Did Spain Commit Economic Suicide?

A casual observer of the world's financial markets would have been forgiven two weeks ago for assuming that Spain's fiscal situation no longer threatened the integrity of the euro. The Iberian country's cyclically adjusted debt-to-GDP ratio is an extremely manageable 66%, and as recently as March 20, its government had auctioned one-year treasury bills at just over 1.4% in annual interest, the lowest yield in nearly two years.

However, it's now clear that any such relief was premature. On March 22, Spain's 10-year bond yield jumped to 5.5%, the highest rate in three months. The concern? A growing number of economists and analysts are warning that the Spanish economy -- the continent's fourth largest after those of Germany, France, and Italy -- is in much worse shape than once thought.

It's all about the deficit
The main problem can be summed up in two words: fiscal deficit. As a party to the Maastricht Treaty, the agreement that lays out the criteria for membership in the euro's monetary union, Spain is prohibited from running an annual fiscal deficit that exceeds 3% of its GDP. While this wasn't an issue from 2000 to 2008, during which the country regularly recorded fiscal surpluses, it has since become one. For much of the intervening time period, Spain's quarterly deficit has been anywhere in a range from 8% to 11.5% of the country's GDP. In the most recent quarter on record, it was just short of 9%.

Sources: Eurostat and author's own calculations.

Sources: Eurostat and author's own calculations.

The country has adopted a three-pronged approach to comply with its treaty obligations by the end of 2013. The first prong includes tax increases to increase the central government's revenue. All told, the increase is estimated to be in the range of 12.3 billion euros, with 2.5 billion euros coming from a temporary amnesty on unpaid taxes in the black market, and 5.3 billion euros coming from corporate-tax adjustments, such as the elimination of a goodwill tax break that made it easier for Spanish companies to buy foreign rivals and boosted overseas expansions by the likes of Telefonica (NYSE: TEF  ) and Banco Santander (NYSE: STD  ) , among others.

The second prong includes a 13.4 billion euro reduction, or 17%,in the central government's budget. The ministries of industry and agriculture, for instance, will lose approximately 30% each, and the ministry of foreign affairs and cooperation will lose 54% of its funding. In addition, the government said it will slash energy subsidies and increase electricity bills for consumers by 7%, as the government looks to tackle a 24 billion-euro so-called electricity tariff deficit used by recent governments to encourage the adoption of clean energies.

The final prong includes a number of structural adjustments to the country's notoriously rigid labor market designed to encourage business and reduce the country's record 23% unemployment rate. To name a few, the maximum severance payment possible will fall from 42 months to 24 months; struggling companies will be allowed to reduce employees' working hours; and in a policy focused on endemic youth unemployment, which stands at 50% in some regions, companies that have fewer than 50 employees will receive a 3,000 euro tax break for hiring workers that are under 30 and seeking their first job.

The promise and perils of austerity
To say that these measures are controversial both domestically and internationally would be an egregious understatement. On the day before the austerity package was revealed, as is becoming all too common in cities across Europe, Spanish workers took to the streets in protest. Factory workers, teachers, and public-transport employees joined the strike in large numbers. More than half of scheduled passenger flights were cancelled by mid-morning last Thursday. And demand for electricity fell by up to a quarter from normal levels. According to the interior ministry, 58 people had been arrested and nine injured.

The measures also place Spain at the center of an increasingly visceral debate among economists about the prescience and utility of austerity during economic contractions. Classical economists, among them Harvard professor Alberto Alesina, believe that measures like those enacted by the Spanish government not only decrease a country's debt-to-GDP ratio but actually trigger economic growth. Sometimes -- even often, according to Alesina -- economies prosper nicely after a government's deficit is sharply reduced because the program boosts confidence in such a way as to ignite a recovery.

Alternatively, Keynesians like Princeton professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers argue that such measures are counterproductive. To summarize their position, which I more or less ascribe to, they believe that spending cuts and tax increases will only force Spain deeper into recession and thereby exacerbate the country's already intolerably high level of unemployment. The answer to Spain's problems, according to Krugman and Summers, is more spending, not less.

