Note 12 - Income Taxes (Notes)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Income Tax Disclosure [Abstract]
Income Tax Disclosure	Income Taxes We provide for income taxes in accordance with the provisions of the accounting standard regarding accounting for income taxes. As required under this standard, our deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized under the balance sheet method, which recognizes the future tax effect of temporary differences between the amounts recorded in our condensed consolidated financial statements and the tax bases of these amounts. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using the enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the periods in which the deferred tax asset or liability is expected to be realized or settled. Given the impact on our pre-tax results of net gains or losses resulting from our derivative transactions and our investment portfolio, and the continued uncertainty around our ability to rely on certain short-term financial projections, which directly affects our ability to estimate an effective tax rate for the full year, we record our interim period income tax provision (benefit) based on actual results of operations. For federal income tax purposes, we had approximately $1.8 billion of net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards as of September 30, 2013. To the extent not utilized, the NOL carryforwards will expire during tax years 2028 through 2032. To protect our ability to utilize our NOLs and other tax assets from an “ownership change” under U.S. federal income tax rules, we adopted certain tax benefit preservation measures, including amendments to our certificate of incorporation and by-laws and the adoption of a tax benefit preservation plan. As of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, before consideration of our valuation allowance, we had deferred tax assets (“DTA”), net of deferred tax liabilities, of approximately $1,054.3 million and $989.7 million, respectively. We are required to establish a valuation allowance against our DTA when it is more likely than not that all or some portion of our DTA will not be realized. At each balance sheet date we assess our need for a valuation allowance, and this assessment is based on all available evidence, both positive and negative, and requires management to exercise judgment and make assumptions regarding whether such DTA will be realized in future periods. Future realization of our DTA will ultimately depend on the existence of sufficient taxable income of the appropriate character (ordinary income or capital gains) within the applicable carryback and carryforward periods provided under the tax law. The primary sources of negative evidence that we considered are our cumulative losses in recent years, and the continued uncertainty around our future results. We also considered several sources of positive evidence when assessing the need for a valuation allowance, such as future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, future projections of taxable income, taxable income within the applicable carryback periods, and potential tax planning strategies. In making our assessment of the more likely than not standard, the weight assigned to the effect of both negative and positive evidence is commensurate with the extent to which such evidence can be objectively verified. A valuation allowance of approximately $1,036.4 million and $989.7 million was recorded against our net DTA of approximately $1,054.3 million and $989.7 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The remaining DTA of approximately $17.9 million at September 30, 2013 represents our NOL carryback, which we may be able to utilize as part of a compromised settlement against the adjustments proposed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) relating to tax years 2000 through 2007, as discussed in more detail below. We are currently contesting proposed adjustments resulting from the examination by the IRS of our 2000 through 2007 tax years. The IRS opposes the recognition of certain tax losses and deductions that were generated through our investment in a portfolio of non-economic Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“REMIC”) residual interests and has proposed adjustments denying the associated tax benefits of these items. The proposed adjustments relating to the 2000 through 2007 tax years, if sustained, will result in additional income taxes of approximately $128 million plus proposed penalties of approximately $42 million. Additionally, we would incur interest on any sustained adjustments. We appealed these proposed adjustments to the IRS Office of Appeals (“Appeals”) and made “qualified deposits” with the U.S. Department of the Treasury in the amount of approximately $85 million in June 2008 relating to the 2000 through 2004 tax years and approximately $4 million in May 2010 relating to the 2005 through 2007 tax years in order to avoid the accrual of above-market-rate interest with respect to the proposed adjustments. In December 2010, we reached a tentative settlement agreement with Appeals. However, because we had claimed a refund of approximately $105 million with respect to our 2006 and 2007 taxable years based on a carryback of an NOL generated from our 2008 taxable year, review of the tentative settlement agreement by the Joint Committee on Taxation (“JCT”) was required. After the JCT completed its review, Appeals reconsidered the tentative settlement and informed us that it was no longer willing to enter into a settlement based on the originally proposed terms. We have made several attempts to reach a compromised settlement with Appeals, but in January 2013, we were notified that Appeals had rejected our latest settlement offer and plans to issue a formal notice of deficiency. Upon receipt of the notice of deficiency, we will have 90 days to either pay the assessed tax liabilities, penalties and interest (the “deficiency amount”) in full or petition the U.S. Tax Court to litigate the deficiency amount. If we choose to pay the deficiency amount, we could pursue a full refund of such amount through litigation in either U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Litigation of the deficiency amount may result in substantial legal expenses and the litigation process could take several years to resolve. We can provide no assurance regarding the outcome of any such litigation or whether a compromised settlement with the IRS will ultimately be reached. After discussions with outside counsel about the issues raised in the examination, we believe that an adequate provision for income taxes has been made for the potential liabilities that may result from this matter. However, if the ultimate resolution of this matter produces a result that differs materially from our current expectations, there could be a material impact on our effective tax rate, results of operations and cash flows.

Income Taxes

We provide for income taxes in accordance with the provisions of the accounting standard regarding accounting for income taxes. As required under this standard, our deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized under the balance sheet method, which recognizes the future tax effect of temporary differences between the amounts recorded in our condensed consolidated financial statements and the tax bases of these amounts. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using the enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the periods in which the deferred tax asset or liability is expected to be realized or settled.

Given the impact on our pre-tax results of net gains or losses resulting from our derivative transactions and our investment portfolio, and the continued uncertainty around our ability to rely on certain short-term financial projections, which directly affects our ability to estimate an effective tax rate for the full year, we record our interim period income tax provision (benefit) based on actual results of operations.

For federal income tax purposes, we had approximately $1.8 billion of net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards as of September 30, 2013. To the extent not utilized, the NOL carryforwards will expire during tax years 2028 through 2032. To protect our ability to utilize our NOLs and other tax assets from an “ownership change” under U.S. federal income tax rules, we adopted certain tax benefit preservation measures, including amendments to our certificate of incorporation and by-laws and the adoption of a tax benefit preservation plan.

As of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, before consideration of our valuation allowance, we had deferred tax assets (“DTA”), net of deferred tax liabilities, of approximately $1,054.3 million and $989.7 million, respectively.

We are required to establish a valuation allowance against our DTA when it is more likely than not that all or some portion of our DTA will not be realized. At each balance sheet date we assess our need for a valuation allowance, and this assessment is based on all available evidence, both positive and negative, and requires management to exercise judgment and make assumptions regarding whether such DTA will be realized in future periods. Future realization of our DTA will ultimately depend on the existence of sufficient taxable income of the appropriate character (ordinary income or capital gains) within the applicable carryback and carryforward periods provided under the tax law. The primary sources of negative evidence that we considered are our cumulative losses in recent years, and the continued uncertainty around our future results. We also considered several sources of positive evidence when assessing the need for a valuation allowance, such as future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, future projections of taxable income, taxable income within the applicable carryback periods, and potential tax planning strategies. In making our assessment of the more likely than not standard, the weight assigned to the effect of both negative and positive evidence is commensurate with the extent to which such evidence can be objectively verified.

A valuation allowance of approximately $1,036.4 million and $989.7 million was recorded against our net DTA of approximately $1,054.3 million and $989.7 million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The remaining DTA of approximately $17.9 million at September 30, 2013 represents our NOL carryback, which we may be able to utilize as part of a compromised settlement against the adjustments proposed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) relating to tax years 2000 through 2007, as discussed in more detail below.

We are currently contesting proposed adjustments resulting from the examination by the IRS of our 2000 through 2007 tax years. The IRS opposes the recognition of certain tax losses and deductions that were generated through our investment in a portfolio of non-economic Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“REMIC”) residual interests and has proposed adjustments denying the associated tax benefits of these items. The proposed adjustments relating to the 2000 through 2007 tax years, if sustained, will result in additional income taxes of approximately $128 million plus proposed penalties of approximately $42 million. Additionally, we would incur interest on any sustained adjustments. We appealed these proposed adjustments to the IRS Office of Appeals (“Appeals”) and made “qualified deposits” with the U.S. Department of the Treasury in the amount of approximately $85 million in June 2008 relating to the 2000 through 2004 tax years and approximately $4 million in May 2010 relating to the 2005 through 2007 tax years in order to avoid the accrual of above-market-rate interest with respect to the proposed adjustments. In December 2010, we reached a tentative settlement agreement with Appeals. However, because we had claimed a refund of approximately $105 million with respect to our 2006 and 2007 taxable years based on a carryback of an NOL generated from our 2008 taxable year, review of the tentative settlement agreement by the Joint Committee on Taxation (“JCT”) was required. After the JCT completed its review, Appeals reconsidered the tentative settlement and informed us that it was no longer willing to enter into a settlement based on the originally proposed terms.

We have made several attempts to reach a compromised settlement with Appeals, but in January 2013, we were notified that Appeals had rejected our latest settlement offer and plans to issue a formal notice of deficiency. Upon receipt of the notice of deficiency, we will have 90 days to either pay the assessed tax liabilities, penalties and interest (the “deficiency amount”) in full or petition the U.S. Tax Court to litigate the deficiency amount. If we choose to pay the deficiency amount, we could pursue a full refund of such amount through litigation in either U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Litigation of the deficiency amount may result in substantial legal expenses and the litigation process could take several years to resolve. We can provide no assurance regarding the outcome of any such litigation or whether a compromised settlement with the IRS will ultimately be reached. After discussions with outside counsel about the issues raised in the examination, we believe that an adequate provision for income taxes has been made for the potential liabilities that may result from this matter. However, if the ultimate resolution of this matter produces a result that differs materially from our current expectations, there could be a material impact on our effective tax rate, results of operations and cash flows.