|
     |
 |
        |
Printed from The Vanier Institute of the Family's website at www.vifamily.ca. © 2007.
The Current State of Canadian Family Finances 2003 Report TABLE OF CONTENTS
A LOOK AT ALL HOUSEHOLDS TO 2003 A CLOSER LOOK AT FAMILY FINANCES TO 2001 INTRODUCTION AND TECHNICAL NOTE We are back again. This fifth annual report updates the current state of family and household finances. The report examines incomes, spending, saving and net worth across family and household types. The positive response to previous annual reports suggests that individuals, families, governments, business, unions, the media and many other organizations want and need to know more about how families are doing financially and they want to get the whole picture. This report is gradually becoming a source document for both the general public and researchers. Some of the findings are now being included in textbooks. Families are the main focus of this report but sadly the latest available family indicators go no further than the year 2001. Much more timely information is available for the total personal sector and this data is, therefore, used to provide many of the estimates for all households up to the year 2003. The 2003 estimates are based on the first 9 months of the year. Households include both families and unattached individuals. About two-thirds of households are family households and thus the recent trends for households provides a good "directional" guide to what is happening for families. Estimates for the personal sector, for what is called personal disposable incomes are after government transfers and after income taxes. The family income measures are also on an after government transfers and after income tax basis. For ease of understanding and to make the results more relevant, all measures have been converted to a per household or per family basis. All dollar estimates are in 2001 dollars and thus variations over several years represent changes in real purchasing power after inflation. The term "real" indicates what would have happened if there had been no inflation. The measures incorporate updates and any recent revisions by Statistics Canada. Much of the analysis relates to the period 1989 to 2003, with special emphasis on the latest three years ending in 2001, 2002 or 2003 depending on the data series. The year 1989 was chosen as the beginning year because that was the last time that the Canadian economy peaked in terms of overall performance. All charts cover each year from 1989 to the latest full year or our estimates for the latest year. Chart 1 is the exception since compatible data is only available from 1991. The text, tables and the appendices provide the total change over the entire period and for each of the last three years. Shaded (blue) areas in the tables represent deterioration or declines for the selected indicators. Readers are urged to examine the Appendix Tables A and B at the back to get a more detailed perspective of the changes experienced by different types of families and households. Almost all of the background data comes from Statistics Canada. Any additional calculations are the responsibility of the author. The opinions expressed are those of the author and may not represent the views of the Vanier Institute of the Family. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the author. Roger Sauvé, People Patterns Consulting, can be reached at (613) 931-2476, fax (250-642-2726), E-mail (peoplepatternsconsulting@sympatico.ca), or at his web site (www.peoplepatterns "Living on the Edge" It has now been 10 years since the world and Canada celebrated The International Year of the Family in 1994. Over the decade, family incomes grew and have now recovered fully from the recession of the early 1990s. Poverty rates have decreased. Even so, many families struggle to just get by, while many others, who may have enough to satisfy their current needs, are anxious about what tomorrow may bring. Moreover, positive news about the overall economy masks some fundamental problems that families and households are experiencing today or will confront tomorrow. Household spending has, in fact, helped keep the economy growing during the last few years. But, this economic growth has come at a high price. This report demonstrates that what has been good for the economy has not been as good for the majority of households. A growing number of households are now "living on the edge" brought about by the triple reality of shrinking real hourly wages, the continued growth in household spending and rising debt loads. In the process, we may have created "workaholic" families. During the 1989 to 2003 period, there has been massive "over-spending" relative to the modest growth in incomes. In order to help support this "over-spending" more family members are now holding down paid jobs and more of them are working longer hours. This is especially so for parents with children, where the percentage in the paid work force is now at record levels. Responsible and hard-working individuals and families have done what was needed to support themselves and those that depend on them … but many have just not been able to keep up. The "edge" has gotten closer every year during the five years that we have been preparing these annual reports. The pressure points are clear.
