slightly as earlier Brazil safrinha deliveries, doubling of corn sales in Argentina, driven by penetration of Leptra® corn hybrids, and growth in the European sunflower and corn seed business were partially offset by the reduction in Brazil summer corn area. Crop protection volume improvement was driven by the continued penetration of new products such as Vessarya™ fungicide and increased demand for Optinyte™ nitrogen stabilizers and novel seed treatment solutions. Crop protection pricing declined, driven by generic pricing pressure, specifically in Latin America and Asia Pacific.
Operating EBITDA for the segment more than doubled to $224 million, versus pro forma operating EBITDA of $100 million in the year-ago period. The improvement resulted primarily from synergies and other cost reductions, lower pension/OPEB costs, volume increases, and a net portfolio gain. This improvement was partially offset by lower local price due to generic crop protection pricing pressure and higher soybean royalties.
Full-year pro forma net sales of $14.3 billion rose 2 percent from pro forma net sales of $14.1 billion reported in the year-ago period driven by higher volumes and a portfolio gain. Full-year seed sales increased 5 percent due to both volume and price improvement. Full-year crop protection sales were down 1 percent as growth from new products was more than offset by pricing pressures in Latin America and high inventory levels in China.
Full-year pro-forma operating EBITDA for the segment improved 12 percent to $2.6 billion versus pro forma operating EBITDA of $2.3 billion in the year-ago period. The improvement resulted primarily from higher volumes, synergies, lower pension/OPEB costs and currency. Pro forma operating EBITDA growth was partially offset by lower local price due to generic crop protection pricing pressure and higher soybean royalties.
Performance Materials & Coatings reported net sales of $2.2 billion, up 15 percent versus pro forma net sales of $1.9 billion in the year-ago period. The year-over-year gain was primarily driven by double-digit growth in both businesses, as well as double-digit increases across all geographic regions. Local price increased 10 percent, with gains in all geographic regions and both businesses. Volume grew 4 percent, driven by gains in North America, Asia Pacific and Latin America.
Consumer Solutions delivered double-digit sales growth in all geographic regions, driven by strong gains in local price in Asia Pacific and EMEA; disciplined price/volume management in upstream silicone intermediate products; and broad-based demand for downstream applications including pressure sensitive adhesives and high performance building solutions. Coatings & Performance Monomers achieved double-digit growth in sales, on strong local price increases in all geographic regions and higher demand in North America.
Operating EBITDA increased to $613 million, up 56 percent from pro forma operating EBITDA of $392 million in the year-ago period, primarily due to increased pricing, higher equity earnings, strong end-market demand and cost synergies.
Equity earnings for the segment totaled $223 million, compared with pro forma equity earnings of $176 million in the year-ago period, driven by two factors at the HSC Group – higher demand from the photovoltaics end-market and DowDuPont's share of a settlement of a long-term polysilicon sales agreement.
Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure reported net sales of $3.6 billion, up 27 percent versus pro forma net sales of $2.8 billion in the year-ago period. Double-digit sales gains were reported in all geographic regions. Volume grew 13 percent while local price rose 12 percent.
Polyurethanes & Chlor-Alkali and Vinyl (CAV) delivered robust sales growth in all geographic regions, driven by double-digit price and volume gains. The business also reported strong price and demand increases in downstream, higher-margin systems applications, as well as higher merchant sales of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and caustic where industry supply/demand fundamentals remained tight. Industrial Solutions grew sales double digits, led by surfactants, glycol ethers and ethylene glycols in consumer-driven applications, including electronics processing, crop defense and food and pharmaceuticals. The business delivered volume and price gains in all geographic regions. Construction Chemicals delivered sales growth driven by demand for methyl cellulosics in EMEA. Energy Solutions reported lower sales due to reduced project activity in energy market sectors.
Operating EBITDA was $677 million, up 38 percent from pro forma operating EBITDA of $489 million in the year-ago period. Pricing momentum, improved equity earnings and demand growth in most businesses more than offset the impact of higher raw material costs.
Equity earnings for the segment totaled $71 million, compared with pro forma equity earnings of $31 million in the year-ago period. The year-over-year growth was driven by improvement in Sadara equity losses due to further progression of facility startups and contributions from the EQUATE joint venture as a result of higher monoethylene glycol pricing.
The Packaging & Specialty Plastics segment reported net sales of $6.1 billion, up 17 percent from pro forma net sales of $5.2 billion in the year-ago period. Sales growth was driven by volume gains of 8 percent, local price increases of 7 percent and a 2 percent tailwind from currency, primarily in Europe. Volume highlights included double-digit percent growth in North America and EMEA on higher hydrocarbons sales, new capacity additions on the U.S. Gulf Coast and ramp-up in Sadara production. Local price gains were recorded in all geographic regions.
The Packaging and Specialty Plastics business grew volume on continued consumer-led demand across key end-markets. Notable highlights included double-digit sales growth in food and specialty packaging as well as in industrial and consumer packaging end-markets in EMEA, enabled by the contributions of volumes from the Sadara joint venture. Volume growth in North America was driven by robust demand in food and specialty packaging as well as in health and hygiene applications, supported by start-up of the ELITE™ polyethylene unit. Gradual recovery from hurricane-related supply limitations continued to impact polyethylene sales volumes, particularly exports to Latin America, as well as global sales of ethylene copolymers and products for wire and cable applications. The business also delivered volume gains in elastomers applications, including: footwear and photovoltaics applications in Asia Pacific; hot melt adhesives in EMEA; and infrastructure applications in North America.
Operating EBITDA for the segment totaled $1.3 billion, flat with pro forma operating EBITDA in the year-ago period. Price and volume gains, including the benefit of new capacity additions, were offset by increased feedstock costs; cost and production impacts from hurricane-related disruptions and maintenance activities; as well as commissioning and startup costs for the U.S. Gulf Coast growth projects.
Equity earnings for the segment were $59 million, down from pro forma equity earnings of $64 million in the year-ago period. Improvement in Sadara equity losses, driven by higher sales of polyethylene, were more than offset by reduced earnings at the Thai joint ventures, due to rising raw material costs, and at the Kuwait joint ventures, driven by planned maintenance activities.
Electronics & Imaging delivered net sales of $1.2 billion, an increase of 1 percent versus pro forma net sales in the year-ago period. Net sales growth was led by volume gains of 6 percent, which more than offset a 5 percent negative impact from portfolio-related actions (sales of the Display Films and Authentication businesses).
Volume growth in the segment was driven by double-digit gains in consumer electronics, industrial and semiconductor end-markets, primarily in Asia Pacific. Continued demand for mobile phones and other consumer electronics, as well as industrial applications drove volume gains. Increased semiconductor content in end-use applications drove strong demand in both memory and logic market segments. Partially offsetting this growth was a decline in photovoltaics as demand for Tedlar® film was more than offset by continued declines in Solamet® paste due to competitive pressure.
Operating EBITDA for the segment was $367 million, up 11 percent from pro forma operating EBITDA of $331 million in the year-ago period. Volume growth, lower pension/OPEB costs, and cost synergies more than offset hurricane-related costs, a negative impact from portfolio and higher raw material costs.
Nutrition & Biosciences reported net sales of $1.6 billion, up from pro forma net sales of $1.4 billion in the year-ago period. Net sales growth of 10 percent was due to a 6 percent net benefit from portfolio, a 2 percent benefit from volume and a 2 percent benefit from currency. The positive impact from portfolio-related actions was due to the acquisition of FMC's Health & Nutrition business.
Volume growth in the segment was led by increased demand for bioactives, continued growth in probiotics, demand for microbial control solutions in energy markets in North America, and growth in pharmaceuticals, including excipients and vegetal-based encapsulations. Growth in bioactives reflected strength in home and personal care and animal nutrition markets due to new product introductions. Continued growth in probiotics was driven by demand in Asia Pacific and Europe. Partially offsetting this growth were declines in systems and texturants due to continued weakness in packaged food markets, primarily in North America, and specific actions taken to exit low-margin market segments.
Operating EBITDA for the segment was $352 million, up 14 percent from pro forma operating EBITDA of $309 million in the year-ago period driven by a portfolio benefit, lower pension/OPEB costs, cost synergies, and volume growth. Partially offsetting these gains was the absence of a $27 million gain from a prior-year asset sale.
Transportation & Advanced Polymers reported net sales of $1.3 billion, up from pro forma net sales of $1.2 billion in the year-ago period. Net sales growth of 10 percent included volume gains of 5 percent, local price benefits of 4 percent and 1 percent from currency. The growth, which was achieved in most geographies, was led by strong demand from the automotive market and broad-based demand from electronics and industrial markets. Focused application development and continued trends in light weighting of vehicles and higher temperature environments fueled stronger demand for adhesives and engineered polymers. The segment continued to outpace global industry auto builds, which according to IHS rose 1 percent in the quarter versus last year.
Volume gains were also achieved by Kalrez® and Vespel® high-performance parts as demand from the electronics and aerospace markets remained robust while demand for specialty silicones in medical devices remained solid. Volume growth was led by Asia Pacific, followed by the Americas and Europe.
Operating EBITDA for the segment was $365 million, up 32 percent from pro forma operating EBITDA of $276 million in the year-ago period. Benefits from lower pension/OPEB costs, volume gains, improved local price and cost synergies more than offset higher raw material costs.
Safety and Construction delivered net sales of $1.3 billion, compared with pro forma net sales of $1.2 billion for the year-ago period. Net sales growth of 4 percent was driven by volume gains of 4 percent and currency of 1 percent, partly offset by a decrease in local price of 1 percent. Volume growth reflected continued solid demand across industrial markets, construction and medical packaging. Local price declines reflected pressure in isolated areas of aramids as well as product mix, partly offset by gains in building solutions.
The volume gain was led by Tyvek® protective materials, which achieved double-digit percent volume growth due to increased demand from industrial and construction markets as well as medical packaging. Contributing to the volume gain was a high-single-digit percent increase in Kevlar® high-strength materials, reflecting higher demand from industrial markets. A low-single-digit percent volume gain from water filtration reflected strength in ion exchange resins and ultra-filtration in industrial applications. Building Solutions volumes also rose by the low-single-digits percent with gains in foam board amid stronger construction demand. Nomex® thermal-resistant garment volumes were even with strong sales in the prior year's quarter while Corian® design volume was constrained by raw material availability. Regionally, volume growth was driven by Europe, followed by Asia Pacific and Latin America. Drivers included Tyvek® for graphics and house wrap in EMEA, and gains from Kevlar® in Asia Pacific.
Operating EBITDA for the segment was $285 million, up 26 percent from pro forma operating EBITDA of $227 million in the year-ago period as lower pension/OPEB costs and broad-based volume growth was partly offset by the impact of lower local price and higher raw material costs.
"The trajectory of global economic expansion has gained momentum – driven by robust fundamentals in consumer and business confidence, employment and wage growth and manufacturing and infrastructure investment activity," said Andrew Liveris, executive chairman of DowDuPont. "In developed economies in particular, such as the United States, Germany, France, Canada and the U.K., we continue to see strong leading indicators of broad-based growth. Furthermore, early signs from the business community point to U.S. tax reform as a catalyst for further domestic capital investments, which will take advantage of enhanced competitiveness and pro-business incentives. Adding to this, the emerging middle class in developing economies, most notably in India and China, but also in Africa and the Middle East, continues to support sustainable growth.
The Company will host a live webcast of its fourth quarter and full-year earnings conference call with investors to discuss its results, business outlook and other matters today at 8:00 a.m. ET. The slide presentation that accompanies the conference call will be posted on the DowDuPont Investor Relations events and presentations page. A replay of the webcast will also be available on the investor events and presentations page of www.dow-dupont.com.
