Note 12 - Income Taxes (Notes)	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Income Tax Disclosure [Abstract]
Income Taxes	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. Our provision for income taxes for interim financial periods is based on an estimate of our annual effective tax rate (“ETR”) for the full year of 2014. When estimating our full year 2014 ETR, we adjust our projected pre-tax income for gains and losses on our derivative transactions and investments, changes in the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes, changes in our beginning of year valuation allowance, and other adjustments. The impact of these items is accounted for discretely at the federal applicable tax rate. During 2013, 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 affected our ability to estimate an ETR for the full year, we recorded 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 and $26.3 million of foreign tax credit carryforwards as of March 31, 2014. To the extent not utilized, the NOL carryforwards will expire during tax years 2028 through 2032 and the foreign tax credit carryforwards will expire during tax years 2018 through 2020. Certain entities within our consolidated group have also generated deferred tax assets of approximately $31.6 million relating to state and local NOL carryforwards, which if unutilized, will expire during various future tax periods. As of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, before consideration of our valuation allowance, we had deferred tax assets, net of deferred tax liabilities, of approximately $936.5 million and $1,040.2 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. Our assessment is based on all available evidence, both positive and negative. This requires management to exercise judgment and make assumptions regarding whether our DTA will be realized in future periods. In making this assessment, the primary negative evidence that we considered is our cumulative losses in recent years and the uncertainty around our future results. We also considered 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 assessing our need for a valuation allowance, 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. Future recognition 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. This recognition may be based on the continued improvement in operating results and increased certainty regarding our projected incurred losses, and our ability to sustain profitability over an appropriate time period in amounts that are sufficient to support a conclusion that it is more likely than not that all or a portion of our DTAs will be realized. It is reasonably possible that we could meet these criteria in the foreseeable future. A valuation allowance of approximately $936.5 million and $1,022.3 million was recorded against our net DTA of approximately $936.5 million and $1,040.2 million at March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The remaining DTA of approximately $17.9 million at December 31, 2013 represented our NOL carryback that we would be able to utilize as part of an overall settlement of the proposed Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) adjustments relating to tax years 2000 through 2007. In July 2013, the FASB issued an update to the accounting standard regarding income taxes, which we adopted in the first quarter of 2014. This update provides guidance concerning the balance sheet presentation of an unrecognized tax benefit when Carryforwards are available. This accounting standard requires us to net our liability related to unrecognized tax benefits against the related deferred tax assets for the Carryforwards. A gross presentation will be required when the Carryforwards are not available under the tax law of the applicable jurisdiction or when the Carryforwards would not be used to settle any additional income taxes resulting from disallowance of the uncertain tax position. As a result of our implementation of this new FASB guidance, our March 31, 2014 consolidated balance sheet reflects a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets as our remaining DTA was reduced by the reclassification of our liability for unrecognized tax benefits. During the quarter ended March 31, 2014, our valuation allowance decreased by approximately $85.8 million. Of this amount, $84.3 million was recorded as a benefit in continuing operations, offsetting the related deferred tax expense, and the remaining $1.5 million decrease was recorded through other comprehensive income. We are currently contesting proposed adjustments resulting from the examination by the IRS of our 2000 through 2007 consolidated federal income tax returns. 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 Conduit (“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, would result in additional income taxes of approximately $128 million plus proposed penalties of approximately $42 million. Additionally, we would incur interest expense 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 (“U.S. Treasury”) 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. 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 the formal notice of deficiency. Upon receipt of that deficiency notice, 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. 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 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.

Our provision for income taxes for interim financial periods is based on an estimate of our annual effective tax rate (“ETR”) for the full year of 2014. When estimating our full year 2014 ETR, we adjust our projected pre-tax income for gains and losses on our derivative transactions and investments, changes in the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes, changes in our beginning of year valuation allowance, and other adjustments. The impact of these items is accounted for discretely at the federal applicable tax rate. During 2013, 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 affected our ability to estimate an ETR for the full year, we recorded 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 and $26.3 million of foreign tax credit carryforwards as of March 31, 2014. To the extent not utilized, the NOL carryforwards will expire during tax years 2028 through 2032 and the foreign tax credit carryforwards will expire during tax years 2018 through 2020. Certain entities within our consolidated group have also generated deferred tax assets of approximately $31.6 million relating to state and local NOL carryforwards, which if unutilized, will expire during various future tax periods.

As of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, before consideration of our valuation allowance, we had deferred tax assets, net of deferred tax liabilities, of approximately $936.5 million and $1,040.2 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. Our assessment is based on all available evidence, both positive and negative. This requires management to exercise judgment and make assumptions regarding whether our DTA will be realized in future periods. In making this assessment, the primary negative evidence that we considered is our cumulative losses in recent years and the uncertainty around our future results. We also considered 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 assessing our need for a valuation allowance, 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. Future recognition 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. This recognition may be based on the continued improvement in operating results and increased certainty regarding our projected incurred losses, and our ability to sustain profitability over an appropriate time period in amounts that are sufficient to support a conclusion that it is more likely than not that all or a portion of our DTAs will be realized. It is reasonably possible that we could meet these criteria in the foreseeable future.

A valuation allowance of approximately $936.5 million and $1,022.3 million was recorded against our net DTA of approximately $936.5 million and $1,040.2 million at March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The remaining DTA of approximately $17.9 million at December 31, 2013 represented our NOL carryback that we would be able to utilize as part of an overall settlement of the proposed Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) adjustments relating to tax years 2000 through 2007. In July 2013, the FASB issued an update to the accounting standard regarding income taxes, which we adopted in the first quarter of 2014. This update provides guidance concerning the balance sheet presentation of an unrecognized tax benefit when Carryforwards are available. This accounting standard requires us to net our liability related to unrecognized tax benefits against the related deferred tax assets for the Carryforwards. A gross presentation will be required when the Carryforwards are not available under the tax law of the applicable jurisdiction or when the Carryforwards would not be used to settle any additional income taxes resulting from disallowance of the uncertain tax position. As a result of our implementation of this new FASB guidance, our March 31, 2014 consolidated balance sheet reflects a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets as our remaining DTA was reduced by the reclassification of our liability for unrecognized tax benefits.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2014, our valuation allowance decreased by approximately $85.8 million. Of this amount, $84.3 million was recorded as a benefit in continuing operations, offsetting the related deferred tax expense, and the remaining $1.5 million decrease was recorded through other comprehensive income.

We are currently contesting proposed adjustments resulting from the examination by the IRS of our 2000 through 2007 consolidated federal income tax returns. 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 Conduit (“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, would result in additional income taxes of approximately $128 million plus proposed penalties of approximately $42 million. Additionally, we would incur interest expense 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 (“U.S. Treasury”) 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.

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 the formal notice of deficiency. Upon receipt of that deficiency notice, 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. 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 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.