And on a final and more fundamental level, the simple fact that Spain feels obliged to enact such extreme measures in response to pressure from the European Union calls into question the very structure of the continent's monetary bloc. In this regard, it's important to note that Spain's public debt-to-GDP ratio of 66% places its government in a markedly better fiscal position than the majority of its European peers. The rest of the so-called PIIGS -- Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and Greece -- all have public debt-to-GDP ratios near or exceeding 100%. Even Germany, the ostensible pillar of fiscal and economic conservatism, has a ratio of 83%. Thus, to subject Spain to similar measures as those forced upon Greece or Ireland seems both inequitable and unwise.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face
Make no mistake about it. Spain's unemployment situation and fiscal deficit are serious problems. Yet for the European Union to potentially compound these issues by hoisting draconian austerity measures upon it seems counterproductive to say the least. And if this experiment goes poorly, it isn't much of a leap to see how companies in other European countries, such as Greek shipper DryShips (Nasdaq: DRYS  ) and Ireland's Bank of Ireland (NYSE: IRE  ) , could go down with it. European operations like these are already listing heavily, and Spain's descent into depression could send them over the edge if it threatens the integrity of the euro.

It's for these reasons, in turn, that the only stocks I'll be buying in the foreseeable future are strong Americam companies that have globally diversified operations like the ones identified in a recent free report by The Motley Fool. Specifically, the report reveals the identity of three U.S.-based companies that are set to dominate the world and reward their shareholders handsomely. If you want to discover which companies these are, get the report now.

Fool contributor John Maxfield has no financial position in any of the companies mentioned above. The Motley Fool owns shares of The Bank of Ireland. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.


Read/Post Comments (16) | Recommend This Article (18)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 03, 2012, at 2:07 PM, TrojanFan wrote:

    Your debt-to-GDP comparisons are missing a critically important component. In this day and age the private sector debts of any country's banking system during any time of severe economic crisis have to be viewed as contingent liabilities of the sovereign and therefore consolidated into the fiscal position in order to properly evaluate that fiscal position because of the modern too big to fail paradigm. The Spanish cajas are unlikely to be allowed to fail en masse so the government (or rather the German, French and Dutch taxpayers in conjunction with the ECB and possibly the IMF --> therefore extending to the US taxpayer ultimately) has to absorb the cost of restructuring those liabilities in some way.

    When you include the debt of the large banks and regional cajas, Spain's fiscal position suddenly looks a lot, lot worse. Then again, so do the other countries, but that peer comparison will put Spain in terrible light.

    Interesting, domestic savings in Italy is actually pretty high and its consumer debt is pretty low so the feedback loop there is not terrible, but the feedback loop in Spain has the potential to be especially ferocious. That's when things start to look really interesting to vulture investors like the ones I work for because the interbanking linkages from Spain into both France and Italy, but especially France very substantial.

    Once the French banking system starts to fracture then things will get way out of hand in a hurry and hedge funds the world over will enrich themselves from the pile of economic wreckage that will result and the 1% will rejoice!!

    Many of that cohort are quietly hoping for such a chaotic outcome and if you look at the data empirically without emotional or ideological bais, it seems that they stand a pretty good chance of getting their wish.

    Hooray for capitalism!!

  • Report this Comment On April 03, 2012, at 2:12 PM, ETFsRule wrote:

    These austerity measures will probably push Spain's unemployment rate above 30%. Expect a lot more riots.

  • Report this Comment On April 03, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Samskiman wrote:

    Buying after the chaos will be open to all, not just the maligned 1% and their hedge funds.

    Yes indeed, without any sarcasm, hooray for capitalism!

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2012, at 12:45 PM, decbutt wrote:

    TrojanFan spotted the obvious flaw that so many commentators miss. Public debt does not tell the full story.

    Make sure this information is disseminated within TMF so that this mistake is not repeated, as it is in so many suspect financial commentaries and analyses.

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2012, at 12:58 PM, JohnMaxfield37 wrote:

    for a full accounting of Spain's debt broken down by sector:

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/03/29/a-decade-of...

