Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

No bailout money has gone into the banks

Options
  • 12-06-2012 2:57am
    #1
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭


    OK, I admit I was surprised by this. In looking for answers to posts in the Alan Ahearne thread, I came across this handy little table of bank recapitalisation costs:

    €bn |AIB/EBS |BoI |IL&P |IBRC (Anglo/INBS) |Total
    Government preference Shares (2009) — NPRF |3.5 |3.5* |— |— |7.0
    Capital contributions (with Promissory Notes as consideration) /Special Investment Shares (2010) — Exchequer ** |0.9 |— |— |30.7 |31.6
    Ordinary Share Capital (2009) — Exchequer |— |— |— |4.0 |4.0
    Ordinary Share Capital (2010) — NPRF |3.7 |— |— |— |3.7
    Total pre-PCAR 2011 (A) |8.1 |3.5 |0 |34.7 |46.3
    |||||
    PCAR 2011: |||||
    Capital from Exchequer*** |3.9 |— |2.7 |— |6.5
    NPRF Capital |8.8 |1.2 |— |— |10.0
    Total PCAR (B) |12.7 |1.2 |2.7 |— |16.5
    Total Cost of Recap for State (A) + (B) |20.7 |4.7 |2.7 |34.7 |62.8

    Source: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/03/29/00077.asp

    The post-bailout recap costs are in bold there - as you can see, there are two sources, Exchequer cash and the NPRF. Both are Irish, so apparently none of the money put into the banks comes from the bailout funds provided by the troika. That's confirmed by a recent (6th June) comment by Noonan:
    However, the cost of bank recapitalisation to date has been met from our existing resources – cash reserves and the NPRF.

    Source: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/06/00097.asp

    So while the public perception of the bailouts is that it's first and foremost for the banks, the truth is entirely the reverse - none of the bailout money has gone into the banks. Which leads, of course, to several questions - what exactly is Alan Ahearne playing at? Why is this not a better known fact? And why has ever effort apparently been made to ensure that only Irish money goes into the banks?

    cordially,
    but also somewhat surprised and puzzled,
    Scofflaw


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,470 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Er, it's come from the exchequer, which has borrowed money to spend in other areas because it's spent money from those areas on the banks.

    So while technically they can argue bank money came from the state and not the bailout its just an cheap accounting trick to hide the direct link...


  • Options
    #3
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Isnt that the worst way they could have done it? in terms of leaving the option for separating the debt in the future


  • Options
    #4
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Er, it's come from the exchequer, which has borrowed money to spend in other areas because it's spent money from those areas on the banks.

    So while technically they can argue bank money came from the state and not the bailout its just an cheap accounting trick to hide the direct link...

    Well, no, not really - while I appreciate money is fungible in itself, the sources of money aren't, and a point has been made of ensuring that only "Irish" money has gone into the banks.

    To put that another way, say your business needs €25k, and you need €50k for house repairs. You have €25k cash in hand, which you can put to either. If you put your €25k cash into the house, and use borrowed money for the other €25k house and the €25k business, the bank now has an interest in your business. If, on the other hand, you put your €25k cash into the business, and keep the borrowed money solely for the house, the bank has no interest in your business.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Isnt that the worst way they could have done it? in terms of leaving the option for separating the debt in the future

    You would think so, wouldn't you? Makes me wonder what the point is, exactly. And it makes Alan Ahearne's recent piece very surprising, because his specific argument is that the form of the bailout - that is, any bank money going via the state - is a bad form, when it's not actually happening at all.

    The most obvious explanation I can think of is that if bailout money goes into the banks, the troika may look more closely into the banks - if not, then not.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #5
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    This is BS though. It could have been true in 2007 when the exchequer ran a surplus but from 2008 onwards the exchequer ran a current account deficit and unless the money can clearly be shown coming from the NPRF it was BORROWED on the margins as the bank bailouts were unbudgeted current expenditure.


  • Options
    #6
    roro2
    Registered Users Posts: 412 ✭✭roro2


    €17.5bn of the €85bn EU/IMF aid package was self-funded, i.e. Ireland already had this cash in the NPRF, so external aid amounted to €67.5bn. Part of the EU/IMF conditions was that the €17.5bn would be "spent" rather than being retained in cash to make up the €85bn total.

