The following table summarizes our rental expense and programming license expense charged to operations:
## Table 0 ##
Contingencies We and the minority owner group in Comcast Spectacor each have the right to initiate an exit process under which the fair market value of Comcast Spectacor would be determined by appraisal.
Following such determination, we would have the option to acquire the 24.3% interest in Comcast Spectacor owned by the minority owner group based on the appraised fair market value.
In the event we do not exercise this option, we and the minority owner group would then be required to use our best efforts to sell Comcast Spectacor.
This exit process includes the minority owner group’s interest in Comcast SportsNet (Philadelphia).
The minority owners in certain of our technology development ventures also have rights to trigger an exit process after a certain period of time based on the fair value of the entities at the time the exit process is triggered.
Antitrust Cases We are defendants in two purported class actions originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The potential class in the Massachusetts case is our subscriber base in the “Boston Cluster” area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is our subscriber base in the “Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters,” as those terms are defined in the complaints.
In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes, including treble damages.
Our motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania case on the pleadings was denied in December 2006 and classes of Philadelphia Cluster and Chicago Cluster subscribers were certified in May 2007 and October 2007, respectively.
Our motion to dismiss the Massachusetts case, which was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in December 2006, was denied in July 2007.
We are proceeding with discovery on plaintiffs’ claims concerning the Philadelphia Cluster.
Plaintiffs’ claims concerning the other two clusters are stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims.
In addition, we are among the defendants in a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“Central District”) in September 2007.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who distribute video programming via cable and satellite (including us, among others), which preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers on an “unbundled” basis in violation of federal antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages for the loss of their ability to pick and choose the specific “bundled” channels to which they wish to subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an “unbundled” basis.
The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the United States who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video service provided by one of the distributor defendants.
We and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss an amended complaint in April 2008.
In June 2008, the Central District denied the motions to dismiss.
In July 2008, we and the other defendants filed motions to certify certain issues decided in the Central District’s June 2008 order for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On August 8, 2008, the Central District denied the certification motions.
In January 2009, the Central District approved a stipulation between the parties dismissing the action as to one of the two plaintiffs identified in the amended complaint as a Comcast subscriber.
Discovery relevant to plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification is currently proceeding, with plaintiffs scheduled to file their class certification motion in April 2009.
Securities and Related Litigation We and several of our current and former officers were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Eastern District”) in January 2008.
We filed a motion to dismiss the case in February 2008.
The plaintiff did not respond, but instead sought leave to amend the complaint, which the court granted.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in May 2008 naming only us and two current officers as defendants.
The alleged class was comprised of purchasers of our publicly issued securities between February 1, 2007 and December 4, 2007.
The plaintiff asserted that during the alleged class period, the defendants violated federal securities laws through alleged material misstatements and omissions relating to forecast results for 2007.
The plaintiff sought unspecified damages.
In June 2008, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
In an order dated August 25, 2008, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff permission to amend the complaint again.
The plaintiff has not timely appealed the Court’s decision, so the dismissal of this case is final.
We and several of our current officers have been named as defendants in a separate purported class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District in February 2008.
The alleged class comprises participants in our retirement-investment (401(k)) plan that invested in the plan’s company stock account.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in managing the plan.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in June 2008, and in July 2008 we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On October 29, 2008,
pay dividends, repurchase treasury shares and acquire businesses.
Our operations are highly seasonal and therefore generally require the use of cash to fund operating losses during the period May through mid-January.
Given the likely availability of a number of liquidity options discussed herein, including borrowing capacity under our CLOC, we believe that in the absence of any unexpected developments our existing sources of capital at April 30, 2012 are sufficient to meet our operating needs.
These comments should be read in conjunction with the consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of cash flows included in Item 8.
## Table 1 ##
CASH FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES – Cash provided by operations, which consists primarily of cash received from customers, decreased $150.5 million from fiscal year 2011.
The decline from the prior year was primarily due to lower net income of our continuing operations and losses in our discontinued operations.
Restricted Cash.
We hold certain cash balances that are restricted as to use.
Cash and cash equivalents – restricted totaled $48.1 million at April 30, 2012, and primarily consisted of cash held by our captive insurance subsidiary that will be used to pay claims and cash held by HRB Bank required for regulatory compliance.
CASH FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES – Changes in cash provided by investing activities primarily relate to the following: Available-for-Sale Securities.
During fiscal year 2012, HRB Bank purchased $256.2 million in mortgagebacked securities for regulatory purposes, compared to $138.8 million in fiscal year 2011.
Additionally, we received payments on AFS securities of $66.4 million in fiscal year 2012 compared to $16.8 million and $15.8 million in fiscal years 2011 and 2010, respectively.
See additional discussion in Item 8, note 5 to the consolidated financial statements.
Mortgage Loans Held for Investment.
We received net proceeds of $49.1 million, $58.5 million and $72.8 million on our mortgage loans held for investment in fiscal years 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Purchases of Property and Equipment.
Total cash paid for property and equipment was $82.5 million, $63.0 million and $90.5 million for fiscal years 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Business Acquisitions.