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2012, at 4:24 PM, TrojanFan wrote:

    Actually and sadly Samskiman's comment is unlikely to be accurate. If you expect the assets that are available to the public for general investment to perform well following this crisis you may be dissappointed.

    Most of the assets that will perform the best are of the variety that are only available for purchase on institutional trading desks which the general public has almost zero access to. Individual investors absolutely cannot directly buy the sorts of assets that firms like ours buys.

    Don't forget that public stock sits all the way at the bottom of the capital structure. They represent the residual value that is left over after all the creditors get paid. A vast amount of that value is likely to be restructured away from public stockholders through the bankruptcy process and into the hands of a select few elite institutional money managers. Just watch as company after company get delisted and average Joes end up left holding the bag.

    The whole reason public markets exist in the first place is so the rich can find suckers to provide the liquidity they need to dump their unwanted assets onto at outrageously inflated valuations. The whole process exsits mainly so that the strong and well informed can screw the weak and uninformed, as this year's Motley Fool April Fools prank illustrated so well.

  • Report this Comment On April 05, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Samskiman wrote:

    "The whole reason public markets exist in the first place is so the rich can find suckers to provide the liquidity they need to dump their unwanted assets onto at outrageously inflated valuations"

    Trojan, wow. Where to start with that.

    Well, to start with how about some citation on that, and then we'll take it from there.

  • Report this Comment On April 12, 2012, at 9:31 PM, TrojanFan wrote:

    @Samskiman

    Here's a citation for you straight from today's news.

    When I read this, I couldn't help but think of my snide remarks above and your response to them:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/04/12/seagate-ce...

    I'll refer you specifically to Page 4 of the cited interview with Steve Luczo, CEO of Seagate Technology, the 2nd largest hard drive manufacturer in the world.

    "Q: So, Steve, will that give the Street more respect for what you do? Drive companies historically trade at some of the lowest P/Es in the entire stock market.

    A: Investors don’t fundamentally understand what we do. They tend to think, if things are bad, that’s how they’re going to stay, and if things are good, they’re going to get bad. That’s really been the philosophy. The glass is either half-empty, or its empty. Do I think that’s going to change? I don’t know. There are other big successful technology companies where you scratch your head and say why are they trading at an 8 P/E. Why is Microsoft trading at an 8 P/E? Why is Intel trading at an 8 P/E? I think a lot of it is a different discussion entirely, which is do our capital markets fairly value companies anymore fundamentally, and I’ll tell you my answer is no.

    Q: Why not?

    A: Because they’re not being price[d] on fundamentals, they’re being priced by the large investment banks for volume. And volume requires volatility. So that’s why all the big firms are in a different camp than the smaller research firms on their perspective of the drive industry. Is it because these are the smart guys, and those aren’t? That doesn’t make any sense. It is because the big banks are motivated by volatility and the boutique firms aren’t. And therefore the research reflects that. So you can create an environment that always creates doubt, with billion dollar market cap swings in a week. It’s insane. Why does that work? Because you have traders who love to make that work. So do I think that changes? I don’t know that I see that changing for our equity markets in general, which is a terrible thing for the efficient allocation of capital. Does it change at the margin for the drive industry, if there is less volatility? Sure, I think it does. It takes time though. It’s going to take time."

    This is precisely the sort of thing that I'm talking about, though I was more directly referring to the massive fleecing of America that's going on with all the dot-com 2.0 IPOs that are hitting the market at insane valuations with Facebook being the obvious leader of that motley pack of eventual train wrecks for the retail investors dumb enough to buy them right out of the box. Groupon, LinkedIn, Zynga, Yelp, etc. -- who is buying all this garbage? Those are all super hyped offerings dileberately engineered for extremely tight float to drive contrived initial pops in the hops of garnering media attention and luring in sucker money to unjustly enrich insiders and venture capitalists at the buy side market's expense. It's a dubious practice and it has tangible, quantifiable costs to our economy and thanks to recent legislation that's been signed into law, this whole process is only going to become more intransparent. The legislation is mostly championed by the financial services industry because people are wising up to their tactics so they need more tools in their kit to fleece people with and do so legally with no repercussions. It's madness.