For far too many, the "edge" is getting closer and closer. A growing number will fall into the precipice when, and not if, interest rates begin to rise from their 40-year lows. Households need to reign-in some of their spending, pay off some debt and build a bigger cushion against slow times. The time to act is now. For some time now, we have counted on Canadians as consumers to sustain the overall performance of the Canadian economy. This may no longer be possible. As we shall see, many of us are "spent-out" and are already over-extended. Can we step back from the edge of the precipice of "over-spending" and still look forward to economic growth? That is the question that faces us all. A LOOK AT ALL HOUSEHOLDS TO 2003 The main culprit - shrinking real hourly earnings Rising real earnings are now a fading memory … they ended in 1994. Real earnings were relatively flat from 1994 to 2000 but have since fallen sharply (-3%) by 2003. In terms of purchasing power, the average worker just keeps falling behind.
Minimum wage earners have been hit even harder. The average minimum wage, weighted by total employment numbers in each province, increased by about 2% from 2000 to 2003 while consumer prices advanced by a much larger 7%. As such, real minimum wages have fallen by about 5% over the period. During this period, real minimum wages fell in half of the provinces. Provincial minimum wages, which now run from a low of $5.90 in Alberta to a high of $8.00 in British Columbia, generate only poverty level earnings for full-year, full-time adult workers, for most single people and for all families with only one earner. People on social assistance have also been falling behind. A single-parent with one child living in an urban area, who got all the benefits possible would have received an income equal to about 64% of the low-income (poverty) rate in 2001 … this is well down from 72% in 1992.1 Creating "workaholic" families … with children The decline in real hourly earnings has pushed more people into the labour market. This is especially so for families with children. By 2001, some 83% of married couples with children had two or more earners … a new record high. The percentage of female lone-parent families with at least one earner soared to 82% … another record high. It seems that parents take the costs and responsibilities of raising children very seriously. In the process, we may have created "workaholic" families where more and more adults, and in many instances the youth, are in the paid workforce. Increasingly, the choice between working at a paid job or not doing so is driven by financial necessity … the financial "edge" is just too close. It is interesting to note that the percentage of married couples without children that have two or more earners has remained near the 71% level during most of the last dozen years or so. The "edge" for this group has not been as close as it has been for families with children. The number of workers holding down more than one job (moonlighting) jumped to 5.1% in 2002, back up to the record level set in 1997.
On the positive side, the rate of job creation has been relatively strong over the last several years. Beginning in 1997, the Canadian economy managed to create at least 300,000 new jobs each year, with 2001 being the exception when "only" 167,000 new jobs were created. However, the quality of the jobs created has diminished. Between January 2000 and November 2003, the number of part-time jobholders jumped by 12.3%. This is double the rate of increase for full-time jobholders. Earnings have also been held back by an oversupply of workers compared to the demand. The unemployment rate remained at about 7.5% in late 2003 compared to about 6.5% in early 2000. While there are certainly selected shortages in some job classifications, the labour market remains a buyer's market where workers are competing for the available jobs. Slowing but continued improvement in household incomes This report uses two estimates of household incomes. Both are based on Statistics Canada data, both are expressed in constant 2001$ terms and both are after government transfers and income taxes. The long-term trends for both income series are roughly similar, but certainly not identical. The broken line in Chart 3 shows that average real2 personal disposable incomes per household crawled up to $53,900 in 2003, up very little (about + 0.2%) from the previous year. The small increase in 2003 was much weaker than during the previous two years (+1.4% in 2001 and +1.6% in 2002) and all three years are sharply slower than the 3.6% improvement experienced in 2000. The income gains have been slowing since the spurt brought on by the recovery from the recession of the early 1990s. Taking the long-view, real disposable incomes per household increased by "only" 2.9% from 1989 to 2003. The solid line in Chart 3, is our favourite series, but unfortunately, it is only available up to 2001. Using this series, average real household incomes, advanced by 3.5% in 2001. The increases for this measure will likely show slowing growth in 2002 and 2003 when they do become available.