(1) Adjusted earnings per share, Pro forma adjusted earnings per share, Operating EBITDA and Pro forma operating EBITDA are non-GAAP measures. See page 9 for further discussion. Full-year 2017 and prior year information is on a pro forma basis and was determined in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation S-X.
On December 11, 2015, The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") announced entry into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended on March 31, 2017, (the "Merger Agreement") under which the companies would combine in an all-stock merger of equals transaction (the "Merger"). Effective August 31, 2017, the Merger was completed and each of Dow and DuPont became subsidiaries of DowDuPont Inc. ("DowDuPont" or the "Company").
Forward-looking statements by their nature address matters that are, to varying degrees, uncertain, including the intended separation, subject to approval of the Company's board of directors, of DowDuPont's agriculture, materials science and specialty products businesses in one or more tax efficient transactions on anticipated terms (the "Intended Business Separations"). Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are based on certain assumptions and expectations of future events which may not be realized. Forward-looking statements also involve risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company's control. Some of the important factors that could cause DowDuPont's, Dow's or DuPont's actual results to differ materially from those projected in any such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: (i) costs to achieve and achieving the successful integration of the respective agriculture, materials science and specialty products businesses of Dow and DuPont, anticipated tax treatment, unforeseen liabilities, future capital expenditures, revenues, expenses, earnings, productivity actions, economic performance, indebtedness, financial condition, losses, future prospects, business and management strategies for the management, expansion and growth of the combined operations; (ii) costs to achieve and achievement of the anticipated synergies by the combined agriculture, materials science and specialty products businesses; (iii) risks associated with the Intended Business Separations, including conditions which could delay, prevent or otherwise adversely affect the proposed transactions, including possible issues or delays in obtaining required regulatory approvals or clearances related to the Intended Business Separations, associated cost, disruptions in the financial markets or other potential barriers; (iv) disruptions or business uncertainty, including from the Intended Business Separations, could adversely impact DowDuPont's business (either directly or as conducted by and through Dow or DuPont), or financial performance and its ability to retain and hire key personnel; (v) uncertainty as to the long-term value of DowDuPont common stock; and (vi) risks to DowDuPont's, DuPont's and Dow's business, operations and results of operations from: the availability of and fluctuations in the cost of energy and feedstocks; balance of supply and demand and impact of balance on prices; failure to develop and market new products and optimally manage product life cycles; ability, cost and impact on business operations, including the supply chain, of responding to changes in market acceptance, rules, regulations and policies and failure to respond to such changes; outcome of significant litigation, environmental matters and other commitments and contingencies; failure to appropriately manage process safety and product stewardship issues; global economic and capital markets conditions, including the continued availability of capital and financing, as well as inflation, interest and currency exchange rates; changes in political conditions, business or supply disruptions; security threats, such as acts of sabotage, terrorism or war, natural disasters and weather events and patterns which could result in a significant operational event for the Company, adversely impact demand or production; ability to discover, develop and protect new technologies and to protect and enforce the Company's intellectual property rights; failure to effectively manage acquisitions, divestitures, alliances, joint ventures and other portfolio changes; unpredictability and severity of catastrophic events, including, but not limited to, acts of terrorism or outbreak of war or hostilities, as well as management's response to any of the aforementioned factors. These risks are and will be more fully discussed in the current, quarterly and annual reports filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission by DowDuPont. While the list of factors presented here is, considered representative, no such list should be considered to be a complete statement of all potential risks and uncertainties. Unlisted factors may present significant additional obstacles to the realization of forward-looking statements. Consequences of material differences in results as compared with those anticipated in the forward-looking statements could include, among other things, business disruption, operational problems, financial loss, legal liability to third parties and similar risks, any of which could have a material adverse effect on DowDuPont's, Dow's or DuPont's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, credit rating or liquidity. None of DowDuPont, Dow or DuPont assumes any obligation to publicly provide revisions or updates to any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, should circumstances change, except as otherwise required by securities and other applicable laws.
In order to provide the most meaningful comparison of results of operations and results by segment, supplemental unaudited pro forma financial information has been included in the following financial schedules. The unaudited pro forma financial information is based on the historical consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes of both Dow and DuPont and has been prepared to illustrate the effects of the Merger, assuming the Merger had been consummated on January 1, 2016. The results for the three months ended December 31, 2017, are presented on a U.S. GAAP basis. For all other periods presented, adjustments have been made for (1) the preliminary purchase accounting impact, (2) accounting policy alignment, (3) eliminate the effect of events that are directly attributable to the Merger Agreement (e.g., one-time transaction costs), (4) eliminate the impact of transactions between Dow and DuPont, and (5) eliminate the effect of consummated divestitures agreed to with certain regulatory agencies as a condition of approval for the Merger. The unaudited pro forma financial information was based on and should be read in conjunction with the separate historical financial statements and accompanying notes contained in each of the Dow and DuPont Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the applicable periods. The pro forma financial statements were prepared in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation S-X.
The unaudited pro forma financial information has been presented for informational purposes only and is not necessarily indicative of what DowDuPont's results of operations actually would have been had the Merger been completed as of January 1, 2016, nor is it indicative of the future operating results of DowDuPont. The unaudited pro forma financial information does not reflect any cost or growth synergies that DowDuPont may achieve as a result of the Merger, future costs to combine the operations of Dow and DuPont or the costs necessary to achieve any cost or growth synergies.
This earnings release includes information that does not conform to U.S. GAAP and are considered non-GAAP measures. These measures include the Company's pro forma consolidated results and pro forma earnings per share on an adjusted basis. Management uses these measures internally for planning, forecasting and evaluating the performance of the Company's segments, including allocating resources. DowDuPont's management believes that these non-GAAP measures best reflect the ongoing performance of the Company during the periods presented and provide more relevant and meaningful information to investors as they provide insight with respect to ongoing operating results of the Company and a more useful comparison of year-over-year results. These non-GAAP measures supplement the Company's U.S. GAAP disclosures and should not be viewed as an alternative to U.S. GAAP measures of performance. Furthermore, such non-GAAP measures may not be consistent with similar measures provided or used by other companies. Non-GAAP measures included in this release are defined below. Reconciliations for these non-GAAP measures to GAAP are provided in the Pro Forma Consolidated Statements of Income on page 12 and the Selected Pro Forma Financial Information and Non-GAAP Measures starting on page 14.
Adjusted earnings per share is defined as "Earnings per common share from continuing operations - diluted" excluding the after-tax impact of significant items and the after-tax impact of amortization expense associated with DuPont's intangible assets. Pro forma adjusted earnings per share is defined as "Pro Forma earnings per common share from continuing operations - diluted" excluding the after-tax impact of pro forma significant items and the after-tax impact of pro forma amortization expense associated with DuPont's intangible assets. Although amortization of DuPont's intangible assets is excluded from these non-GAAP measures, management believes it is important for investors to understand that such intangible assets contribute to revenue generation. Amortization of intangible assets that relate to past acquisitions will recur in future periods until such intangible assets have been fully amortized. Any future acquisitions may result in amortization of additional intangible assets.
Operating EBITDA is defined as earnings (i.e., "Income from continuing operations before income taxes") before interest, depreciation, amortization and foreign exchange gains (losses), excluding the impact of significant items. Pro forma operating EBITDA is defined as earnings (i.e., "Pro Forma income from continuing operations before income taxes") before interest, depreciation, amortization and foreign exchange gains (losses), excluding the impact of significant items.
Note: The consolidated statements of income for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, reflect the results of Dow for all periods presented and the results of DuPont for the periods beginning on and after September 1, 2017.
Note: The consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2017, reflects the financial position of DowDuPont. The consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2016, solely reflects the financial position of Dow.
1. Adjusted earnings per common share ("Adjusted EPS") and Pro forma adjusted earnings per share ("Pro Forma Adjusted EPS") are non-GAAP measures. See further discussion and definition of these measures on page 9.
2. Refer to Selected Pro Forma Financial Information and Non-GAAP Measures section for additional information on the impact of reported and pro forma significant items.
3. For the three months ended December 31, 2017, Adjusted EPS is calculated as "Loss per common share from continuing operations - diluted" excluding the after-tax impact of significant items and the after-tax impact of amortization expense associated with DuPont's intangible assets. For the three months ended December 31, 2016 and the twelve-month periods ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, Pro Forma Adjusted EPS is calculated as "Pro forma earnings (loss) per common share from continuing operations - diluted," excluding the after-tax impact of pro forma significant items and the after-tax impact of pro forma amortization expense associated with DuPont's intangible assets.
1. Europe, Middle East and Africa.
2. Pro forma net sales for Agriculture excludes sales related to the November 30, 2017, divestiture of a portion of Dow AgroSciences' corn seed business in Brazil for the period January 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017; sales from September 1, 2017 through November 30, 2017, are included in Portfolio/Other. Pro forma net sales also excludes sales related to the September 1, 2017, divestiture of the global Ethylene Acrylic Acid ("EAA") copolymers and ionomers business for the period January 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. Portfolio/Other includes sales for the acquisition of the H&N Business acquired on November 1, 2017, impacting Nutrition & Biosciences. Portfolio/Other also reflects sales from January 1, 2017 through May 31, 2017, related to the ownership restructure of Dow Corning Corporation on June 1, 2016 (impacts Performance Materials & Coatings, Electronics & Imaging and Transportation & Advanced Polymers); the divestitures of SKC Haas Display Films group of companies (divested June 30, 2017) and the authentication business (divested on January 6, 2017), impacting Electronics & Imaging; and, the divestiture of the global food safety diagnostic business (divested February 28, 2017), impacting Nutrition & Biosciences.
1. The Company uses Operating EBITDA (for the three months ended December 31, 2017) and Pro Forma Operating EBITDA (for the three months ended December 31, 2016 and the twelve-month periods ended December 31, 2017 and 2016), as its measure of profit/loss for segment reporting. The Company defines Operating EBITDA as earnings (i.e., "Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes") before interest, depreciation, amortization and foreign exchange gains (losses), excluding the impact of significant items. Pro Forma Operating EBITDA is defined as pro forma earnings (i.e., pro forma "Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes") before interest, depreciation, amortization and foreign exchange gains (losses), excluding the impact of adjusted significant items.
2. Does not exclude the impact of significant items.
3. Included in "Sundry income (expense) - net."
4. Adjusted significant items, excluding the impact of one-time transaction costs directly attributable to the Merger and reflected in the pro forma adjustments.
1. The results for the three months ended December 31, 2017, are presented on an as reported basis. The three months ended December 31, 2016 and the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, are reported on a pro forma basis.