    €35bn of the €85bn was earmarked for bank recapitalisation (not all of the €35bn has been needed, so far). I am not sure whether we were told to specifically use the existing NPRF cash rather than Troika money to recapitalise the banks, but it doesn't really matter - the EU/IMF don't recapitalise banks directly (potentially pre-Spain of course). Their funds were always going to be transferred to the government first - it is the government who they have entered into agreement with - and then puty into the banks as needed. The argument doing the rounds now, particularly with Spain, is that the government should be left out of the loop, with funds going directly to the banks and the aid conditions also attaching to the banks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,150 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Could it have been insisted upon by the Troika on the basis that should an extremist government get elected, they wouldn't be able to renege on the "bank debt" as it could be shown that all monies owed were borrowed for current expenditure?

    Obviously, I can't imagine the distinction between different forms of sovereign debt would be understood by such a looney left, never mind upheld but maybe it made sense in some bureaucrat's head?


  • Options
    #8
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Where the money came from to bail out the banks dose not matter the reality is that it cost 60 odd million and maybe more as we have share's in the banks that may not be worth what we think.

    At the end of the day it is 60 million that we should not have had to borrow the quote below explains part
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    To put that another way, say your business needs €25k, and you need €50k for house repairs. You have €25k cash in hand, which you can put to either. If you put your €25k cash into the house, and use borrowed money for the other €25k house and the €25k business, the bank now has an interest in your business. If, on the other hand, you put your €25k cash into the business, and keep the borrowed money solely for the house, the bank has no interest in your business.

    However you could also explain as you need to borrow 50K to repair your house and 25 million for you business the bank knows that your business is a limited company and it either makes you give a personel gurantee or it puts it onto you morgatage which your spouse has to sign up for as well.

    No matter what way we look at it at the end of the day Irish taxpayers are responsible at present for 60 odd million of bank debt and a lot more if you take NAMA into account.


  • Options
    #9
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So while the public perception of the bailouts is that it's first and foremost for the banks, the truth is entirely the reverse - none of the bailout money has gone into the banks. Which leads, of course, to several questions - what exactly is Alan Ahearne playing at? Why is this not a better known fact? And why has ever effort apparently been made to ensure that only Irish money goes into the banks?

    cordially,
    but also somewhat surprised and puzzled,
    Scofflaw

    Scofflaw the explanation is quite simple: people won't believe you if you try to tell them. I've been trying to tell people that we've only paid out about €15bn from the exchequer for about a year. I had to sit down one of my friends (the guy has a phd so he's not stupid) and walk him through the exchequer statements and trioka agreement before he grasped it.

    The banks are a convenient scapegoat, but even if the banks hadn't failed in September 2008 we'd still have a significant deficit. The total deficit since 1/1/2008 is approx €87.5 billion (based on exchequer statements up to the end of May). Taking out the €15bn paid to the banks, the non-banking portion of the deficit is €72.5bn.

    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Er, it's come from the exchequer, which has borrowed money to spend in other areas because it's spent money from those areas on the banks.

    So while technically they can argue bank money came from the state and not the bailout its just an cheap accounting trick to hide the direct link...

    It doesn't mean that it had to come from the bailout either. The bailout specifiies that €35bn is made available for the banks, over half of which is from the NPRF anyways. And if one can recall there was an infamous comment about 2 months before the bailout: "We're funded through June Next year" - that requires about €20bn of a cash pile. That makes about €37bn of a cash pile. Note that the promissory note is €31bn, we've enough cash to cover the rest of the bailout, with some to spare for the notes. The troika won't if we use the rest of the (bailout) cash to fund the exchequer - as long as we hit the agreed spending ratios.


  • Options
    #10
    roro2
    Registered Users Posts: 412 ✭✭roro2


    Where the money came from to bail out the banks dose not matter the reality is that it cost 60 odd million and maybe more as we have share's in the banks that may not be worth what we think.

    The amount of cash put into the banks doesn't take account of the shares ("investment") that the NPRF now has, so these figures won't be revised up if the shares do end up being worth zero, and could be revised down if the shares are eventually realised for cash, which I don't think is likely at least in the short-medium term. The cost could be higher if the banks do need more capital and the State is again the only source.


  • Options
    #11
    roro2
    Registered Users Posts: 412 ✭✭roro2


    The banks are a convenient scapegoat, but even if the banks hadn't failed in September 2008 we'd still have a significant deficit. The total deficit since 1/1/2008 is approx €87.5 billion (based on exchequer statements up to the end of May). Taking out the €15 the non-banking portion of the deficit is €72.5bn.

