DOCSLIB.ORG

Prior Proposals to Consolidate Federal Financial Regulators ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prior Proposals to Consolidate Federal Financial Regulators ______ Prior Proposals to Consolidate Federal Financial Regulators ______________________________________ ELIZABETH F. BROWN This paper was prepared for the Volcker Alliance as background for its project on structural reform of the federal financial regulatory system. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Volcker Alliance. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author. ______________________________________ Ms. Elizabeth F. Brown, J.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Risk Management and Insurance, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University. Contact Author: Elizabeth F. Brown, Department of Risk Management and Insurance, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4036, Atlanta, GA 30302-4036; tel: 404-413-7501; cell: 404-247-8713; email: [email protected]. Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 8 I. Proposals Between 1915 and 1921 ............................................................................................ 14 A. The Proposals ....................................................................................................................... 14 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 16 2. Proposed Implementation ............................................................................................... 17 B. Arguments for and Against the Proposals ............................................................................ 18 C. What Happened to the Proposals? ........................................................................................ 18 II. Brownlow Committee Report, 1937 ........................................................................................ 19 A. The Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 19 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 20 2. Proposed Implementation ............................................................................................... 24 B. Arguments for and Against the Proposal .............................................................................. 25 C. What Happened to the Proposal? .......................................................................................... 26 III. Brookings Study, 1937 ............................................................................................................ 28 A. The Proposed Consolidation ................................................................................................ 28 1. Structural Reorganization .................................................................................................. 28 2. Proposed Implementation .................................................................................................. 29 B. Arguments for and Against the Proposal .............................................................................. 30 C. What Happened to the Proposal? .......................................................................................... 32 IV. Hoover Commission Proposals 1949 ...................................................................................... 32 A. The Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 32 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 33 2. Proposed Implementation ............................................................................................... 36 B. Arguments for and Against the Proposal .............................................................................. 37 C. What Happened to the Proposal? .......................................................................................... 39 V. Commission on Money and Credit, 1961 ................................................................................ 40 A. The Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 40 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 40 2. Proposed Implementation ............................................................................................... 41 B. Arguments for and Against the Proposal .............................................................................. 41 2 C. What Happened to the Proposal? .......................................................................................... 43 VI. Office of the Comptroller of Currency’s Advisory Committee on Banking, 1962 ................ 44 A. The Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 44 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 45 2. Proposed Implementation ............................................................................................... 46 B. Arguments For and Against the Proposal ............................................................................. 46 C. What Happened to the Proposal? .......................................................................................... 47 VII. The Patman Bill and the Multer Bill, 1965 ........................................................................... 48 A. The Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 48 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 48 2. Proposed Implementation ............................................................................................... 50 B. Arguments For and Against the Proposal ............................................................................. 52 C. What Happened to the Proposal? .......................................................................................... 54 VIII. Hunt Commission, 1971 ...................................................................................................... 55 A. The Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 55 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 55 2. Proposed Implementation: .............................................................................................. 56 B. Arguments For and Against the Proposal ............................................................................. 56 C. What Happened to the Proposal? .......................................................................................... 58 IX. Compendium of Major Issues in Banking Regulation, 1975 ................................................. 58 A. The Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 58 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 58 2. Proposed Implementation ............................................................................................... 61 B. Arguments For and Against the Proposal ............................................................................. 62 C. What Happened to the Proposals? ........................................................................................ 