    It makes no sense to me why we pass laws like that which just make it even easier for the strong to exploit and manipulate the weak. The whole point of having a democracy and legal system in the first place is to level the playing field so that if David is wronged by Goliath and sues Goliath for recompense they will be treated equally in a court of law with access to a jury of their peers should they so choose. Laws like the one recently passed are aimed at neutering David to make it easier for Goliath to step on him and squash him and to make such actions legal so that David's next of kin have no legal recourse to avenge his squashing.

    Read the quote above carefully in the context of the article and you tell me if it makes sense the way we are currently incentivizing our capital market operators. If they are operating with an incentive to promote bogus and needless volatility to increase trading profits for their firms that comes with real consequences attached out in the real productive economy where we all live, work and consume the goods and services the economy produces.

    When capital is deliberately allocated inefficiently to serve the narrow self-interests of a bunch of politically well connected bankers who have disproportionate influence and control over how the laws are shaped and indeed the very definition of legality by virtue of their limitless resources to lobby AND to contribute to political campaigns thanks to Citizens United, all of humanity suffers the consequences of the resultant inefficiencies. People and firms who should get capital don't or don't receive nearly the amount they should, and people who shouldn't receive any at all get way too much. Meanwhile, important and pressing challenges facing humanity go unresolved that could have been fixed a long, long time ago for the collective benefit of humanity.

    But if you view the situation through an even more critical eye, even the lack of resolution to these problems makes sense for someone and those someones are the rent seekers who are harvesting off the preservation of the status quo even when the market strongly desires to go in a different direction. These factions put up systematic impediments to progress (using lobbyists to block votes in the Senate for instance) because they seek to preserve their industries long after the market has said they should be allowed to die and be replaced. Once again, we all suffer the consequences of that bloated inefficiency and contrary to the political spin that's out there we owe most of that reality to excessive deregulation, not over regulation.

    In an anything goes economy, these are the sorts of things that are allowed to "go" but shouldn't be allowed to happen in a more sensibly managed country/economy. Left unchecked this will proliferate to the point of complete social instability and general social uprising and possibly even a civil war will result. That would be something akin to the French Revolution and that's precisely the direction we're heading in if we don't wake up soon and realize it. Maybe not this year, maybe not 3 years from now, but if the next recession (and there will be a next one, it's only a question of when and not if) is longer and deeper then this one was, brace yourself for one heck of an uprising. By the way, recent trends indicate that the next recession probably will be longer and more severe then this one. Each of the last 3 recessions staring with the one in 1991 (once the 1980s era of deregulation really had a chance to take hold) each of the successive recessions since that one have gotten closer together, longer in duration and deeper in severity as measured by GDP retrenchment and the output gap. Since the "dot com" recession ended in the summer of 2002 and the most recent recession began at the start of 2008, those were about 5 and a half years apart. The current recession "officially" ended in the summer of 2009, so if the current trend holds, the next recession should strike sometime between now and the beginning of 2015 and it likely will be even longer and more severe then this one was. That is unless of course we do something to change our trajectory and attack some of the things that are responsible for all this instability. Manipulation of the free market by the people and institutions who we foolishly entrust to run those markets with little to no supervision are right at the top of the list of things that need to be tackled or we are just going to get more of the same. It would be foolish (small f) to expect otherwise.

    Those are my beefs.

    I eagerly await your response.

  • Report this Comment On April 12, 2012, at 9:59 PM, pedorrero wrote:

    Hi TrojanFan,

    I must agree overall with your lengthy posting. I am (literally) a student of Spain (literature, with some background in history, etc.) And I'm wise enough to say that ... I don't know what'll happen in Spain or other countries. As a lifelong pessimist, or at least spokesman for Doomsday, there is unfortunately a lot to be said for the French Revolution theory. One trend comes, runs its course, and is replaced by another. The Enlightenment eventually won out (mostly) over the Church. We don't burn witches right now. Kings were replaced by republics, interspesed with the occasional Emporer or mob rule. Science gave us the Industrial Revolution with much good (wealth, progress) and some bad (depletion of resources, pollution, etc.). Good money (gold and silver) long ago went into hiding to be replaced by fiat (funny money). Social darwinism has been replaced by socialist parasitism (especially in Europe.) Anything to excess is bad...robber baron or welfare bums. I don't know where the world is going, but probably to a lower standard of living for many of us.