2. Pro forma "Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes."
3. Pro forma "Net income (loss) available for DowDuPont Inc. common stockholders." The income tax effect on significant items is calculated based upon the enacted tax laws and statutory income tax rates applicable in the tax jurisdiction(s) of the underlying non-GAAP adjustment.
4. Pro forma "Earnings (loss) per common share from continuing operations - diluted."
5. Pretax charge related to Dow's election to change its method of accounting for asbestos-related defense costs from expensing as incurred to estimating and accruing a liability, included in "Asbestos-related charge." As a result of this accounting policy change, Dow recorded a pretax charge of $1,009 million for asbestos-related defense costs through the terminal date of 2049. Dow also recorded a pretax charge of $104 million to increase the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims through the terminal date of 2049.
6. Pretax charge related to Dow's termination of a terminal use agreement, included in "Cost of sales."
7. Pretax gain of $53 million, included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses," for a reduction in customer claims accrual ($23 million) and insurance recoveries for recovery of costs for customer claims related to the use of DuPont's Imprelis® herbicide ($30 million).
8. Pretax charge for environmental remediation activities at a number of historical Dow locations, primarily resulting from the culmination of negotiations with regulators and/or final agency approval, included in "Cost of sales."
- Pretax gain of $227 million related to the sale of Dow's global EAA copolymers and ionomers business.
- Pretax gain of $162 million associated with the sale of DuPont's global food safety diagnostics business.
- Pretax gain of $7 million related to post-closing adjustments on the split-off of Dow's chlorine value chain.
- Pretax gain of $369 million associated with the sale of the DuPont (Shenzhen) Manufacturing Limited entity.
- Pretax gain of $6 million related to post-closing adjustments on the split-off of Dow's chlorine value chain.
10. Includes a non-taxable gain of $2,445 million related to the Dow Corning ownership restructure, included in "Sundry income (expense) - net"; a $317 million charge for the fair value step-up in inventories, included in "Cost of sales"; and, a pretax loss of $22 million related to the early redemption of debt incurred by Dow Corning, included in "Equity in earnings of nonconsolidated affiliates."
11. Integration and separation costs related to the Merger, post-Merger integration and intended business separation activities, and costs related to the ownership restructure of Dow Corning, included in "Integration and separation costs."
12. The three and twelve months ended December 31, 2017, include a pretax loss of $1,116 million and $1,483 million, respectively, for the fair value step-up in DuPont's inventories as a result of the Merger and acquisition of the FMC H&N business, included in "Cost of sales" ($1,109 million and $1,469 million for the three and twelve months, respectively) and the amortization of a basis difference related to the fair value step-up in inventories, included in "Equity in earnings of nonconsolidated affiliates" ($7 million and $14 million for the three and twelve months, respectively).
13. The twelve months ended December 31, 2017, includes a pretax loss of $469 million related to Dow AgroSciences' arbitration matter with Bayer CropScience and a pretax gain of $137 million related to Dow's patent infringement matter with Nova Chemicals Corporation, both included in "Sundry income (expense) - net." The three months ended December 31, 2016, includes a pretax credit of $27 million related to a decrease in Dow Corning's implant liability, included in "Sundry income (expense) - net." In addition to this item, the twelve months ended December 31, 2016, includes a pretax loss of $1,235 million related to Dow's settlement of the urethane matters class action lawsuit and the opt-out cases litigation, included in "Sundry income (expense) - net."
- Impairment charge of $1,491 million related to goodwill associated with the Coatings & Performance Monomers reporting unit; and an impairment charge of $939 million related to Dow manufacturing assets and facilities and an equity method investment.
- Restructuring charges of $695 million and $875 million during the three and twelve months, respectively, related to the DowDuPont Cost Synergy Program (including the following charges for the three and twelve months, respectively: $331 million and $500 million of severance and related benefit costs, $290 million and $301 million of asset write-downs and write-offs, and $74 million for contract termination costs).
- Restructuring charge of $312 million during the twelve months consisting of severance charges of $33 million and asset-related charges of $279 million, primarily associated with actions to improve DuPont plant productivity.
- Gain of $11 million and $23 million for the three and twelve months, respectively, related to adjustments to prior years' restructuring programs.
- Impairment charge of $435 million related to the write-down of DuPont's uncompleted enterprise resource planning system.
- Charge related to AgroFresh, including a partial impairment charge of $143 million of Dow's investment in AgroFresh Solutions Inc. and post-closing adjustments of $20 million related to non-cash consideration (included in "Sundry income (expense) - net").
- Net gains of $34 million and $102 million during the three and twelve months, respectively, related to adjustments to DuPont's 2016 and 2014 restructuring programs. The charge in the twelve months includes $3 million recorded in "Sundry income (expense) - net."
- Gain of $7 million and net charge of $68 million during the three and twelve months, respectively, related to the decision to not re-start the insecticide manufacturing facility at the DuPont site in La Porte, Texas.
- Charge of $449 million during the twelve months for a restructuring plan that incorporated actions related to the ownership restructure of Dow Corning.
- Asset impairment charge of $158 million during the twelve months related to DuPont's indefinite lived intangible assets.
- Charge of $5 million during the twelve months related to adjustments to Dow's 2015 restructuring program.
15. The three and twelve months ended December 31, 2017, include a pretax settlement charge of $892 million related to the payment of plan obligations to certain participants of a Dow U.S. non-qualified pension plan as a result of the Merger, included in "Cost of sales" ($888 million) and "Selling, general and administrative expenses" ($4 million). The three and twelve months ended December 31, 2016, include a pretax gain of $382 million related to changes to DuPont's U.S. pension plan and U.S. other postretirement benefits plan, included in "Cost of sales" ($172 million), "Selling, general and administrative expenses" ($153 million) and "Research and development expenses" ($57 million).
- "Cost of sales" ($39 million in the three months ended December 31, 2016; $49 million and $123 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively).
- "Selling, general and administrative expenses" ($8 million in the three months ended December 31, 2016; $9 million and $31 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively).
- "Sundry income (expense) - net" ($8 million and $41 million in the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2016, respectively).
- Tax charge of $267 million related to changes in tax attributes resulting from the Merger, including a reduction in a deferred tax asset in Germany and the recognition of deferred tax gains in the United States.
- Tax benefit of $100 million related to a reduction in DuPont's unrecognized tax benefits, and reversal of associated interest, due to the closure of various tax statutes of limitations.
- Tax charge of $29 million related to the elimination of a tax benefit resulting from DuPont's second quarter 2017 principal U.S. pension plan contribution.
The three and twelve months ended December 31, 2016, include a tax benefit of $44 million and a tax charge of $57 million, respectively, for the settlement of an uncertain tax position associated with a historical change in the legal ownership structure of a Dow nonconsolidated affiliate.
®™ Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") or E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") or affiliated companies of Dow or DuPont.
1. For the three months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company reported "Net loss from continuing operations available for DowDuPont Inc. common stockholders." In accordance with U.S. GAAP, "Weighted-average common shares outstanding - basic" was used in the reported calculation of "Loss per common share from continuing operations - diluted." For the three months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company reported "Net income from continuing operations available for DowDuPont Inc. common stockholders" on an operating basis (Non-GAAP) and "Weighted-average common shares outstanding - diluted" was used in the calculation of "Adjusted earnings per common share from continuing operations - diluted" (Non-GAAP).
2. Reflects share amounts as reported by Dow in its Annual Report on Form 10-K and Current Report on Form 8-K for the periods presented. The share amount in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2017, reflects a weighted averaging effect of Dow shares outstanding prior to August 31, 2017. On December 30, 2016, Dow converted 4 million shares of Preferred Stock into 96.8 million shares of Dow common stock. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the basic share count for the three- and twelve-month periods ended December 31, 2016 reflects a two-day averaging effect related to this conversion, or 2.1 million shares for the three-month period ended December 31, 2016 and 0.5 million shares for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2016.
3. DuPont common shares outstanding - basic for all periods presented reflects DuPont's common stock issued and outstanding at August 31, 2017, multiplied by the Merger Agreement conversion ratio of 1.2820. The share amount shown in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2017, reflects a weighted averaging effect of DuPont shares outstanding prior to August 31, 2017.
4. The DowDuPont share amount for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2017, reflects a weighted averaging effect of DowDuPont shares outstanding after August 31, 2017.
5. The "Dilutive impact of DuPont equity-based awards" reflects share amounts as reported by DuPont in its Annual Report on Form 10-K and Current Report on Form 8-K for the periods presented, multiplied by the Merger Agreement conversion ratio of 1.2820. The share amount shown in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2017, reflects a weighted averaging effect of DuPont shares outstanding prior to August 31, 2017.
1. See the U.S. GAAP consolidated statements of income.
2. See the consolidated statements of income included in DuPont's Current Report on Form 8-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.
3. Certain reclassifications were made to conform to the presentation used for DowDuPont. The reclassifications are consistent with those identified and disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the SEC on October 26, 2017. Additionally, in the fourth quarter of 2017, to improve comparability and conform to the current period presentation, the Company reclassified $143 million of asset impairment charges from "Sundry income (expense) - net" to "Restructuring, goodwill impairment and asset related charges - net."
4. Includes the following divestitures agreed to with certain regulatory agencies as a condition of approval for the Merger, including: Dow's global EAA copolymers and ionomers business (divested on September 1, 2017); a portion of Dow AgroSciences' corn seed business in Brazil; and DuPont's cereal broadleaf herbicides and chewing insecticides portfolio as well as its crop protection research and development pipeline and organization.
5. Certain pro forma adjustments were made to illustrate the estimated effects of the Merger, assuming the Merger had been consummated on January 1, 2016. The pro forma adjustments are consistent with those identified and disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the SEC on October 26, 2017.
2. Reflects DuPont activity for the period from January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017, prior to the Merger.
3. Certain reclassifications were made to conform to the presentation used for DowDuPont. The reclassifications are consistent with those identified and disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the SEC on October 26, 2017.
4. Includes the following divestitures agreed to with certain regulatory agencies as a condition of approval for the Merger, including: Dow's global EAA copolymers and ionomers business (divested on September 1, 2017); a portion of Dow AgroSciences' corn seed business in Brazil (for the period of January 1, 2017 through August 31, 2017); and DuPont's cereal broadleaf herbicides and chewing insecticides portfolio as well as its crop protection research and development pipeline and organization (for the period of January 1, 2017 through August 31, 2017; activity from September 1, 2017 through the November 1, 2017 divestiture was treated as discontinued operations).
2. See the consolidated statements of income included in DuPont's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.
4. Includes the following divestitures agreed to with certain regulatory agencies as a condition of approval for the Merger, including: Dow's global EAA copolymers and ionomers business; a portion of Dow AgroSciences' corn seed business in Brazil; and DuPont's cereal broadleaf herbicides and chewing insecticides portfolio as well as its crop protection research and development pipeline and organization.
5. Certain pro forma adjustments were made to illustrate the estimated effects of the Merger, assuming that the Merger had been consummated on January 1, 2016. The pro forma adjustments are consistent with those identified and disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the SEC on October 26, 2017.