(Note: Both of these series cover roughly the same group of households but are arrived at using different methods and thus produce somewhat different estimates. The broken line in Chart 3 is derived from the personal sector accounts in the National Accounts produced by Statistics Canada. It is available for most of 2003 and is subject to revisions. The solid line is taken directly from the Income Trends in Canada CD also produced by Statistics Canada. Even though the latter is available with a long delay, it is the preferred source for the examination of families, since it contains a high level of detail by family and household type, income group, age group, province and other characteristics. This source is the basis for the detailed information contained in Table 3, the Appendix Tables A and B that we update each year and all of the Charts 11 to 15.) Massive "over-spending" over the short and long-term Total household spending advanced by 2.7% in real terms in 2003. This rate of increase exceeds by far the small increase (+0.2%) in personal disposable incomes in that same year. And what happened the previous year? Total household spending advanced by 2.2% in real terms in 2002 which was almost one and a half times the increase (+1.6%) in personal disposable incomes in that year. There is a clear pattern. In the short-term, spending growth has far outpaced income growth. This is "over-spending" relative to incomes. The extent of this "over-spending" is best seen over the longer-term. The previous peak in the economy occurred in 1989 when most indicators reached record highs and unemployment was low. This peak was followed by the recession of the early 1990s. The economy has grown since then, in spite of some hesitation during the last two years. Chart 4 indicates that real spending per household soared by 17.4% from 1989 to 2003. Over the same period, real personal disposable incomes per household have grown by "only" 2.9%. Now, that is "over-spending" on a massive scale! Over the long-term, spending grew six times faster than did the incomes to pay for it. How was this possible? The answer is easy. Debt loads soared and savings plummeted! (See Charts 5 and 7)
Overspending? … Or merely trying to keep up? This is a difficult question to answer. It is probably a bit of both "overspending" and trying to keep up. And it surely depends a lot on the characteristics of individuals and groups of households and families. Much of this spending was driven by demographics as a wave of baby boomers, aged 23 to 42 in 1989 and 37 to 56 in 2003, were passing through their peak spending years.3 From a long-term perspective (from 1989 to 2003), the biggest spending increase (in the 50% range), was for the major expenditure category that includes recreation, entertainment, education and cultural spending. Some of this may have been "frivolous" but much of it reflects the rising costs of tuition fees, sports fees, movie tickets, the boom in electronic games, etc. Real spending on medical and health services also jumped by about 50% from 1989 to 2003. This clearly reflects the lower level of coverage for some medical services, reductions in drug plan coverage, fewer eye care programs and rising public and private health care premiums. At the other end of the spectrum, real expenditures on food, beverages and tobacco actually dropped by 2.8% between 1989 and 2003 while clothing and footwear expenditures increased by only 3.1%. Whatever the reasons, be they economic, demographic, psychological and other, spending has clearly outpaced the capacity of households to finance it. Canadians may have been lured into more debt by easier access to credit and lower interest rates. Somehow, households must now try to find a better balance between what they bring in and what they spend.
Savings rate dives to a record low How low is too low? In 1989 and during the early 1990s, Canadian households were able to save about 13% of their after tax incomes. In real 2001 dollar terms this was equal to about $8,000 per year.
The annual savings ratio began to fall in 1994 and then plummeted to about 2% in 2003 or to less than $2,000. The annual savings level in 2003 was only one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s. Even worse, the savings ratio fell to only 1.3% during the third quarter of 2003 … its lowest level in more than 40 years. (Note: Calculations of the savings ratio are subject to significant revision.) Another clear indicator of an inability to keep up and to save is seen in the patterns of participation and contribution to one of Canada's favourite savings instruments, the RRSP (Registered Retirement Savings Plan). In 1997, about 30% of all taxfilers contributed to an RRSP. This ratio slipped to about 27% in 2002. And the contributions are getting smaller. In 1997, households, on average, contributed about $2,500 per year to RRSPs. By 2002, this average investment had fallen to about $2,000. This is in spite of the fact that RRSPs are marketed heavily and that they provide immediate tax relief. (Note: This calculation is in constant 2001$ and includes both contributors and non-contributors). From 1997 to 2003, average contributions shrank for all income groups. The biggest decline (down by about 25%) in average contributions was among taxfilers with less than $20,000 in annual incomes. These are the households that are closest to the "edge" and getting closer. Average contributions by male taxfilers fell by about 11% from 1997 to 2003, while average contributions by female taxfilers fell by about 2%.