  • Report this Comment On April 12, 2012, at 10:39 PM, TrojanFan wrote:

    pedorrero -

    I agree with your posting whole-heartedly. One of the tremendous virtues of the American system historically has been its system of numerous checks and balances and dynamic ability to self-correct its excesses.

    Therein lies my concern, however. In the Depression Era that my parents grew up in, the people came together and democratically decided to trust bust the monopoly powers of the robber barrons and others that had come to be an oppressive force on the economy.

    I'm gravely concerned that we don't seem to be making sufficient headway against those forces this go around because I fear that this cycle enriched this group by such immense measure, that they have found insidious ways of short circuiting democracy.

    Democracy and capitalism are meant to be opposing forces in our system. Capitalism beats back at over regulation and keeps us from going to the welfare bum extreme. This is well understood among this Motley Fool community. In the current political vitriol that this nation is plagued with, I don't see the right accepting the necessity for democracy to be allowed to work and correct the robber baron extreme.

    If the people in good faith seek justice through the electoral process, but entrenched and corrupted career politicians don't see it through because they are mostly on the take, then the people are left to look to vigilantism and social revolution in order to garner the justice they seek and I'd say they even have a moral imperative to do so if the system no longer works. That is part of what the spirit of the 2nd ammendment in our nation's bill of rights is all about. It places and affirmative duty upon the populous to police tyranny and preserves and protects their right to arm themselves against it should an uprising become necessary to overthrow the source of the tyranny which is presumed to be governmental, but needn't necessarily be.

    Ask yourself the following, and I'll be bipartisan in my criticism so as not to offend anyone's delicate political sensibilities:

    Why hasn't Jon Corzine been arrested yet? He certainly should be.

    Why hasn't Hank Paulson been arrested yet? He certainly should be as well:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/how-henry-paulson-g...

    What do the two men share in common? They are both ex CEOs of Goldman Sachs to whom enormous political favors are owed which therefore makes them untouchable. That's why.

    Where is the justice here? Does this look land the land of the free and the home of the brave to you? We sign that anthem before every sporting contest, but how often do we stop to think about what it means. When their are people among us who are very publicly and very brazenly operating above the law that means we have a serious problem on our hands.

    These elites are using our very capital markets to take advantage of us everyday with little or no remorse for their actions. Look at how Hank Paulson played the public markets in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to enrich his ex colleagues turned hedge fund buddies at all of our expense. When deeds like that go unpunished how can we trust the integrity of the capital markets?

    How's that for another citation for you, Samskiman?

    Give me time and I'm sure I can find plenty more.

  • Report this Comment On April 12, 2012, at 10:49 PM, TrojanFan wrote:

    Apologies for the handful of grammatical, punctutation and spelling errors in that last post, but it's getting late and I posted that in a hurry.

    Here is the corrected version of an excerpt taken from the last post:

    "Where is the justice here? Does this look land the land of the free and the home of the brave to you? We SING that anthem before every sporting contest, but how often do we stop to think about what it means? When THERE are people among us who are very publicly and very brazenly operating above the law that means we have a serious problem on our hands."

    My apologies to all for not adequately proof reading that section prior to submission for posting.

  • Report this Comment On April 13, 2012, at 2:57 PM, TrojanFan wrote:

    Whattya know, Samskiman??

    Another day and another terrific example.

    Here's another citation for you courtesy of Google:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/google-share-split-n...

    This is another example of ultrarich billionaires using the public markets to completely screw their shareholders. And guess what, I'm sure that the fine print of their corporate bylaws allow this so it isn't illegal and the minority shareholders have little to no recourse. Social darwinism evolves into social parasitism indeed.

    Google shareholders beware. You just got completely screwed today and your management team has brazenly proclaimed that they don't care.