    As an aside, the banks have paid the government more than €500m in guarantee fees since the start of the year - that's well over €1 billion in a full year. How well is this understood?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    roro2 wrote: »
    As an aside, the banks have paid the government more than €500m in guarantee fees since the start of the year - that's well over €1 billion in a full year. How well is this understood?

    Not at all well. Same as the fact that between the fees from the two guarantees & BOIs capital raising (sale of shares) we've gotten well over €3bn back. Not much but it does soften the blow a little.


  • Options
    #13
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    This is BS though. It could have been true in 2007 when the exchequer ran a surplus but from 2008 onwards the exchequer ran a current account deficit and unless the money can clearly be shown coming from the NPRF it was BORROWED on the margins as the bank bailouts were unbudgeted current expenditure.

    Possibly Noonan is lying to the Dáil, but that's a pretty serious charge, and I can't see the point of him doing so.
    Sleepy wrote:
    Could it have been insisted upon by the Troika on the basis that should an extremist government get elected, they wouldn't be able to renege on the "bank debt" as it could be shown that all monies owed were borrowed for current expenditure?

    Obviously, I can't imagine the distinction between different forms of sovereign debt would be understood by such a looney left, never mind upheld but maybe it made sense in some bureaucrat's head?

    I don't think so, since the troika certainly provided a sufficient facility earmarked for the banks to make borrowing from the troika for the banks a possibility. And if you're reneging on IMF debt you're probably not concerned about niceties like what went where.

    I'm not expecting an exciting explanation here, but it's clear that a particular point has been made of using only "Irish" money for the banks, and I do wonder why, particularly given that it's not really publicised.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #14
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Much of the remainder of the bailout is in the form of Emergency Liquidity Assistance or ELA. (we call it Exceptional but the ECB calls it Emergency). These are around €50bn of IOUs that the banks were given by the Central Bank to 'balance' their books.

    It would mean that were the Euro to collapse we would need a new central bank as the old one is the most spectacularly bankrupt central bank in Europe.

    Explained Here > http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=196544997039194

    So our Central Bank created a sort of IOU they gave to the banksters. They were allowed to do so by the ECB.


  • Options
    #15
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm not expecting an exciting explanation here, but it's clear that a particular point has been made of using only "Irish" money for the banks, and I do wonder why, particularly given that it's not really publicised.

    The only reason I can think of is that money from the NPRF, and any money previously borrowed for other reasons (i.e. public spending for the first 6 months of 2011) is not new money on the GGD. Given that the bailout provides all additional cash that taxation can't raise for the 2011-2014 period, they can claim that the banks (PNs excepted) have been recapitalized from existing resources causing no change to the pre-bailout GGD.

    This means that the can claim the only debt affecting GGD is the IBRC debt (PNs), which they are attempting to spread over multiple budget cycles rather than "borrowing" it all up front.


  • Options
    #16
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    Where the money came from to bail out the banks dose not matter the reality is that it cost 60 odd million and maybe more as we have share's in the banks that may not be worth what we think.

    It would still be slightly less - the bailout figures are gross, and take no account of the value of the shares acquired, so the only way those could make the bailout costs larger is if they had a negative value.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #17
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Much of the remainder of the bailout is in the form of Emergency Liquidity Assistance or ELA. (we call it Exceptional but the ECB calls it Emergency). These are around €50bn of IOUs that the banks were given by the Central Bank to 'balance' their books.

    It would mean that were the Euro to collapse we would need a new central bank as the old one is the most spectacularly bankrupt central bank in Europe.

    Explained Here > http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=196544997039194

    So our Central Bank created a sort of IOU they gave to the banksters. They were allowed to do so by the ECB.

    No, I'm afraid that's entirely irrelevant - the liquidity assistance to the banks is not part of the bailout.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #18
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The only reason I can think of is that money from the NPRF, and any money previously borrowed for other reasons (i.e. public spending for the first 6 months of 2011) is not new money on the GGD. Given that the bailout provides all additional cash that taxation can't raise for the 2011-2014 period, they can claim that the banks (PNs excepted) have been recapitalized from existing resources causing no change to the pre-bailout GGD.