62 X. Wille Proposal, 1975 ................................................................................................................ 63 A. The Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 63 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 63 2. Proposed Implementation ............................................................................................... 65 B. Arguments For and Against the Proposal ............................................................................. 65 C. What Happened to the Proposal? .......................................................................................... 67 XI. Financial Institutions and the Nation’s Economy (FINE) Study, 1975 .................................. 67 3 A. The Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 68 1. Structural Reorganization ............................................................................................... 68 2. Proposed Implementation ............................................................................................... 69 B. Arguments For and Against the Proposal ............................................................................. 69 C. What Happened to the Proposal? .......................................................................................... 70 XII. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Proposal, 1977 ...................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Of Community Banking: the Continued Importance of Local Institutions Bob Solomon UC Irvine School of Law
    UC Irvine Law Review Volume 2 Issue 3 Business Law as Public Interest Law / Article 8 Searching for Equality: A Conference on Law, Race, and Socio-Economic Class 12-2012 The alF l (and Rise?) of Community Banking: The Continued Importance of Local Institutions Bob Solomon UC Irvine School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons Recommended Citation Bob Solomon, The Fall (and Rise?) of Community Banking: The Continued Importance of Local Institutions, 2 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 945 (2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol2/iss3/8 This Article and Essay is brought to you for free and open access by UCI Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in UC Irvine Law Review by an authorized editor of UCI Law Scholarly Commons. UCILR V2I3 Assembled v8 (Do Not Delete) 12/14/2012 5:35 PM The Fall (and Rise?) of Community Banking: The Continued Importance of Local Institutions Bob Solomon* Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 945 I. The Reality of Bank Concentration .......................................................................... 946 II. Four Principles ........................................................................................................... 950 III. ShoreBank—The Model for Community Development Banking ................... 955 IV. The Difficulties of Starting a De Novo Bank— The New Haven Experience ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Les Sénateurs Des États-Unis Et La Mise En Oeuvre De La Résolution Vandenberg (1948- 1949)
    "The United States would extend the support which the situation requires": les sénateurs des États-Unis et la mise en oeuvre de la Résolution Vandenberg (1948- 1949) Mémoire Myriam Cyr Maîtrise en histoire - avec mémoire Maître ès arts (M.A.) Québec, Canada © Myriam Cyr, 2020 RÉSUMÉ Ce mémoire se propose d’étudier le processus d’adoption et d’application de la Résolution 239 du Sénat des États-Unis, de 1948 à 1949, une mesure législative pivot dans l’histoire politique américaine. D’une part, nous analysons les raisons pour lesquelles les sénateurs adoptent massivement la résolution proposée par Arthur H. Vandenberg le 11 juin 1948. Il s’agit d’une période névralgique marquée par le début de la guerre froide et la volonté des Américains de se retrouver en position de force à l’échelle internationale vis-à-vis des Soviétiques. C’est aussi la première fois que les États-Unis acceptent de s’allier à des puissances étrangères – européennes de surcroît – dans le but d’assurer une sécurité collective en temps de paix. D’autre part, nous nous penchons sur les échos de la Résolution Vandenberg en examinant les différentes étapes législatives menant à la signature et à la ratification du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord, culminant le 21 juillet 1949. Grâce à l’étude des Hearings et du Congressional Record, journal officiel des débats du Congrès des États-Unis, ce mémoire cherche à identifier quels sont les fondements de la Résolution Vandenberg, les motivations des sénateurs – y compris des dissidents et des abstentionnistes, à analyser le contenu de leur discours et à percevoir l’influence des évènements sur l’évolution de celui-ci.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Business Banking Issues
    Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks Small Business Banking Issues A National Forum Sponsored by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Renaissance Washington Hotel Washington, D.C. February 5, 1998 Acknowledgments The Office of the Comptroller would like to express its appreciation to the speakers at the Small Business Banking Issues Forum, whose presentations are summarized here. Appreciation is also extended to the forum attendees, listed in Appendix A of this publication, for their questions, comments, and experiences shared about small business banking. The project was developed to enable bankers and small busi- ness owners to learn about successful programs, techniques, and strategies relevant to small business banking that could be replicated in their own communities. OCC staff contributing to the planning and conduct of the forum included: Janice A. Booker, director, Community Devel- opment Division (CDD); Yvonne McIntire, senior attorney, Community and Consumer Law; Denise Kirk-Murray, commu- nity reinvestment and development specialist, Community and Consumer Policy Division; Alfred T. Mitchell, community development specialist, CDD; Glenda Cross, director, Minority and Urban Affairs; John Turner, national bank examiner, Credit Risk; and Jacquelyn C. Allen, community development specialist, CDD. Lillian M. Long, program coordinator, CD Investments Program, CDD, served as project leader. Adminis- trative assistance was provided by Tawanda Hudge and Lisa Hemphill, CDD. The Communications Division, particularly Amy A. Millen, senior editor, and Rick Progar, publications liaison officer, helped to bring this publication to fruition. The OCC welcomes your comments or questions about this publication. Please write to the Community Development Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219, or call (202) 874-4940.
    [Show full text]
  • Yale Law School 2006–2007
    ale university August 10, 2006 2007 – Number 8 2006 bulletin of y Series 1o2 Yale Law School Yale bulletin of yale university August 10, 2006 Yale Law School Periodicals postage paid New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8227 ct New Haven bulletin of yale university bulletin of yale Bulletin of Yale University The University is committed to basing judgments concerning the admission, education, and employment of individuals upon their qualifications and abilities and affirmatively Postmaster: Send address changes to Bulletin of Yale University, seeks to attract to its faculty, staff, and student body qualified persons of diverse back- PO Box 208227, New Haven ct 06520-8227 grounds. In accordance with this policy and as delineated by federal and Connecticut law, Yale does not discriminate in admissions, educational programs, or employment against PO Box 208230, New Haven ct 06520-8230 any individual on account of that individual’s sex, race, color, religion, age, disability, Periodicals postage paid at New Haven, Connecticut status as a special disabled veteran, veteran of the Vietnam era, or other covered veteran, or national or ethnic origin; nor does Yale discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Issued seventeen times a year: one time a year in May, November, and December; two University policy is committed to affirmative action under law in employment of times a year in June; three times a year in July and September; six times a year in August women, minority group members, individuals with disabilities, special disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam era, and other covered veterans. Managing Editor: Linda Koch Lorimer Inquiries concerning these policies may be referred to Valerie O.
    [Show full text]
  • Strengthening and Streamlining Prudential Bank Supervision Hearing
    S. HRG. 111–407 STRENGTHENING AND STREAMLINING PRUDENTIAL BANK SUPERVISION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON STRENGTHENING AND STREAMLINING PRUDENTIAL BANK SUPER- VISION TO BETTER PROVIDE THE SAFETY, SOUNDNESS, AND STA- BILITY OF THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AUGUST 4 AND SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs ( Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56–376 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama JACK REED, Rhode Island ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JIM BUNNING, Kentucky EVAN BAYH, Indiana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey MEL MARTINEZ, Florida DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii BOB CORKER, Tennessee SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JIM DEMINT, South Carolina JON TESTER, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana HERB KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska MARK R. WARNER, Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado EDWARD SILVERMAN, Staff Director WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director AMY S. FRIEND, Chief Counsel DEAN V. SHAHINIAN, Senior Counsel CHARLES YI, Senior Policy Adviser BRIAN FILIPOWICH, Legislative Assistant DEBORAH KATZ, OCC Detailee MATTHEW GREEN, FDIC Detailee MARK JICKLING, CRS Detailee MARK OESTERLE, Republican Chief Counsel JIM JOHNSON, Republican Counsel ANDREW J.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment Letter to the OCC Concerning Figure Bank
    December 7, 2020 Via Electronic Mail Mr. Louis Gittleman Director for District Licensing Western District Office 1225 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Re: Figure Bank, N.A. Charter Application Dear Mr. Gittleman: The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA)1 appreciates this opportunity to provide comment to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) regarding the de novo bank charter application by Figure Bank, National Association (Applicant) dated November 6, 2020. ICBA strongly encourages the OCC to delay consideration of the application until after it has solicited and evaluated further public comments and addressed the policy concerns expressed in this letter. Background Applicant is proposing a fully digital, branchless, de novo national bank that would be headquartered in Reno, Nevada and would be a wholly owned subsidiary of Figure Technologies, Inc. (FTI) with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Applicant intends to offer a wide range of consumer lending products including originating, selling, servicing and securitizing home equity loans (HELOCs), student loan refinance loans, and residential mortgage refinance loans. By leveraging a blockchain platform that was developed by FTI, Applicant intends to lower its technology costs and reduce the application-to- funding processing time for HELOC loans from an industry average of thirty days to five days as well as reduce HELOC costs by 100 basis points. Figure Group is one of the largest HELOC providers in the country with over $1 billion in loans originated, serviced and sold using a proprietary blockchain technology. 1 The Independent Community Bankers of America® creates and promotes an environment where community banks flourish.
    [Show full text]
  • Collateral Damage (Part 2): the Subprime Crisis and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001
    Collateral Damage (Part 2): The Subprime Crisis and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 By E.P. Heidner Abstract: The U.S. Subprime and global financial crises of 2008 was the direct result of a covert monetary policy implemented by the U.S. financial institutional caretakers of the World War II Black Eagle Gold Fund. Major growth in this fund occurred in 1986 when the Reagan/Bush administration ousted Ferdinand Marcos and confiscated the Philippines holdings of Japanese pre-WWII treasury, buried in the Philippines due to the U.S. Naval blockade of Japanese ports. Not being able to publicly acknowledge the illegal confiscation of multiple national treasuries, U.S. officials and their banker-agents have released major portions of this fund to the money market in excess of monetary demand, expanding the money supply by $3.5 to $7 trillion. The individuals responsible for releasing this gold were also responsible for deliberately opening the subprime mortgage market to national banks, thus creating inflationary demand in the high risk, subprime housing market. In addition to the ‘coincidence’ that virtually all of the troubled mortgages which are at the source of the 2008 economic crisis seem to come from a timeframe and monetary growth spurt linked to the ‘9/11 bond dump’ this report will document that the primary source of funds for the liar’s loans and troubled subprime loans comes from banks that are in lock-step with the covert funding operations. Given that these same individuals covertly financed the collapse of the ruble in 1991 using these same funds, and then orchestrated the buy-out of key Russian industries for pennies on the dollar, this analysis provides evidence that a similar gambit is being made for the takeover of key U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Law Review Volume 45 2012 Number 2
    Indiana Law Review Volume 45 2012 Number 2 ARTICLES CRISIS MANAGEMENT: PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD GUIDE THE DISPOSITION OF FEDERALLY OWNED, FORECLOSED PROPERTIES* RAYMOND H. BRESCIA** ELIZABETH A. KELLY*** JOHN TRAVIS MARSHALL**** INTRODUCTION Residential home values in the United States have fallen considerably from their highs in the mid-2000s. This has had profound effects on consumer wealth and spending, creating a significant drag on the U.S. economy. What is worse, this loss in values corresponded with a steep rise in unemployment, which started in late 2007,1 and has yet to fall considerably. The loss in home values has wreaked havoc on household finances and bank ledgers, as the outstanding principles of the mortgages those banks hold and service all too often exceed the current value of the homes against which they are secured. This has proven a toxic mix, as foreclosure rates in residential homes in the United States have reached highs not seen since the Great Depression.2 Foreclosures have * This Article is adapted, in part, from a policy paper drafted by the authors on behalf of the Eugene and Carol Ludwig Center for Community and Economic Development at Yale Law School in response to a Request for Information promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies. While the text and import of these documents are very similar, reference is made to that prior work here without further attribution. ** Visiting Clinical Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School; J.D., 1992, Yale Law School; B.A., 1989, Fordham University. I am grateful for the research assistance of Tabitha Edgens.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Financial Security Summit Briefing Book
    Rebuilding HouseHold balance sHeets JULY 7-10, 2013 Aspen, Colorado The ASPEN INStitUTE FINANCIAL SECURITY SUMMIT is an invitation-only gathering of top business leaders, experts, advocates, and media. The goal is to advance the dialogue on the public and private solutions that create more savings and wealth in American households, strengthen middle-class opportunity, and improve the economic future of the country. Building off of the success of last year’s Summit, the 2013 FINANCIAL SECURITY SUMMIT seeks to bring renowned leaders together to reveal compelling consensus around policies that have the power to enhance economic mobility and financial security while directing Americans away from a culture of unaffordable consumption. At a time when the American economy is at a crossroads, the Financial Security Summit aims to underline that achieving a much greater measure of financial security for both households and the country is a goal that financial industry leaders and consumer advocates believe in and can advance. The ASPEN INStitUTE INitiatiVE ON FINANCIAL SECURITY (Aspen IFS) is a leading policy program dedicated to helping bring about the policies and financial products that enable all Americans to save, invest, and own. THE ASPEN INStitUTE is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, DC. Its mission is to foster leadership based on enduring values and to provide a nonpartisan venue for dealing with critical issues. The Institute has campuses in Aspen, Colorado, and on the Wye River on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. It also maintains offices in New York City and has an international network of partners. July 7, 2013 Dear Financial Security Summit Participant, Welcome to Aspen! It is a pleasure to have you join us at our second Aspen Institute FINANCIAL SECURITY SUMMIT .
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper
    CRA’s 25th Anniversary: The Past, Present, and Future Kenneth H. Thomas, Ph.D. Lecturer in Finance The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the past, present, and future rules and regulations implementing CRA as developed, applied, and enforced by the federal bank and thrift regulators. The past rules and regulations refer to those in effect during the law’s first 18 years, through 1995, when CRA underwent its first major reform. The present CRA rules and regulations were adopted then, with the mandate that they would be reviewed for possible reform in 2002. The future rules and regulations are being drafted now by the regulators, based on their review of approximately 400 public comments; the reform recommendations should be released sometime during the second half of 2002. The future of CRA’s legacy as arguably the perfect fair market regulation in a world of Compassionate Capitalism will depend upon the direction of these reforms. Optimal public policy by the bank and thrift regulators in this regard must represent the ideal balance between competing consumer and industry interests. This paper represents the first comprehensive analysis of the public comments and concludes with specific recommendations that will lead to optimal public policy. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1977 The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) is 25 years worth of living proof that capitalism can have a corporate conscience without degrading itself into socialism or gambling on the other extreme of completely unregulated markets. CRA can be argued to be the nearly perfect example of striking the correct balance between government and market regulation in a capitalist economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Biggest Beefs
    WEDNESDAY JUNE 3, 2020 VOL. 185 No. 106 AMERICANBANKER.COM Follow us on Twitter @AmerBanker Pa. bank needed coronavirus 5 shields. Good thing its CEO had a connection. Biggest beefs With the pandemic putting plexiglass in Credit reporting has drawn the most complaints by far to the short supply, Joe McDonald called up a local CFPB portal this year, though mortgage lending has been the source: a former classmate. Page 9 main source of pandemic-related grievances Michigan bank hires COVID 2020 | See story on page 4 6 turnaround expert to tackle long to-do list Thomas O’Brien will take the helm at 55% Sterling Bancorp, which is dealing with 50% internal control issues and probes by 45% the OCC and Justice Department into its 40% mortgage operations. Page 10 35% 30% Justice Dept. asks United 25% 7 Community for PPP documents 20% The Georgia company said the agency is looking at its policies for paying, or 15% withholding, Paycheck Protection Program 10% fees to borrowers’ agents. Page 10 5% 0% ‘Indefinite shutdowns’ Checking/savings Mortgage Credit card Debt collection Credit reporting 8 harming U.S. economy, Source: CFPB (through April 30) new OCC chief says Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks took the extraordinary step of wading into the debate over when it was appropriate Coronavirus still a threat to reopen businesses. Page 11 dailybriefing 3 to credit scores despite congressional relief Banks have a mountain Swept up in civic unrest, banks The rescue bill enabled banks to protect 9 of deposits, so they 1 confront deep societal issues loans in forbearance from an immediate hit don’t need PPP funding Bankers spent Monday cleaning up damaged to a borrower’s credit report, but experts say The Federal Reserve set up a liquidity facility branches, wondering if their small-business affected consumers may have trouble getting to help banks meet demand for emergency clients will need more emergency aid and loans after the pandemic ends.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Dave Hanzel, Deputy Director
    TESTIMONY OF DAVE HANZEL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BEFORE BANK REGULATORY AGENCIES REGARDING HOW TO ASSESS A FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS’S PERFORMANCE UNDER THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT (CRA) July 19, 2010 Good Morning. My name is Dave Hanzel and I am the Deputy Director of the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development in New York City. Thank you for this opportunity to testify about the need to develop a new approach to assessing bank performance. ANHD is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 100 neighborhood-based housing groups across the five boroughs of New York City. Our members represent the full range of not- for-profit housing organizations - CDCs, affordable homeownership groups, supportive housing providers and community organizers. ANHD works with our members to advocate for comprehensive, progressive housing polices and programs to support affordable, flourishing neighborhoods for all New Yorkers, especially our lower income residents. Background: The Importance of the CRA in New York City Spurred by the CRA, banks have played a critical role in helping build wealth for households and revitalizing many neighborhoods across New York City through their support of community development efforts and providing access to capital. For example, over 294,000 units of low- and moderate-income housing have been developed and renovated in New York City with a mix of public subsidy and private financing over the past twenty years. Additionally, billions of dollars in CRA-motivated loans, investment, and grants have been central to transforming entire blocks and neighborhoods across the five boroughs, catalyzing the growth of small businesses, and assisting residents build assets.
    [Show full text]