    By the way, Android licensees beware. A company that is capable of doing this to their shareholders is capable of doing just about anything. It's only a matter of time before they decide to take Samsung, HTC and the rest of the Android licensee crowd and throw them all under the bus and consolidate their share of the OS market onto the Motorola platform. Users are more loyal to the OS then they are to the device it runs on.

    If I'm Samsung, this behavior by Google today is making me very nervous. I would have been nervous before, but this would be enough to drive me into panic mode.

    The value of BBX as an alternative licensing platform just shot up considerably today thanks to Google's founders reckless behavior.

    RIMM is looking incredibly cheap on this basis. That OS is an extraordinarily valueable asset and only the most sophisticated value players in the market fully appreciate that fact.

    Today's losers become tomorrow's winners.

    Full disclosure: I am very long RIMM. Not short on Google yet, but I probably should be now. Definitely something worth considering. The post split shares will only carry economic rights and that's only half the value of ownership. All the control rights are going to consolidate under the insiders.

    Minority shareholders are just tools as far as the ultra billionaire crowd are concerned.

    I know that conventional wisdom says that companies where managers have high ownership stakes are desired, but this case study provides a cautionary tale for what can happen when that ownership stake is too high. Over 20% makes me nervous and over 35% is extremely dangerous. Whenever up to 1/3rd of the board of directors can be controlled by a single faction with a narrowly self-interested agenda, minority shareholders (which is what all of us in the Motley Fool community are) need to tread with extreme caution.

    In this day and age, if company founders CAN take advantage of you by virtue of their rights in the bylaws, then they probably will.

    Googles founders have proven again and again that they are unworthy of trust and this is just the latest and perhaps the most aggregious example.

  • Report this Comment On April 13, 2012, at 3:01 PM, TrojanFan wrote:

    By the way Samskiman, I'm still awaiting your rebuttals.

  • Report this Comment On April 13, 2012, at 3:17 PM, DJDynamicNC wrote:

    "Buying after the chaos will be open to all, not just the maligned 1% and their hedge funds." - Samskiman

    How fair the law is! Sleeping under bridges is prohibited to all, the poor and the rich alike.

  • Report this Comment On April 13, 2012, at 3:32 PM, DJDynamicNC wrote:

    "Sometimes -- even often, according to Alesina -- economies prosper nicely after a government's deficit is sharply reduced because the program boosts confidence in such a way as to ignite a recovery."

    Funny. And all this time I thought what we needed was more money. Turns out it was just confidence all along.

    One would think that, if this alleged confidence boost ignites recoveries "often," as Alesina claims, that she would be able to come up with some great examples. With so many countries in Europe trying austerity since 2008, surely she can name several examples of nations that have experienced a sharp turn around due to their policies. Right?

  • Report this Comment On April 14, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Samskiman wrote:

    Trojan,

    Wow.

    I waited a week (April 5 until April 12) for your attempt at citation of that amazing statement and one day later, on April 13, you state "I'm still awaiting your rebuttals."

    Huh? I'm still awaiting the citation.

    Let me do this to help us move this along. Citation: the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent.

    I don't believe your going to find it, but I will be very willing to say I'm wrong once I see and confirm it as fact. Knock yourself out. Maybe you meant to start that statement with "Many believe" or "I believe..." which it seems is clearly the case. Preach all you want with all that other stuff you slapped up here (I do agree with some of it) but I am only interested in the confirmation of your previous statement as fact.

    Here is is again... don't want it to get buried behind all those other attempts:

    "The whole reason public markets exist in the first place is so the rich can find suckers to provide the liquidity they need to dump their unwanted assets onto at outrageously inflated valuations"

    I just refuse to believe that it is fact that the WHOLE reason that public markets exist is to find suckers, etc., etc., blah, blah.... I could be wrong, but that sounds far more like a view or an opinion.

    Jon Corzine arrested, we certainly agree on that, and more than likely a few other things too.

    I'll check back and reply once I see an actual citation of your source and am able to check it... and like I said on April 5, we'll take it from there.

    Samski

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 1853590, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/23/2014 9:02:00 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement