Document garqJjoKGMEj0E92jxgn3QmxV

Dana Corporation Page 131 of 176 Table of Contents Note 17. Fair Value of Financial Instruments The estimated fair values of Dana's financial instruments are as follows: December 31 2003 Carrying Fair Amount Value 2002 Carrying Amount Fair Value Financial assets Cash and cash equivalents Loans receivable (net) Investment securities Interest rate swaps Currency forwards Financial liabilities Short-term debt Long-term debt Security deposits -- leases Deferred funding commitments under leveraged leases Interest rate swaps Currency forwards $ 731 34 9 S 731 38 9 44 54 3,044 54 3,064 11 11 11 11 $ 571 46 12 23 1 163 3,339 1 1 3 1 $ 571 45 11 23 1 163 3,299 1 1 3 1 Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies At December 31, 2003, we had purchase commitments for property, plant and equipment of approximately $114. DCC did not have any material commitments to provide loan and lease financing at December 31, 2003. We procure tooling from a variety of suppliers. In certain instances, in lieu of making progress payments on the tooling, we may guarantee a tooling supplier's obligations under its credit facility secured by the specific tooling purchase order. At December 31, 2003, we had a $18 guarantee outstanding in connection with a tooling order for one of our OE programs. Although our Board authorization permits us to issue tooling guarantees up to $80 for these programs, we do not expect such guarantees for this program to exceed $40. Cash obligations under future minimum rental commitments under operating leases were $378 at December 31, 2003, with rental payments during the next five years of: 2004, $73; 2005, $54; 2006, $53; 2007, $36 and 2008, $33. Net rental expense was $90 in 2003, $78 in 2002 and $107 in 2001. We have divested certain of our businesses. In connection with these divestitures, there may be future claims and proceedings instituted or asserted against us relative to the period of our ownership or pursuant to indemnifications or guarantees provided in connection with the respective transactions. The estimated maximum potential amount of payments under these obligations is not determinable due to the significant number of divestitures and lack of a stated maximum liability for certain matters. In some cases, we have insurance coverage available to satisfy claims related to the divested businesses. We believe that payments, if any, in excess of amounts provided or insured related to such matters are not http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/26780/000095015204001384/105571ael0vk.htm 8/1/2004