Significant Accounting Policies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Significant Accounting Policies

Significant Accounting Policies

NOTE 1.  Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The interim consolidated financial statements are unaudited but, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. These adjustments consist of normal, recurring items. The results of operations for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of results for the full year. The interim consolidated financial statements and notes are presented as permitted by the requirements for Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q.

As described in 3M’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 26, 2011 (which updated 3M’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K) and 3M’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, during the first quarter of 2011 the Company made certain product moves between its business segments in its continuing effort to drive growth by aligning businesses around markets and customers (Note 13). Segment information presented herein reflects the impact of these changes for all periods presented. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and notes included in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 26, 2011.

Effective with 3M’s second-quarter 2011 Form 10-Q, the Company revised the amounts previously presented for cash used in investing activities and cash used in financing activities during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 by $33 million and $63 million, respectively, related to purchases of additional shares (noncontrolling interest) of non-wholly owned consolidated subsidiaries. These immaterial revisions increased cash used in financing activities and decreased cash used in investing activities by the amounts indicated above for the respective periods.

Earnings Per Share

The difference in the weighted average 3M shares outstanding for calculating basic and diluted earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders is a result of the dilution associated with the Company’s stock-based compensation plans. Certain options outstanding under these stock-based compensation plans were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders because they would not have had a dilutive effect (29.7 million average options for the three months ended September 30, 2011; 12.3 million average options for the nine months ended September 30, 2011; 30.2 million average options for the three months ended September 30, 2010; and 30.4 million average options for the nine months ended September 30, 2010). The conditions for conversion related to the Company’s “Convertible Notes” were not met (refer to 3M’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 26, 2011, Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, for more detail). If the conditions for conversion were met, 3M could have chosen to pay in cash and/or common stock; however, if this occurred, the Company had the intent and ability to settle this debt security in cash. Accordingly, there was no impact on diluted earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders. As discussed in Note 7 in this document, in September 2011, 3M redeemed all remaining Convertible Notes, which were otherwise due in 2032. The computations for basic and diluted earnings per share follow:

Earnings Per Share Computations

	Three months ended September 30,				Nine months ended  September 30,
(Amounts in millions, except per share amounts)	2011		2010		2011		2010
Numerator:
Net income attributable to 3M	$	1,088	$	1,106	$	3,329	$	3,157
Denominator:
Denominator for weighted average 3M common shares outstanding – basic	707.7		714.0		710.9		713.4
Dilution associated with the Company’s stock-based compensation plans	7.8		11.2		11.9		11.4
Denominator for weighted average 3M common shares outstanding – diluted	715.5		725.2		722.8		724.8
Earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders – basic	$	1.54	$	1.55	$	4.68	$	4.42
Earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders – diluted	$	1.52	$	1.53	$	4.61	$	4.36

New Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-13, Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements—a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force, that provides amendments to the criteria for separating consideration in multiple-deliverable arrangements. As a result of these amendments, multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements are separated in more circumstances than under pre-existing U.S. GAAP. The ASU does this by establishing a selling price hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable. The selling price used for each deliverable is based on vendor-specific objective evidence if available, third-party evidence if vendor-specific objective evidence is not available, or estimated selling price if neither vendor-specific objective evidence nor third-party evidence is available. A vendor is required to determine its best estimate of selling price in a manner that is consistent with that used to determine the price to sell the deliverable on a standalone basis. This ASU also eliminates the residual method of allocation and requires that arrangement consideration be allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables using the relative selling price method, which allocates any discount in the overall arrangement proportionally to each deliverable based on its relative selling price. Expanded disclosures of qualitative and quantitative information regarding application of the multiple-deliverable revenue arrangement guidance are also required under the ASU. The ASU does not apply to arrangements for which industry specific allocation and measurement guidance exists, such as long-term construction contracts and software transactions. For 3M, ASU No. 2009-13 was effective beginning January 1, 2011. 3M elected to adopt the provisions of this standard prospectively to new or materially modified arrangements beginning on the effective date. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-14, Certain Revenue Arrangements That Include Software Elements—a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force, that reduces the types of transactions that fall within the scope of software revenue recognition guidance. Pre-existing software revenue recognition guidance required that its provisions be applied to an entire arrangement when the sale of any products or services containing or utilizing software when the software was considered more than incidental to the product or service. As a result of the amendments included in ASU No. 2009-14, many tangible products and services that rely on software are accounted for under the multiple-element arrangements revenue recognition guidance rather than under the software revenue recognition guidance. Under the ASU, the following components are excluded from the scope of software revenue recognition guidance: the tangible element of the product, software products bundled with tangible products where the software components and non-software components function together to deliver the product’s essential functionality, and undelivered components that relate to software that is essential to the tangible product’s functionality. The ASU also provides guidance on how to allocate transaction consideration when an arrangement contains both deliverables within the scope of software revenue guidance (software deliverables) and deliverables not within the scope of that guidance (non-software deliverables). For 3M, ASU No. 2009-14 was effective beginning January 1, 2011. 3M elected to adopt the provisions of this standard prospectively to new or materially modified arrangements beginning on the effective date. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, Improving Disclosures About Fair Value Measurements, that amends pre-existing disclosure requirements under ASC 820 by adding required disclosures about items transferring into and out of levels 1 and 2 in the fair value hierarchy; adding separate disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements relative to level 3 measurements; and clarifying, among other things, the pre-existing fair value disclosures about the level of disaggregation. For 3M, this ASU was effective for the first quarter of 2010, except for the requirement to provide level 3 activity of purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a gross basis, which was effective beginning the first quarter of 2011. Since this standard impacts disclosure requirements only, its adoption did not have a material impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

In April 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-17, Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition—a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force that recognizes the milestone method as an acceptable revenue recognition method for substantive milestones in research or development arrangements. This standard requires its provisions be met in order for an entity to recognize consideration that is contingent upon achievement of a substantive milestone as revenue in its entirety in the period in which the milestone is achieved. In addition, this ASU requires disclosure of certain information with respect to arrangements that contain milestones. For 3M, this standard was effective prospectively beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement: Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs. This standard clarifies guidance on how to measure fair value and is largely consistent with existing fair value measurement principles. The ASU also expands existing disclosure requirements for fair value measurements and makes other amendments. For 3M, this ASU is effective prospectively beginning January 1, 2012. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income. This standard requires entities to present items of net income and other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement, or in separate, but consecutive, statements of net income and other comprehensive income. The new requirements do not change which components of comprehensive income are recognized in net income or other comprehensive income, or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income. Also, the earnings-per share computation does not change. However, the current option under existing standards to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of changes in equity is eliminated. In addition, the previous option to disclose reclassification adjustments in the notes to the financial statements is also eliminated, as reclassification adjustments will be required to be shown on the face of the statement under the new standard. For 3M, this ASU is effective retrospectively beginning January 1, 2012, with early adoption permitted. Since this standard impacts disclosure requirements only, its adoption will not have a material impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, Testing Goodwill for Impairment. Under this new standard, entities testing goodwill for impairment now have an option of performing a qualitative assessment before having to calculate the fair value of a reporting unit. If an entity determines, on the basis of qualitative factors, that the fair value of the reporting unit is more-likely-than-not less than the carrying amount, the existing quantitative impairment test is required. Otherwise, no further impairment testing is required. For 3M, this ASU is effective beginning January 1, 2012, with early adoption permitted under certain conditions. The adoption of this standard will not have a material impact on 3M’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.