Total cash paid for acquisitions was $15.3 million, $54.2 million and $10.5 million during fiscal years 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
In fiscal year 2011 our previously reported Business Services segment acquired Caturano, a Boston-based accounting firm, and cash used in investing activities includes payments totaling $32.6 million related to this acquisition.
Sales of Businesses.
We received proceeds from the sales of businesses of $560.5 million, $71.1 million and $66.6 million for fiscal years 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Current year amounts include net proceeds of $523.1 million from the sale of RSM and proceeds of $37.4 million from the sale of ancillary businesses and offices.
During fiscal year 2012, we sold 83 tax offices to franchisees, compared to 280 tax offices in fiscal year 2011, and 267 in fiscal year 2010.
The majority of these sales were financed through affiliate loans.
Loans Made to Franchisees.
Loans made to franchisees totaled $46.2 million, $92.5 million and $89.7 million for fiscal years 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
We received payments from franchisees totaling $56.6 million, $57.6 million and $40.7 million, respectively.
These amounts include both the financing of sales of tax offices and franchisee draws under our Franchise Equity Lines of Credit (FELCs).
CASH FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES – Changes in cash used in financing activities primarily relate to the following: Short-Term Borrowings.
While we use commercial paper borrowings to fund our off-season losses and cover our seasonal working capital needs, we had no commercial paper borrowings outstanding as of April 30, 2012 or 2011.
Our commercial paper borrowings peaked at $331.5 million in January of the current year.
Our borrowings in the current year were lower than previous years due to cash received from the sale of RSM.
FHLB Borrowings.
HRB Bank obtains borrowings from the FHLB in accordance with regulatory and capital requirements.
During fiscal years 2012, 2011 and 2010, we had net repayments of $25.0 million, $50.0 million and $25.0 million, respectively.
NOTE 16: INTEREST INCOME AND INTEREST EXPENSE The following table shows the components of interest income and expense of our continuing operations
## Table 2 ##
NOTE 17: VARIABLE INTERESTS SCC holds an interest in and is the sponsor (issuer) of 56 Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) Trusts and 14 Net Interest Margin (NIM) Trusts (collectively, “Trusts”) related to previously originated mortgage loans that were securitized.
These Trusts are variable interest entities.
The REMIC Trusts hold static pools of sub-prime residential mortgage loans.
The NIM Trusts hold beneficial interests in certain REMIC Trusts.
The Trusts were designed to collect and pass through to the beneficial interest holders the cash flows of the underlying mortgage loans.
The REMIC Trusts were financed with bonds and equity.
The NIM Trusts were financed with notes and equity.
All bonds and notes are held by third-party investors.
Our identification of the primary beneficiary of the Trusts was based on a determination that the servicer of the underlying mortgage loans has the power to direct the most significant activities of the Trusts because the servicer handles all of the loss mitigation activities for the mortgage loans.
We have determined that we are not the primary beneficiary and, therefore have not consolidated the variable interest entity (VIE).
SCC is not the servicer of the mortgage loans underlying the REMIC Trusts, and therefore, does not have the power to direct the most significant activities of the REMIC Trusts, which is the servicing of the underlying mortgage loans.
SCC does have the exclusive right to appoint a servicer when certain conditions have been met for specific loans related to two of the NIM Trusts.
As of April 30, 2012, those conditions have been met for a minority portion of the loans underlying those Trusts.
As this right pertains only to a minority of the loans, we have concluded that SCC does not have the power to direct the most significant activities of these two NIM Trusts, as the servicer has the power to direct significant activities over the majority of the mortgage loans.
In the remaining NIM Trusts, SCC has a shared right to appoint a servicer under certain conditions.
For these NIM Trusts, we have concluded that SCC is not the primary beneficiary because the power to direct the most significant activities, which is the servicing of the underlying mortgage loans, is shared with other unrelated parties.
At April 30, 2012, we had no significant assets or liabilities included in the consolidated balance sheets related to SCC’s variable interests in the Trusts.
We have a liability, as discussed in note 18, and a deferred tax asset recorded in the consolidated balance sheets related to claims for representations and warranties SCC made in connection with the transfer of mortgage loans, including mortgage loans held by the securitization trusts.
We have no remaining exposure to economic loss arising from impairment of SCC’s beneficial interest in the Trusts.
If SCC receives cash flows in the future as a holder of beneficial interests we would record gains as other income in our income statement.
## Table 3 ##
ITEM 9.
CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE There were no disagreements or reportable events requiring disclosure pursuant to Item 304(b) of Regulation S-K ITEM 9A.
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (a) EVALUATION OF DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES – We have established disclosure controls and procedures (Disclosure Controls) to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the Company’s reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the U. S.  Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.
Disclosure Controls are also designed to ensure that such information is accumulated and communicated to management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Our Disclosure Controls were designed to provide reasonable assurance that the controls and procedures would meet their objectives.
Our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does not expect that our Disclosure Controls will prevent all error and all fraud.
A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the designed control objectives and management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.
Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the Company have been detected.
These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake.
Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusions of two or more people or by management override of the control.
Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective, maturing control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

<table><tr><td>Year ended December 31 (in millions)</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td><td>2006</td></tr><tr><td>Rental expense</td><td>$436</td><td>$358</td><td>$273</td></tr><tr><td>Programming license expense</td><td>$548</td><td>$484</td><td>$350</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year ended April 30,</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>(in 000s) 2010</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by (used in):</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Operating activities</td><td>$362,049</td><td>$512,503</td><td>$587,469</td></tr><tr><td>Investing activities</td><td>351,867</td><td>-110,157</td><td>31,353</td></tr><tr><td>Financing activities</td><td>-445,062</td><td>-534,391</td><td>-481,118</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of exchange rates on cash</td><td>-2,364</td><td>5,844</td><td>11,678</td></tr><tr><td>Net change in cash and cash equivalents</td><td>$266,490</td><td>$-126,201</td><td>$149,382</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year ended April 30,</td><td> 2012</td><td>2011</td><td>(in 000s) 2010</td></tr><tr><td>Interest income:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage loans, net</td><td>$20,322</td><td>$24,693</td><td>$31,877</td></tr><tr><td>Emerald Advance lines of credit</td><td>59,660</td><td>94,300</td><td>77,891</td></tr><tr><td>Investment securities</td><td>4,463</td><td>1,609</td><td>2,318</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>15,355</td><td>13,058</td><td>6,274</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$99,800</td><td>$133,660</td><td>$118,360</td></tr><tr><td>Interest expense:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Borrowings</td><td>$84,782</td><td>$84,169</td><td>$77,659</td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>6,735</td><td>8,488</td><td>10,174</td></tr><tr><td>FHLB advances</td><td>572</td><td>1,526</td><td>1,997</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$92,089</td><td>$94,183</td><td>$89,830</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year ended April 30, 2010</td><td>H&R Block, Inc. (Guarantor)</td><td>Block Financial (Issuer)</td><td>Other Subsidiaries</td><td>Eliminations</td><td>Consolidated H&R Block</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by operating activities:</td><td>$21,252</td><td>$16,698</td><td>$549,519</td><td>$–</td><td>$587,469</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flows from investing:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Purchases of AFS securities</td><td>–</td><td>-365</td><td>-5,000</td><td>–</td><td>-5,365</td></tr><tr><td>Sales and maturities of AFS securities</td><td>–</td><td>14,639</td><td>1,119</td><td>–</td><td>15,758</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage loans held for investment, net</td><td>–</td><td>72,832</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>72,832</td></tr><tr><td>Purchases of property & equipment</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>-90,515</td><td>–</td><td>-90,515</td></tr><tr><td>Payments for business acquisitions</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>-10,539</td><td>–</td><td>-10,539</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from sales of businesses, net</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>66,623</td><td>–</td><td>66,623</td></tr><tr><td>Loans made to franchisees</td><td>–</td><td>-89,664</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>-89,664</td></tr><tr><td>Repayments from franchisees</td><td>–</td><td>40,710</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>40,710</td></tr><tr><td>Net intercompany advances</td><td>415,591</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>-415,591</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Other, net</td><td>–</td><td>73,493</td><td>-41,980</td><td>–</td><td>31,513</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities</td><td>415,591</td><td>111,645</td><td>-80,292</td><td>-415,591</td><td>31,353</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flows from financing:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Repayments of commercial paper</td><td>–</td><td>-1,406,013</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>-1,406,013</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from commercial paper</td><td>–</td><td>1,406,013</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1,406,013</td></tr><tr><td>Repayments of other borrowings</td><td>–</td><td>-4,267,727</td><td>-46</td><td>–</td><td>-4,267,773</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from other borrowings</td><td>–</td><td>4,242,727</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>4,242,727</td></tr><tr><td>Customer banking deposits, net</td><td>–</td><td>11,428</td><td>–</td><td>6,111</td><td>17,539</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends paid</td><td>-200,899</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>-200,899</td></tr><tr><td>Repurchase of common stock</td><td>-254,250</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>-254,250</td></tr><tr><td>Proceeds from stock options</td><td>16,682</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>16,682</td></tr><tr><td>Net intercompany advances</td><td>–</td><td>354,617</td><td>-770,208</td><td>415,591</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Other, net</td><td>1,624</td><td>-8,717</td><td>-28,051</td><td>–</td><td>-35,144</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities</td><td>-436,843</td><td>332,328</td><td>-798,305</td><td>421,702</td><td>-481,118</td></tr><tr><td>Effects of exchange rates on cash</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>11,678</td><td>–</td><td>11,678</td></tr><tr><td>Net increase (decrease) in cash</td><td>–</td><td>460,671</td><td>-317,400</td><td>6,111</td><td>149,382</td></tr><tr><td>Cash – beginning of the year</td><td>–</td><td>241,350</td><td>1,419,535</td><td>-6,222</td><td>1,654,663</td></tr><tr><td>Cash – end of the year</td><td>$–</td><td>$702,021</td><td>$1,102,135</td><td>$-111</td><td>$1,804,045</td></tr></table>

Question: Does the value of Net cash provided by operating activities: in Block Financial (Issuer)greater than that in H&R Block, Inc. (Guarantor
Answer: no