    This means that the can claim the only debt affecting GGD is the IBRC debt (PNs), which they are attempting to spread over multiple budget cycles rather than "borrowing" it all up front.

    The problem with those possibilities is that bank bailout amounts were added to the deficit for last year (true, not the GGD), while the PNs were taken upfront onto the GGD as one large amount. Furthermore, the policy of using cash reserves and NPRF to fund the banks seems to have been consistent pre and post bailout across two different governments.

    And if the value of the exercise is a positive PR outcome, then it's a little strange no attempt is apparently being made to use it as such.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #19
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The problem with those possibilities is that bank bailout amounts were added to the deficit for last year (true, not the GGD), while the PNs were taken upfront onto the GGD as one large amount. Furthermore, the policy of using cash reserves and NPRF to fund the banks seems to have been consistent pre and post bailout across two different governments.

    And if the value of the exercise is a positive PR outcome, then it's a little strange no attempt is apparently being made to use it as such.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    That would depend on whom it is aimed. The fact that there's no publicity of this here at home suggest that it's not for a domestic audience. Since most people would rather listen to DMcW & CG, there's probably little point in wheeling this out. Besides, they'd still get stick for the fact that the money is being spent in the first place.

    No, the aim of this appears to be for the money markets. If you get a chance I suggest you look at the NTMA presentation for institutional investiors to see how it stacks up. (I haven't had a chance, so I can't comment yet).


  • Options
    #20
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    antoobrien wrote: »
    That would depend on whom it is aimed. The fact that there's no publicity of this here at home suggest that it's not for a domestic audience. Since most people would rather listen to DMcW & CG, there's probably little point in wheeling this out. Besides, they'd still get stick for the fact that the money is being spent in the first place.

    No, the aim of this appears to be for the money markets. If you get a chance I suggest you look at the NTMA presentation for institutional investiors to see how it stacks up. (I haven't had a chance, so I can't comment yet).

    Hmm. That table appears on the very last page, but that's it. No attention is drawn to the fact that only "Irish" fiscal resources have been put into the banks.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #21
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, I'm afraid that's entirely irrelevant - the liquidity assistance to the banks is not part of the bailout.

    €50bn of ELA to balance the books is part of the bailout. It is furthermore guaranteed to some extent by the taxpayer.

    It wasn't drawn on the exchequer or on IMF/EU funds and is not part of the GGD but it is a liability.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    €50bn of ELA to balance the books is part of the bailout.

    The ELA isn't to balance the books - either of the government or the banks. It's to guarantee the liabilities of the banks (both current & capital).

    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hmm. That table appears on the very last page, but that's it. No attention is drawn to the fact that only "Irish" fiscal resources have been put into the banks.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Does it need to? Everybody knows the timings of the bailouts and the timing of drawdown of the troika & bilateral loans is publicly available.


  • Options
    #23
    Lawrence1895
    Registered Users Posts: 7,627 ✭✭✭Lawrence1895


    I don't think, the government would admit, that they used tax payer's money to bail out the bankers and bondholders...regardless, if they did or not.


  • Options
    #24
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Lars1916 wrote: »
    I don't think, the government would admit, that they used tax payer's money to bail out the bankers and bondholders...regardless, if they did or not.

    Why bother not admitting it. The troika finding is a loan that will be paid back with taxpayer money.

    Btw the NPRF isn't funded (primarily) by the taxpayer, it's largely from sales of state assets e.g. the Eircom flotation.


  • Options
    #25
    Lawrence1895
    Registered Users Posts: 7,627 ✭✭✭Lawrence1895


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Why bother not admitting it. The troika finding is a loan that will be paid back with taxpayer money.

    Btw the NPRF isn't funded (primarily) by the taxpayer, it's largely from sales of state assets e.g. the Eircom flotation.

    The electorate might be angry? Disappointed? Accusing them of lying and hypocrisy, because they took money out of the health and education sector to bail out the banks?


  • Options
    #26
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Lars1916 wrote: »
    The electorate might be angry? Disappointed? Accusing them of lying and hypocrisy, because they took money out of the health and education sector to bail out the banks?

    No, that does come back to the point of money being fungible - taking the money from the NPRF or Exchequer cash is neither more nor less taking money out of the health and education sector than using troika loans directly.

    In terms of taxpayer liability, supporting austerity etc, using NPRF/cash resources makes not a jot of difference. Which is precisely what's odd about this.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #27
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,087 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No bailout money has gone into the banks

    OK, I admit I was surprised by this. In looking for answers to posts in the Alan Ahearne thread, I came across this handy little table of bank recapitalisation costs:

    So while the public perception of the bailouts is that it's first and foremost for the banks, the truth is entirely the reverse - none of the bailout money has gone into the banks. Which leads, of course, to several questions - what exactly is Alan Ahearne playing at? Why is this not a better known fact? And why has ever effort apparently been made to ensure that only Irish money goes into the banks?

    cordially,
    but also somewhat surprised and puzzled,
    Scofflaw

    Dear somewhat suprised and puzzled,
    just answer one question please with just Yes or No
    And please no ifs buts or maybes about what might have happened eventually.

    Would we have needed a bailout in autumn 2010, but for the bank bailout and bank guarantees ?


    Then after that you can tell us all how the bank bailout hasn't and isn't going to cost us dearly.

    BTW just as a cursory look even on wikipedia which would not be my preferred reference, the government support for the Irish banks had risen to over 30% of GDP.


    I am not sure if this thread is to make us feel that the banks haven't or aren't a big problem or that our current deficit is our only problem ?


  • Options
    #28
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    How was NAMA funded? Or are those figures included in the table in the OP?
    (Sorry not too afay with some of this)

    Ultimately, no matter where the money came from, we would possibly have been able to avoid the "bailout" (at least for 2-3 more years) if we didn't have the serious banking issue that we did have, and perhaps "the markets" would have been more likely to lend to us directly at "acceptable rates".
    Would this be correct?


  • Options
    #29
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    jmayo wrote: »
    Would we have needed a bailout in autumn 2010, but for the bank bailout and bank guarantees ?

    The deficit for 2008, 2009 & 2010 was €56.1bn (exchequer statements).

    The value of the banks payments were to 2010 were €4.725bn. Without the bank bailout & guarantees we were still €51.375bn in defecit by the end of 2010.

    So yes were would still have needed the bailout. It would have been about €17bn smaller (the portion we are borrowing to fund the banks according to the troika agreement)


  • Options
    #30
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kippy wrote: »
    How was NAMA funded? Or are those figures included in the table in the OP?

    No, NAMA is a 51% privately owned entity. It was funded through bonds that NAMA issued. There's an argument whether they're actually ECB or Irish government paper, but it's a bit pointless because as a Ltd company they can only lose the 100m initial investment.
    kippy wrote: »
    Ultimately, no matter where the money came from, we would possibly have been able to avoid the "bailout" (at least for 2-3 more years) if we didn't have the serious banking issue that we did have, and perhaps "the markets" would have been more likely to lend to us directly at "acceptable rates".
    Would this be correct?

    Looking at the figures outlined earlier, given that we've borrowed €17bn for the banks, we'd have avoided bailout for one year at most.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    You cannot ignore ELA Guys! It is about as large as all our borrowings from all sources to date since 2008 inclusive.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-24/frozen-europe-means-ecb-must-resort-to-ela-as-finance-lights-dim.html
    The first rule of ELA is you don’t talk about ELA.

    It permits an operation where a sovereign ( or is it?? ) Central Bank creates a security that is acceptable to the ECB for Repo Operations etc.
    Each ELA loan requires the assent of the ECB’s 23-member Governing Council and carries a penalty interest rate, though the terms are never made public. Owen estimates that euro-area central banks are currently on the hook for about 150 billion euros ($189 billion) of ELA loans.

    The program has been deployed in countries including Germany, Belgium, Ireland and now Greece. An ECB spokesman declined to comment on matters relating to ELA for this article.

    The ECB buries information about ELA in its weekly financial statement. While it announced on April 24 that it was harmonizing the disclosure of ELA on the euro system’s balance sheet under “other claims on euro-area credit institutions,” this item contains more than just ELA. It stood at 212.5 billion euros this week, up from 184.7 billion euros three weeks ago.

    The ECB has declined to divulge how much of the amount is accounted for by ELA.
    Ireland’s Case

    Further clues can be found in individual central banks’ balance sheets. In Ireland, home to Europe’s worst banking crisis, the central bank’s claims on euro-area credit institutions, where it now accounts for ELA, stood at 41.3 billion euros on April 27.


Advertisement