26 Awesome Homcom Foldable Rotating Corner Desk and Shelf Combo. hom rotating fice desk and shelf bo – white, hom 75" modern corner rotating bo l shaped puter desk with 2 storage shelves white happy halloween off when order over $150 with code halloween10 see more $175 99 free shipping. Tag : hom foldable bamboo wood laptop stand, hom foldable fireplace fence, hom foldable wood lift top coffee table, 26 Awesome Homcom Foldable Rotating Corner Desk and Shelf Combo.
Hom Rotating fice Desk and Shelf bo – White. Image for Homcom Foldable Rotating Corner Desk and Shelf Combo Fantastic Hom Rotating Fice Desk and Shelf Bo – White.
So, if you would like receive these fantastic pictures about 26 Awesome Homcom Foldable Rotating Corner Desk and Shelf Combo, press save button to download the photos for your laptop. For many up-dates and recent news about 26 Awesome Homcom Foldable Rotating Corner Desk and Shelf Combo images, please share to google plus or follow us on twitter, Instagram and path, or you mark this page on book mark area, We try to offer you update periodically with all new and fresh images, like your browsing, and find the perfect for you.


Kitsilano Concrete Sub-Penthouse with 2 secure underground parking spaces. Welcome to "The Vine". At 978 SqFt of overall living space, this 2 bedroom condo with 2 full bathrooms, a den, additional flex-room & good size patio.. is sure to fit the bill. This unit sits on a quiet corner of the complex with south-west exposure and peaceful views over Connaught Park and the surrounding area. With a Walk Score of 97 and a Bike Score of 100, this location will make everyday tasks a pleasure. This owner-occupied home has been lovingly cared for and is equipped with several upgrades, including; New engineered hardwood flooring throughout the living room, dining room, kitchen, hallway, den & flex room, as well as new carpet in both bedrooms. The walk-in closet in the Master bedroom has been fully outfitted by "California Closets" and the entrance hallway closet is fitted with custom shelving. The current owners also had screens made for all the windows and both sliding patio doors. The kitchen is equipped with high-end stainless appliances including a built-in oven with ceramic cooktop, granite countertops, under cabinet lighting, and original solid wood island. Call to set up a private viewing, or pop by the Open House.