The average debt held by Canadian households has now risen for 12 consecutive years. It reached $64,000 in 2003, measured in constant 2001$. This is up 3.2% from 2002 and up by 34.8% from 1989. (See Table 2 for details.) Consumer credit has increased by over 5% in real terms during each of the last six years and is now 48% higher than in 1989. In spite of the strong housing market and refinancing, growth in mortgage debt has advanced by "only" 2.5% in 2003 and 28.1% from 1989. The sum of consumer credit and mortgage debt is shown as the dotted line in Chart 7. All other debt (lines of credit, unincorporated business debt, money owed to investment dealers, money owed to family, etc) has risen more slowly in recent years but is still up by 43.9% from 1989. Many analysts exclude the "other" debt in their calculations and thus give an incomplete and perhaps misleading picture. The solid line is the proper measure of household debt, especially when it is measured relative to personal disposable incomes. Our previous reports have always shown the total debt measure.
How much debt is too much debt? This is the question that many have raised over the last several years. How much debt can households manage in the short-term? How much annual income do households have relative to their total debt loads? How many liquid and readily accessible assets do households have with which to pay expenses and manage their debt loads in times of distress, such as unemployment? The dotted line in Chart 8 clearly shows that total consumer credit debt plus mortgage debt are now equal to 103% of household incomes. This is up from 79% in 1989. If you add in the other types of debt noted above, that are owed by households, then the ratio of total debt to incomes now stands at 119% compared to 91% in 1989. Both of these ratios are now at record levels and rising. In the short-term, households can manage their expenses by reducing the cash they hold in bank accounts, selling shares and/or other liquid assets. Let's make the assumption that households can access all savings except those in pension accounts and in life insurance. (Even so, some people do cash-in RRSPs in difficult times.) This ratio of total debt to non-pension financial assets is plotted as the bottom line in Chart 8. This ratio is now at 56% compared to 49% in 1989. This ratio is also at a record level. It is apparent that the "edge" is getting closer and closer for more and more families and households. And if more evidence is needed, there is another tool with which to calculate the amount of total debt to total assets of households. Predictably, it too set a new high in 2003 with $18.70 of debt for every $100 of assets, up from $17.60 per $100 of assets in 1996. This ratio may seem to be less alarming than the ones examined previously. But, a word of caution! During each of the last two years, over half of the increase in average household assets has been due to rising real estate prices. Real estate values can also move down, as well as up, but the debt acquired to purchase or finance this real estate represents a continuing obligation.
Interest payments are falling … but the total debt burden remains near-record highs Much is made of the fact that record low or near-record low interest rates have made it possible for more people to buy goods and services and still afford to pay the interest on the debt. This is true. Based on estimates supplied by Statistics Canada, interest payments by households now represent 7.4% of personal disposable incomes and this is down from 9.4% during the early 1990s. This is a really good thing and it represents a significant stimulus to the economy.
However, looking only at interest payments leaves out the fact that the debt itself must be paid back at some time, sooner or later. Let's assume that mortgages must be repaid over 25 years and that all other debt (consumer credit and other) must be repaid in 7 years. If this set of assumptions is run through a financial model4 , it can calculate the total financial burden related to both interest payments and the repayment of the money originally borrowed.
When we do so, the "hypothetical" charges of interest and principal are equal to 15.5% of personal disposable incomes and have been near that level for a few years. As such, the total debt burden remains high but still below the 1990 peak. What would it take to get back to the 1990 peak? If interest rates in 2003 had been 2 full-percentage points higher than they were, then interest and principal payments would have been equal to over 17% of personal disposable incomes and this would have surpassed the 1990 record. This is a distinct possibility for the future.
A recent survey by Ipsos-Reid found that half of respondents felt that "they would have great difficulty paying down debt if someone in their household became unemployed." This proportion rose to 60% for households with children5. The latter is consistent with our findings that it is families with children that are nearest to the "edge" and that many more are being forced to have more family members in the paid workforce just to keep up. (See Chart 2)
Another survey for the Canadian Council on Social Development found that some 42% of working-age Canadians could not sustain themselves for more than three months on current savings "if you or your spouse lost your jobs". In the 2002 survey, the average length of time that respondents could sustain themselves was 10.4 months compared to 11.3 months recorded in a similar survey6 in 2001.
Will rising interest rates break the piggy bank? Given the record debt loads, the future of interest rates is key to the future of household finances. The latest Economic and Fiscal Update7 by the Department of Finance suggests that "short-term interest rates (3-month Treasury bill rate) are expected to average 2.9% in both 2003 and 2004 before rising to 4.1% in 2005." The Department also stated that private sector forecasters project a rise in long-term rates (10-year Government of Canada bond rate) from an average of 4.8% in 2003 to 5.4% in 2005. On the other hand, some forecasters now believe that interest rates may actually fall before they begin to rise again. If these forecasts of rising interest rates are anywhere near the mark, there may be moderate increases in interest payments for households in the near-term. As such, most households will likely continue to have some difficulty in meeting their debt obligations but they will be able to avoid a debt crunch. In contrast, a rapid increase in interest rates would spell disaster for many households. Highly indebted households may be getting some breathing room to get their income and spending patterns into better alignment. The time to do this is … now. A recent demographic report by the author suggests that "if governments can keep their deficits in line, the era of relatively low interest rates should be here for several more years". Based strictly on household age trends, the demand for debt will slow in five to ten years while the value of assets will continue to increase. This will likely keep interest rates low and put an upward trend on stock market values. Significant short-term fluctuations are likely before these long-term trends take hold.8 Bankruptcies nearing record levels For many, the "edge" has come and gone. The number of consumer bankruptcies increased sharply from 1989 to 1997, when they peaked at an all-time high of 85,300. Bankruptcies then declined a bit for a few years. In spite of large employment increases, bankruptcies have resumed their upward trend and in 2003 were back up within a few thousand from setting a new record. This is the most extreme indicator pointing to the growing reality that many households are indeed very near the precipice.
Over half of recent increase in assets has been in real estate The value of household assets increased by about 2% per year, in real terms, over the last three years. Most of this increase has come as the result of major increases in the value of real estate. During both 2002 and 2003, the increase in the value of real estate has been responsible for over half of the total increase in household assets. The value of consumer durables, pushed up by motor vehicles, furniture and appliances has also increased strongly during the last two years. The low interest rates and relatively strong employment conditions have been behind these surges. Over the long-term from 1989 to 2003, the strongest advance in assets has been for shares (+93%) and for holdings in life insurance and pension programs (+60%). Both of these fell back in 2002. Share values improved in 2003 and life insurance and pension programs are about to do so. Net worth (total assets minus total debt) per household shrank during both 1990 and 1991 but has improved every year since then. Net worth per household increased by 1.5% in 2003 to stand at almost $280,000 per household. As is the case with incomes, net worth is not evenly distributed. In 1999, the richest 20% of households held about two-thirds of all the household wealth and the bottom half of all households held about 10%.9
A CLOSER LOOK AT FAMILY FINANCES TO 2001 Transfers and huge income tax cuts produce hefty increase in family incomes Incomes after government transfers and after income taxes for families of two or more persons advanced by a strong 3.4% in 2001. As such, family incomes moved just above $58,000 in 2001. This followed another hefty increase of 3% in 2000. This brought incomes to another new record high and some 10% above the 1989 peak. Most of the analysis in the rest of this report and in Appendix A and Appendix B are derived from the Income in Canada series for which the latest information is 2001.
Market incomes advanced more slowly (+0.8%) in 2001 as labour markets slowed. Government transfers moved up (+3.3%) after four consecutive years of declines. The biggest factor in rising incomes was the huge (-8.2%) cut in income tax payments. It is noteworthy that income tax payments, in real terms, were only 1.5% higher in 2001 than they were in 1989. The after transfer and after income tax incomes of unattached individuals improved by 3.6% in 2001 and were 6.5% higher than during the previous peak in the economy in 1989. (See Appendix A)
Most family types made income gains Appendix A shows the historical and the latest levels and the percentage increases and decreases in incomes (after government transfers and income taxes) for various types of families and unattached individuals. Some groups did much better than average:
A few groups fell behind relative to incomes and some barely held their own:
The low-income (poverty) rate improved a bit more About 7.6% of all families of two or more persons were living in low-income (poverty) circumstances in 2001. This was the 5th consecutive year of improvement registered by this indicator since the shameful 10.7% peak reached in 1996. The rate in 2001 was almost back down to that experienced in 1989. See Appendix B for a detailed look at poverty rates among various types of families and individuals. Canada does not have an "official" poverty rate and so most analysts use this low-income measure, produced by Statistics Canada, as a proxy for the poverty rate. Recent attempts to improve on this low-income measure, using what is called a Market Basket Measure have found that poverty rates may be even higher than that estimated using the low-income measure. In 2000, the poverty rate for families of two or more persons was 7.9% according to the low-income measure but 10.7% using the new Market Basket Measure10. This surprised many critics, who had argued that the low-income measure was overestimating the hardship experienced by those with incomes below the low-income cutoff lines. As it now appears, the opposite may be true.
While the poverty rate declined a bit in 2001, the amount needed to get out of poverty for those below the low-income cut-offs grew sharply. In 2001, those families living in poverty were, on average, some $7,200 below the poverty line, some 4.7% further away than they were in 2000. This poverty gap grew by 12.8% since 1989. (See Appendix B.) The gap also widened for unattached individuals. The range of family poverty rates for 2001 runs from a high of 43.1% for families where the major income earner is under the age of 25 to a low of 1.6% for families without children living at home and with two income earners.
Compared to 1989, there have been significant reductions in poverty rates for several groups.
Two groups have experienced major increases in poverty rates.
Over 3 million Canadians living in poverty References to percentages, poverty rates and low-income cut-offs tend to soften the reality of poverty. Behind all of these numbers and measures are real people who are suffering real hardships. In 2001, some 3.2 million of our fellow citizens were living in poverty. This is down from roughly 4 million in both 1996 and 1997 but still higher than the 2.7 million in 1989. The largest group of people living in poverty are adults, aged 18-64, with some 2.1 million currently in this situation. The really bad news is that the actual number of adults living in poverty is up by over one-third since 1989. Many of these are the "working poor" striving away at minimum or near-minimum wage jobs. Some 786,000 children under the age of 18 are living in poverty. This is a marked improvement from the 1.2 million in this situation in 1996 but a bit higher (not lower) than the number in 1989. About 271,000 adults aged 65 and over are currently living in poverty. This is the only group where the number in 2001 is lower than it was in 1989 … an actual decline of 13%.
For many, poverty is temporary Contrary to public opinion, poverty is usually temporary. Someone can be unemployed one year but employed at a well-paying job the next year. Divorce and separation may cause dramatic changes in economic conditions. Educational periods with no or limited incomes may push people into poverty. In contrast, some people may be more or less "trapped" in a permanent low-income situation. For example, a sole supporter in a family would still be living in poverty even if he or she had a full-time job for a full-year at a minimum wage job. These are Canada's working poor. Persons on a low fixed income may remain in poverty on an ongoing basis. Statistics Canada has tracked how long people remained in low-income (poverty) over an entire six-year period from 1996 to 2001. During the period, some 24.3% of Canadians lived in poverty for at least one year. Those aged 18-24 were the most likely (38.2%) to have experienced low-income (poverty) at some time during the six-year period. These are young people completing their formal education, moving in and out of the labour market, having babies, travelling and generally being highly mobile. But, now for the rest of the story! These young people were the least likely of any age group to have lived in poverty during every one of the six years … only 2% lived in poverty every year during the entire six-year period. In contrast, people in the 65 and over age group were the least likely (14%) to have lived in poverty at some time during the six-year period but those who did were the most likely (4.2%) to have suffered through six years of continuous poverty. This older group has the most difficulty getting out of poverty once they fall into this situation.
Appendix A reveals that the share of the total income pie is increasingly going to the top 20% of families. In 1989, the top 20% of families got about 36.9% of all after tax family incomes in the nation. This share rose gradually to 39.2% by 2001.
Over the same period, the share going to the poorest 20% of families dipped from 7.7% to 7.1%. The share going to the lower-middle group fell from 13.6% to 12.7%. The share going to the middle group fell from 18.2% to 17.6%. The share going to the upper-middle group also fell from 23.6% to 23.4%. The pattern is clear. In the short-term, the richest 20% of families increased their share of the total income pie during both 2000 and 2001. In 1989, the average after government transfer and income tax incomes of the richest 20% of families was 4.8 times the average income of the poorest 20% of families. This rose to a new high of 5.5 times by 2001. Thanks for reading this report. Pass it on to others.For previous year's reports please visit www.vifamily.ca/library/cft/cft.html.We will be back next year.
Statistics Canada data sources used in this report.
Note: Household numbers for the years 1989 to 2001 are derived from Statistics Canada, Income in Canada, 2001. Household numbers for 2002 and 2003 are assumed to grow at the same percentage rate as in 2001.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