text:
Q: listview with arraylist in android - each row 2 items I fill my Array list in DB by this:
db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Ravi", "9100000000"));
db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Srinivas", "9199999999"));
db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Tommy", "9522222222"));
db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Karthik", "9533333333"));

And read (all items from DB) by this:
    // Reading all contacts
    List<BookMark> bookmarks = db.getAllBookMarks();

and I create a xml layout   listview.xml
<LinearLayout xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
    xmlns:tools="http://schemas.android.com/tools"
    android:layout_width="match_parent"
    android:layout_height="match_parent"
    android:orientation="vertical"
    tools:context="com.wepars.webapp.activity.MsgActivity">

    <include
        android:id="@+id/tool_bar"
        layout="@layout/tool_bar"
        android:layout_height="wrap_content"
        android:layout_width="match_parent"
        />

    <ListView
        android:id="@+id/list_view"
        android:layout_width="fill_parent"
        android:layout_height="wrap_content"></ListView>

</LinearLayout>

and also rows item  row_item.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<LinearLayout xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
    android:layout_width="match_parent"
    android:layout_height="match_parent"
    android:orientation="vertical">

    <TextView
        android:id="@+id/message"
        android:layout_width="fill_parent"
        android:layout_height="wrap_content"
        />

    <TextView
        android:id="@+id/number"
        android:layout_width="fill_parent"
        android:layout_height="wrap_content"
      />

</LinearLayout>

I read this question  before..But it works for a simple list. how can I publish my 2 diamond list in listview?
I try complete this code:
public class BookMarkActivity extends ActionBarActivity {
    @Override
    protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.listview);

        DatabaseBookMark db = new DatabaseBookMark(this);
        Log.d("Insert: ", "Inserting ..");
        db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Ravi", "9100000000"));
        db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Srinivas", "9199999999"));
        db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Tommy", "9522222222"));
        db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Karthik", "9533333333"));
        // Reading all contacts
        List<BookMark> bookmarks = db.getAllBookMarks();

    }
}

A: You have to extend an ArrayAdapter
public class BookmarkAdapter extends ArrayAdapter<BookMark> {

    public BookmarkAdapter(Activity activity,
            ArrayList<BookMark bookmark) {
        super(activity, R.layout.row_item, bookmark);
    }

    @Override
    public View getView(int position, View convertView, ViewGroup parent) {
        final BookMark b = getItem(position);
        ViewHolder viewHolder;
        if (convertView == null) {
            viewHolder = new ViewHolder();
            LayoutInflater inflater = LayoutInflater.from(getContext());
            convertView = inflater.inflate(R.layout.row_item, parent,
                    false);
            viewHolder.message= (TextView) convertView.findViewById(R.id.message);
            viewHolder.number= (TextView) convertView
                    .findViewById(R.id.number);
            convertView.setTag(viewHolder);
        } else {
            viewHolder = (ViewHolder) convertView.getTag();
        }

        viewHolder.message.setText(b.message);
        viewHolder.number.setText(b.number);
        return convertView;
    }

    private class ViewHolder {
        TextView message, number;
    }
}

and use it like this
public class BookMarkActivity extends ActionBarActivity {
    @Override
    protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.listview);

        DatabaseBookMark db = new DatabaseBookMark(this);
        Log.d("Insert: ", "Inserting ..");
        db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Ravi", "9100000000"));
        db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Srinivas", "9199999999"));
        db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Tommy", "9522222222"));
        db.addBookMark(new BookMark("Karthik", "9533333333"));
        // Reading all contacts
        ArrayList<BookMark> bookmarks = db.getAllBookMarks();

        // ADDED
        ListView lv = (ListView) findViewById(R.id.list_view);
        lv.setAdapter(new BookmarkAdapter(this,bookmarks));

    }
}

A: Please check this link.
It will help yours
Click here to see the example

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Top Five Tuesday — Top Five Ways Churches Find God's Solutions In A World Of Problems
Anyone can point out problems.
It takes people of faith, tenacity, and camaraderie to pinpoint solutions.
And that's just what churches around our city and across this nation are doing in the face of some of the world's most intractable problems.
So, in a tribute to some Solutionist-Style churches, here are five you may not be aware of:
1. Solving the dilemma of clean drinking water in India. Granger Community Church in Indiana defines the concept of going "narrow and deep" in its international mission strategy. This Methodist Mega Church repeatedly delivers people, resources, and expertise to Tamil Nadu state in southern India. In particular, they have developed a system of building and maintaining wells in under-resourced villages in remote areas of that state. Granger captures its story in a gorgeous coffee table book called Share The Well.
2. Finding Solutions For School Inequity in Charlotte. Christ Lutheran Church in southeast Charlotte has a partnership with McClintock Middle School that is so effective and so comprehensive that is names sounds like a hamburger: McPIE. To find out more about McClintock Partners In Education, click here.
3. Inventive Approach To Solving The Foster Care Crisis in Mecklenburg County. Grace Covenant Church in Cornelius has had its heart stirred with the plight of children who are part of the foster care system. So the congregation developed The Father's Heart, a ministry that both raises awareness of and invites participation in the ministry of foster care and adoption. You can read about The Father's Heart here.
4. Solving World Hunger, one MRE at a time. You didn't think I'd leave Good Shepherd out, did you? In 2014, we led the Million Meal March in southwest Mecklenburg and northern York counties. Good Shepherd's own total on that Sunday morning was over 254,000 meals, as for one Sunday at least, people didn't hear a sermon; they were the sermon. Here's how we put a face to all that food.
5. Solutions for human trafficking, one survivor at a time. "Human trafficking" is the sanitized version of saying "rape for profit." That's what the "business" actually is. And the people of Good Shepherd hate that industry and what it does to adolescents around the world. So in early 2013, we embarked on the Home project — healing our own homes while building a home that heals. $400,000 on one day . . . and today girls are living in freedom instead of depravity.
This kind of solution-centered faith is at the heart of the book Solve, scheduled for May 17 release. You can pre-order copies here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The first and earliest principle of evidence-based medicine indicated that a hierarchy of evidence exists. Not all evidence is the same. This principle became well known in the early 1990s as practising physicians learnt basic clinical epidemiology skills and started to appraise and apply evidence to their practice. Since evidence was described as a hierarchy, a compelling rationale for a pyramid was made. Evidence-based healthcare practitioners became familiar with this pyramid when reading the literature, applying evidence or teaching students.
Another version (the 6S pyramid) was also developed to describe the sources of evidence that can be used by evidence-based medicine (EBM) practitioners for answering foreground questions, showing a hierarchy ranging from studies, synopses, synthesis, synopses of synthesis, summaries and systems.4 This hierarchy may imply some sort of increasing validity and applicability although its main purpose is to emphasise that the lower sources of evidence in the hierarchy are least preferred in practice because they require more expertise and time to identify, appraise and apply.
The traditional pyramid was deemed too simplistic at times, thus the importance of leaving room for argument and counterargument for the methodological merit of different designs has been emphasised.5 Other barriers challenged the placement of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at the top of the pyramid. For instance, heterogeneity (clinical, methodological or statistical) is an inherent limitation of meta-analyses that can be minimised or explained but never eliminated.6 The methodological intricacies and dilemmas of systematic reviews could potentially result in uncertainty and error.7 One evaluation of 163 meta-analyses demonstrated that the estimation of treatment outcomes differed substantially depending on the analytical strategy being used.7 Therefore, we suggest, in this perspective, two visual modifications to the pyramid to illustrate two contemporary methodological principles (figure 1). We provide the rationale and an example for each modification.
The proposed new evidence-based medicine pyramid. (A) The traditional pyramid. (B) Revising the pyramid: (1) lines separating the study designs become wavy (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), (2) systematic reviews are 'chopped off' the pyramid. (C) The revised pyramid: systematic reviews are a lens through which evidence is viewed (applied).
Therefore, the first modification to the pyramid is to change the straight lines separating study designs in the pyramid to wavy lines (going up and down to reflect the GRADE approach of rating up and down based on the various domains of the quality of evidence).
Another challenge to the notion of having systematic reviews on the top of the evidence pyramid relates to the framework presented in the Journal of the American Medical Association User's Guide on systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The Guide presented a two-step approach in which the credibility of the process of a systematic review is evaluated first (comprehensive literature search, rigorous study selection process, etc). If the systematic review was deemed sufficiently credible, then a second step takes place in which we evaluate the certainty in evidence based on the GRADE approach.11 In other words, a meta-analysis of well-conducted RCTs at low risk of bias cannot be equated with a meta-analysis of observational studies at higher risk of bias. For example, a meta-analysis of 112 surgical case series showed that in patients with thoracic aortic transection, the mortality rate was significantly lower in patients who underwent endovascular repair, followed by open repair and non-operative management (9%, 19% and 46%, respectively, p<0.01). Clearly, this meta-analysis should not be on top of the pyramid similar to a meta-analysis of RCTs. After all, the evidence remains consistent of non-randomised studies and likely subject to numerous confounders.
Therefore, the second modification to the pyramid is to remove systematic reviews from the top of the pyramid and use them as a lens through which other types of studies should be seen (ie, appraised and applied). The systematic review (the process of selecting the studies) and meta-analysis (the statistical aggregation that produces a single effect size) are tools to consume and apply the evidence by stakeholders.
Changing how systematic reviews and meta-analyses are perceived by stakeholders (patients, clinicians and stakeholders) has important implications. For example, the American Heart Association considers evidence derived from meta-analyses to have a level 'A' (ie, warrants the most confidence). Re-evaluation of evidence using GRADE shows that level 'A' evidence could have been high, moderate, low or of very low quality.12 The quality of evidence drives the strength of recommendation, which is one of the last translational steps of research, most proximal to patient care.
One of the limitations of all 'pyramids' and depictions of evidence hierarchy relates to the underpinning of such schemas. The construct of internal validity may have varying definitions, or be understood differently among evidence consumers. A limitation of considering systematic review and meta-analyses as tools to consume evidence may undermine their role in new discovery (eg, identifying a new side effect that was not demonstrated in individual studies13).
This pyramid can be also used as a teaching tool. EBM teachers can compare it to the existing pyramids to explain how certainty in the evidence (also called quality of evidence) is evaluated. It can be used to teach how evidence-based practitioners can appraise and apply systematic reviews in practice, and to demonstrate the evolution in EBM thinking and the modern understanding of certainty in evidence.
. Finding current best evidence. In: Guyatt G , Rennie D , Meade MO , et al . eds. Users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 3rd edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2015:29–50.
Contributors MHM conceived the idea and drafted the manuscript. FA helped draft the manuscript and designed the new pyramid. MA and NA helped draft the manuscript.


text:
Home Gear & Ammo Accessories Is Hollowpoint the Best Defensive Ammo for Concealed Carry?
Is Hollowpoint the Best Defensive Ammo for Concealed Carry?
Defensive ammunition choice is about picking what works best to neutralize armed and dangerous human beings before they can maim or murder. Scientific testing of ammo in ballistic gelatin can help predict bullet performance in the field, but at the end of the day, it is the performance and not the prediction that will matter.
Sterile lab testing in ballistic gelatin is great, but the ultimate laboratory is the street, the author maintains. Here are the loads that seem to be doing best there, input written in blood from gunfights police departments have experienced with defensive ammunition.
The Dangers of Overpenetrating Bullets
One critical rule of firearms safety is that the bullet must stay in its intended backstop. No responsible shooter would go to one of the older indoor shooting ranges that have a warning poster saying "Lead Bullets Only, Jacketed Bullets Can Pierce Backstop" and then proceed to pump hard-jacketed bullets into that frail backing.
Learn more from Mas! Six indispensable resources from Massad Ayoob. Act now, limited availability.
On the street, the only safe backstop for the defensive handgun's bullets is the body of the offender. Therefore, it is not exactly responsible to be firing bullets that are likely to shoot through the assailant. This is one of the main reasons law enforcement in its virtual entirety has gone to expanding bullet handgun ammunition in this country. It was a lesson written in blood.
Seven Cases Highlight the Reality
In 1999, New York City became almost the last major police department to adopt hollow-point ammunition. They did so in the face of huge, long-term opposition based on political correctness and the erroneous perception of hollow points as wicked "dum-dum bullets."
One reason they were able to pass it was that the city fathers had been made to realize how much danger the supposedly "humane, Geneva Convention-approved" ammunition previously used presented to innocent bystanders and police officers when the duty weapons were fired in self-defense or defense of others.
From the early '90s adoption of 16-shot 9mm pistols (Glock 19, SIG Sauer P226 DAO and Smith & Wesson Model 5946) through 1999, NYPD issued a full metal jacket "hardball" round, comprising a round-nose 115-grain bullet in the mid-1,100 fps velocity range. The New York Times exposed the following facts in its startling report on the matter:
"According to statistics released by the department, 15 innocent bystanders were struck by police officers using full metal jacket bullets during 1995 and 1996, the police said. Eight were hit directly, five were hit by bullets that had passed through other people and two were hit by bullets that had passed through objects," stated the Times.
In other words, in rough numbers, 53 percent of these tragic occurrences were apparently missed shots, while 33 percent were "shoot-throughs" of violent felony suspects. Counting bullets that went through objects to hit presumably unseen innocent victims (13 percent), that tells us that roughly 46 percent of these innocent bystanders were shot by over-penetrating bullets that "pierced their backstops." Let's call those victims Cases One Through Seven.
17 Officers Shot Due to Over Penetration
The Times continued, "In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed through other people."
In round numbers, 52 percent of those "friendly fire" casualties were hit by bullets that apparently missed their intended targets. 42 percent passed through the bodies of the intended targets after the bullets struck the people they were aimed at. Let's tally those victims of over-penetration as Cases Eight through Twenty-Four.
Best Starter Kit for Concealed Carry:
S&W M&P 9 SHIELD $429 Sportsman's Warehouse
Safariland IWB Holster $44.99Sportsman's Warehouse
Safariland Duty Belt $88.99 brownells.com
SnagMag Ammo Pouch $LOW! gundigeststore.com
Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links. Caribou Media Group may earn a commission from qualifying purchases. Thank you!
Why would officers hit more of their own brethren than "civilian" bystanders in this fashion? For the simple reason that while victims and potential innocent bystanders tend to flee danger scenes, the cops are conditioned to "ride to the sound of the guns."
In a close-quarters situation where a violent criminal is attempting to harm or even murder another officer, cops try to grab him or stop him or even maneuver into a position from which to shoot him. All these actions can put them in the line of fire of brother officers.
Tunnel vision occurs in a majority of life-threatening encounters. This is the perceptual phenomenon of being able to see only the threat and being unable to cognitively recognize other people or objects that might be in the line of fire.
The full investigations that result from police-involved shootings also provide the most accurate and complete information on how various types of ammo performs in real-world situations.
Moreover, the body of the offender may simply block the shooter's view of the brother officer who is trying to apprehend or restrain the attacker from behind. In these situations, a "shoot-through" is highly likely to kill or cripple one of the Good Guys and Gals.
What does this have to do with private citizens' use of CCW handguns? Only this: Where the cops jump in to protect their fellow officers, brave citizens may step in to protect their actual brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, or fathers and mothers. Now it is your loved ones who are behind the offender — unseen by you — when you discharge your CCW weapon.
Those 115-grain jacketed ball 9mm rounds will pierce more than 2 feet of muscle tissue simulating ballistic gelatin. So will 230-grain full metal jacket 45 hardball.
By contrast, the depth of the average adult male thorax is probably no more than ten inches, from front of chest to back. Nor is it solid muscle: the spongy tissue and large air volume of the human lung offer little resistance to a bullet. It's not just about New York City and 9mms.
In Arizona some years ago, a peace officer fired his 45 service automatic at a large male offender rushing him with a knife. He couldn't see that a brother officer was running up behind the offender to grab and restrain him.
His gunfire dropped the offender…and passed through his body with enough force to deeply pierce the abdomen of the second cop, who had been trying to rescue the one who fired. That wounded officer almost died from those injuries, inflicted unintentionally by shoot-through with 230-grain full metal jacket 45 ACP. Call that incident Case Twenty-Five.
Many years ago in Los Angeles, an Aryan Brotherhood thug took several people hostage in an office. He demanded an escape vehicle and threatened to start shooting hostages if he didn't get one. A vehicle was provided, and he got into the car with the victims.
At this point, the LAPD SWAT team launched smoke, and two members of the team whom I happened to know moved forward through the gray cloud, their issue Colt 45 automatics up and ready.
When the perpetrator reached for his pistol, the cops opened fire, using department-issue 230-grain hardball. They fired four shots between them, and killed the offender before he could launch a single bullet of his own.
Autopsy showed any of the four hits would have been quickly fatal. However, only one of those bullets stayed in the offender's body. One of the three exiting slugs struck one of the hostages. Fortunately, the wound was not life-threatening. LAPD quickly switched to hollow points, which is what they use today. Lesson learned. Call it Case Twenty-Six.
Ball Stops Poorly
Particularly in the small calibers, ball ammunition is infamous for its poor stopping power. When the Illinois State Police issued ball for their 9mm S&W pistols from 1967 through the early 1970s, their Ordnance Section told me, they never had a single one-shot stop on an armed felon unless he was hit in the brain or spinal cord.
This led the ISP on an odyssey in search of more effective ammo, which culminated in the famously effective "Illinois State Police load," a 115-grain jacketed 9mm hollow point at +P+ pressure and 1,300 fps velocity. Today, Illinois troopers carry 180-grain high-tech hollow point in 40 S&W.
In Case Twenty-Seven, NYPD's last high-profile shooting incident with 9mm ball ammo, four plainclothes officers engaged a young man named Amadou Diallo when he turned on them pulling an object that appeared, in the poor light, to be a small automatic pistol. All four opened fire, and five seconds later they had fired some 41 shots.
Nineteen of those bullets struck Diallo before he went down and dropped the object he was holding, which turned out to be a black nylon wallet. Sixteen of the 19 bullets over-penetrated. Diallo died of his wounds.
After a long and arduous trial, all four officers were acquitted. Had these officers been issued the department's new 124-grain Speer Gold Dot +P hollow points in time, there is a good chance that he would have gone down with as little as one gunshot wound, giving Diallo a better chance of survival. No such horror stories have happened on NYPD since the hollowpoint ammo has been general issue.
Forensic Concerns
When a bullet goes through a human body, it is not always possible to correctly determine entry from exit, particularly if the gunshot victim lives long enough for the healing process to begin.
Consider Case Twenty-Eight, in which the O.J. Simpson lawyers defending him against charges of murdering his wife and her young male acquaintance tried to impeach one of the state's medical examiners by bringing up a previous case in which he had mistakenly diagnosed a through and through gunshot wound, confusing back-to-front and front-to-back.
In late 2007, I was involved in a murder case where it was alleged that the defendant had shot his opponent in the back of the neck, with the bullet exiting his face, implying that he was in no danger and therefore could not have acted in self-defense.
The weapon was a Beretta Model 96F pistol, and the bullet was a 180-grain round of full metal jacket UMC 40-caliber practice ammo. In fact, the bullet had entered the face of the attacking man, and coursed rearward and downward before exiting the neck. However, the assailant lived for a week before he succumbed.
During that time, he was lying supine in a hospital bed with his weight pressing the exit hole down against dressings and bed clothes as his body worked to heal the injury. This gave the wound a puckered appearance consistent with an entry wound.
At the same time, doctors and nurses were treating the open wound in the face, debriding it to prevent necrosis, so by the time he finally died, that wound had been cratered outward and mimicked an exit instead of an entry.
The medical examiner determined that entry was in the back and exit was in the front. Not until trial, did treating physicians familiar with gunshot wounds testify that when the "victim" came in, they diagnosed the wound as front entry/rear exit.
Defense experts concurred, and the jury acquitted, as they should have. But Case Twenty-Nine probably wouldn't have gone to trial if the defendant had loaded his gun with proper hollow points, which almost certainly would have left the mushroomed bullet embedded inside the neck and shown that the attacker was shot from the front.
This article is an excerpt from the The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry 2nd Edition.
Related GunDigest Articles
Gallery: 5 Worthy Defensive Ammo Loads
Is Reloaded Carry Ammo a Good Idea?
Concealed Carry Holsters: 7 New Carry Rigs
NEXT STEP: Download Your Free Storm Tactical Printable Target Pack
62 Printable MOA Targets with DOT Drills - Rifle Range in YARDS This impressive target pack from our friends at Storm Tactical contains 62 printable targets for rifle and handgun range use. Target grids and bullseye sizes are in MOA. Ideal for long-range shooting! Get Free Targets
Concealed Carry Ammo
Defensive Ammunition
featured ammo
Personsal Defense Ammo
Self-Defense Ammo
❰Video: Tips on How to Holdover for Offset
Concealed Carry Answers: What is Color Code?❱
Massad Ayoob is one of the world's outstanding handgunners and is the Director of Massad Ayoob Group. A prolific author, Ayoob is the author of Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry, Gun Digest Book of SIG-Sauer, Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, Massad Ayoob's Greatest Handguns of the World and many other books and more than one thousand articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues.
On Point With Winchester USA Ready Defense Ammo
Is The Modern 10mm Still A Handful?
Ammo: Blindsiding Waterfowl With Hex Steel Shot
J_Erdmann March 12, 2017 at 9:44 pm
It still surprises me that New Jersey and the city of San Francisco bans the use of hollow point, expanding bullets for its citizens. Citizens are found to only legally use FMJ bullets for self defense, I mean just how stupid is this.
wraith67 August 17, 2015 at 4:55 am
HP just dumps the energy a lot better into the surrounding tissue.
Lt. Dan February 26, 2014 at 3:23 am
Amen..Amen…Amen on this article. Gel testing is interesting but too many people drape themselves over the altar of the FBI tests. Some are really hung up on the minimum penetration recommendation which I've always felt was too much.
I can't stress enough that hardball is the worst choice for self defense. Some people say their auto pistol only works good with hardball and my comeback is "you need to change handguns." Not only is it a poor stopper but it over-penetrates. I'm not parroting what Ayoob is saying, I worked CSI for a living and have seen enough to form opinions. FMJ will even ricochet or follow the curve of a bone.
vincentdc96 February 25, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Sorry you are facing such a charge. I unload, lock up everything, and drive just under the speed limit anytime I have to travel in the Peoples Republic of Illonoise ( I don't care how they spell the state name). I will not every, every, go through Chicago. And I won't even stop to piss in the PRI. I think if there is anyone carrying anything other than HP ammo, they should be arrested. Just my opinion, Mas.
mwagila February 25, 2014 at 11:21 am
I was accused of being a " barbarian" in Chicago after taking my licensed handgun loaded with Hydrashok ammo across the border. I live in Indiana. Now I have a felony charge. I think partially due to having hollow point ammo. It was almost comedic watching the officers point out the post in the ammo cavity.
Orwell was right March 4, 2014 at 8:06 pm
You have a FELONY charge against you in Illinois? Good luck to you. When I rode up to Harley's 100th anniversary back in 2003 I left my heat at a relative's house in a Chicago suburb, not wanting to be pulled over on my way to Milwaukee and sent to the gulag for packing in the USSC – Union of Soviet Socialist Chicago. I agree with vincentdc96 above. I avoid IL, CA, NY and DC when at all possible.
RecoilTV


text:
Local Briefs
Dogs, Drones Nail Burglar
Santa Monica Police used dogs and a drone to sniff out a homeless man named Murphy wanted for burglary.
An employee of a business in the 1600 block of 19th street called police early on May 20th, saying that he could hear someone on the roof. At 3:25 AM, SMPD Officers responded. "The employee also mentioned that the business was burglarized the night before," writes Lt. Rudy Flores, SMPD PIO.
"When officers arrived on scene, they observed an individual on the rooftop carrying a stolen item. Upon seeing the officers, the male quickly retreated out of sight. The male suspect, later identified as Christopher Reid Murphy, a 27-year-old homeless White male, was given several commands however refused to comply," Flores continued.
"A perimeter was quickly established and with the assistance of a Police K9 and the Santa Monica Police Department's drone, also known as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Teams, Murphy was located hiding inside a storage room. Murphy was taken into custody and booked for Burglary and Resisting Arrest. Murphy is also on formal probation for burglary."
Anyone with additional information pertaining to this incident or individual is encouraged to contact the Criminal Investigations Division 310-458-8451 or Santa Monica Department Watch Commander at 310-458-8427.
Pistol Packing Mama
5/17: A fight between a homeless couple over a stroller, ended in gunfire and criminal charges for one woman.
Just after noon, Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) Officers responded to a shooting in the alley of the 2400 block of Ocean Park Blvd.
Witnesses told them that the victim was in the alleyway pushing a stroller filled with personal property, when a vehicle drove past him.
That vehicle suddenly reversed and hit the victim's stroller causing all the items to fall out and scatter onto the ground.
The driver of the vehicle, later identified as Tarra Kenay Sheffield, got out of the car. The 27 year old Sheffield walked to the victim, while he (victim) was gathering his belongings.
The two exchanged words. Suddenly Sheffield pulled out a pistol and fired one round into the ground next to the victim. Sheffield then got back into her car and quickly drove away.
On May 18, 2021 SMPD patrol officers located Sheffield in her vehicle at 7- Eleven (630 Wilshire). Sheffield was taken into custody without incident. Detectives located a loaded 9mm handgun, with no make or model, inside of the vehicle.
May 20, 2021, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office filed charges against Sheffield for her involvement in a shooting. She was charged with Assault with a Firearm and being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm.
Venice Homeless Garner Int'l Media
Venice residents are tired of seeing the once famous, though eclectic, boardwalk turned into one large homeless encampment. And they're talking to the media this week.
For example, the UK Daily Mail writes: "On Sunday Crocodile Dundee star Paul Hogan, 81, warned the homeless away. 'This is my house, not yours,' he wrote on a note he posted on the gate of his $3.5 million Venice Beach home. Hogan complained that he is homesick and desperate to return to his native Australia but doesn't want to go through two weeks Covid quarantine. I'm like a kangaroo in a Russian zoo, I don't belong here,' he said.
Venice residents generally assert that homeless people commit many crimes, including shootings, fights, fires and drug use. Most of them deny that they want to do anything but sit in the sun, same as wealthier, working people. Economics simply forces them to do it publicly.
The boardwalk used to be full of tourists, vendors underneath canopies, with tourists from Europe and Asia. But not anymore. On my Thursday morning walk, I pretty much saw only homeless people.
Fox reporter Lawrence Jones, who was in Venice Beach on Wednesday and saw the situation first hand, spoke to both residents and members of the homeless community who set up tents in the area.
One homeless man told Jones that he lost his child and fiancé in a drunk driving incident and started resorting to drugs, noting that he injects himself with "clean" needles around 32 times a day.
"Are you afraid that one time when you shoot up it'll be the last time?" Jones asked. "No, I'm not afraid," he responded. "If it happens that I die, maybe I can finally see my kid."
Another homeless man told me he has been living on Venice Beach on and off for approximately five years. He said his name was "Agent F." He claims the homeless residents of the area actually try to clean it up. He claimed that living under the stars allows him to connect with his ancestors, archaic humanoids, who also lived outside all the time.
Agent "F" says he is 44 and has travelled the world. He showed me a storage locker a friend rents from a local landlord. He says they do art installations and sometimes sell their craftwork. He says he is completely happy living outdoors, and wants to live that way the rest of his life.
While I was there, a truck from the Los Angeles Dept of Parks and Recreation drove by, with bags of tracks produced by the residents. "You see? We're the ones who gathered all that trash to fill those bags."
Authorities feel torn beside progressive goals, good intentions, and a demand from people who've paid millions to acquire homes by the beach, that the area be cleaned up. And that the homeless be taken away.


text:
require 'redis'
require 'json'

require_relative '../interfaces/idatabasemanager'

class RedisManager
  include IDatabaseManager

  KEY_MESSAGE_QUEUE = 'message_queue'

  def initialize(database_url)
    @connection = Redis.new(:url => database_url)
  end

  def store_message(message)
    serialized_message = message.to_json
    @connection.rpush(RedisManager::KEY_MESSAGE_QUEUE, serialized_message)
  end

  def fetch_queued_message
    serialized_message = @connection.lpop(RedisManager::KEY_MESSAGE_QUEUE)

    if serialized_message != nil
      return JSON.parse(serialized_message)
    end

    return nil
  end

end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


"I had to go to the wine cellar and find a good bottle of wine and drink it before it goes bad," Murry Stegelmann, 50, a founder of investment-management firm Kilimanjaro Advisors LLC, wrote in an e-mail after he lost power at 6 p.m. on Oct. 29 in Darien, Connecticut.
The bottle he chose, a 2005 Chateau Margaux, was given 98 points by wine critic Robert Parker and is on sale at the Westchester Wine Warehouse for $999.99.
"Outstanding," Stegelmann said. He started the day with green tea at Starbucks, talking with neighbors about the New York Yankees' future and moving boats to the parking lot of Darien's Middlesex Middle School.
At CAGR Value, we track major developments in biotech, technology, IoT, Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented and Virtual Reality, and companies that are likely to benefit from these markets.
« A Primer on Hedge Funds – Roland Lorenzo, with Credit Suisse First Boston, explains hedge funds.
Are Hedge Funds Ever Expensive?
Where Has All The Money for Hedge Funds Gone?
"What Is" The JOBS Act?


Find Jay Hatfield Mobility only 96 miles from Perry, Ok. Your local wheelchair van dealer and handicap van rental location is: Jay Hatfield Mobility.
Perry is a city in, and county seat of, Noble County, Oklahoma, United States. Perry's original name was Wharton, the name of a train station built in 1886 by the Southern Kansas Railway.
Your local wheelchair van dealer is 96 miles from Perry, Ok.