-Caveat Lector-
an excerpt from:
The Founding Fortunes
Michael Patrick Allen�1987
All rights reserved.
E. P Dutton
ISBN 0-525-48484-1
-----
An excellant and interesting book.
Om
K
--[2]--
WEALTH AND POWER
The conscious pursuit of obscurity by many members of the corporate rich has
rendered them practically invisible to the public at large. Nevertheless, they
continue to exercise a pervasive and significant influence in American
politics. The power inherent in great wealth is especially evident in the
arena of campaign financing. As early as 1937, Ferdinand Lundberg documented
that individuals from wealthy capitalist families were regular and substantial
contributors to the campaigns of presidential candidates. He also confirmed
that the bulk of these contributions went to the candidates of the Republican
party. This financial bond between presidential candidates and wealthy
campaign contributors has remained virtually unchanged for several decades.
According to Herbert E. Alexander, a prominent scholar of campaign financing,
the members of just twelve wealthy families contributed at least $3.6 million
to the presidential campaign of 1972. Of course, most of these funds went to
the Republican party. Indeed, the disclosure of illegal contributions during
that campaign eventually forced Congress to pass a series of campaign-
financing reforms in 1974. Although these reforms limit the amount of money
that individuals can contribute directly to a candidate for federal office,
they still permit individuals to contribute to a number of political action
committees, even if they all endorse the same candidate. Moreover, individuals
are allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money on independent
advertisements and commercials. Despite the intent of recent campaign-
financing reforms, then, the members of the corporate rich are still a major
source of political campaign contributions.
The power of wealth is all too obvious whenever the scion of a
wealthy capitalist family seeks elected office. Political campaigns at both
the state and the national levels have become so expensive that the rich
possess an often decisive advantage over their less affluent opponents. Recent
campaign-financing reforms did not place any lim-its on the amount of money
that candidates can spend on their own campaigns. Senator John C. Danforth of
Missouri, a member of the family that founded Ralston Purina Company, and
Senator Henry J. Heinz III of Pennsylvania, a great-grandson of the original
H. J. Heinz, were both able to rely on their own financial resources during
their initial campaigns. In many cases, the scions of wealthy families who
enter electoral politics also benefit from the immediate name recognition
accorded their family. This combination of personal wealth and name
recognition enabled three members of one corporate rich family, two brothers
and their nephew, to win gubernatorial campaigns in three different states:
Nelson Rockefeller in New York, Winthrop Rockefeller in Arkansas, and John D.
Rockefeller IV in West Virginia. The voters were unlikely to forget a
candidate named
Rockefeller. It did not matter to them that much of this name recogni-tion was
probably attributable to the stigma once associated with that name. Although
the scions of wealthy capitalist families usually win their elections, there
are exceptions. For example, Mark Dayton, the great-grandson of the founder of
Dayton Hudson, was defeated in his recent bid for the Senate. However, his
defeat was probably the result of his somewhat radical views, which alienated
even some members of his own family. Money cannot always buy high office, but
it is rarely
a serious hindrance.
Wealthy capitalist families also exert a powerful influence on American
society in less direct and more subtle ways. They are, of course, directly
involved in the economic activities of the nation as a result of their
position as principal stockholders in many major corporations. Members of
corporate rich families often serve as officers and directors of these
corporations. Consequently, these families often exercise effective control
over some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world. Through
these corporations, they are able to influence policies, at both the local and
the national levels, that affect their economic interests. Members of the
corporate rich often exert a great deal of influence at the local level, even
in large cities. For example, Henry Ford 11, as chairman of Ford Motor
Company, was instrumental in the development of the huge Renaissance Center in
downtown Detroit. Indeed, he saw to it that Ford Motor Company became one of
the earliest and largest investors in this development. The political process
operates in much the same way at the national level. During that same period,
for example, Henry Ford II organized a national campaign against the passage
of stringent federal automobile safety and pollution standards. In order to
get media coverage of the industry position, Ford sought the assistance of an
old acquaintance, Arthur 0. Sulzberger, the scion of another corporate rich
family and the publisher of The New York Times. The most influential newspaper
in the country soon printed a front-page story that detailed the opposition of
the industry to this legislation. As a result of this campaign, Congress
passed only relatively lenient safety and pollution standards for automobiles.
The corporate rich also exercise considerable influence at both the local and
the national levels through the activities of the large philanthropic
foundations endowed and controlled by their families. These foundations
dispense hundreds of millions of dollars each year to an array of public
institutions and charitable organizations. As trustees and officers of these
foundations, the corporate rich often direct resources to those projects that
are most consistent with their economic interests. At the local level,
foundations can generate much goodwill for a corporation and its founding
family by donating large sums of money to charitable organizations that serve
the community. For example, the Lilly Endowment, which is a major stockholder
in Eli Lilly and Company and which still has a descendant of the founder among
its trustees, has contributed generously to hospitals and charities in the
city of Indianapolis. Foundations also enable the corporate rich to exercise
considerable influence at the level of national politics.
These families may use foundation money to support policy groups that espouse
their own brand of political ideology. In recent years, for example,
conservative institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, the
Hoover Institution, and the Heritage Foundation have received large donations
from foundations, like the Richardson Foundation and the John M. Olin
Foundation, which are controlled by families with extremely conservative
social and political views. Many of the policy advisers to President Reagan
once received grants, either directly or indirectly, from these same
foundations.
Debates about the economic and political power of wealthy capitalist families
typically revolve around the question of whether or not these families
comprise a "ruling class." In its most extreme form, the ruling class thesis
argues that there exists a cohesive group, comprising the corporate rich and
their allies, which effectively controls government at every level. There can
be little doubt that, as a result of their shared economic interests, the
corporate rich constitute a distinct social class. The crucial issue is
whether this capitalist class rules in the sense that it exercises a decisive
influence in American politics. Some evidence for the ruling class thesis is
found in the fact that members of the corporate rich often occupy important
positions in American society. However, only a few of the scions of the
wealthy capitalist families ever seek a career in either business or politics.
Consequently, most of the positions of authority in government and business
are filled by members of a managerial elite chosen primarily on the basis of
their expertise and experience. Nevertheless, proponents of the ruling class
thesis assert that this managerial elite is, in the final analysis, nothing
more than an instrument of the capitalist class because these elites and the
organizations they represent have the same economic interests as the members
of the capitalist class. For example, both the capitalist class and the
managerial elite within large business corporations advocate minimal
regulation and taxation by the federal government. They also share a common
interest in the maintenance of corporate profits by sustaining the growth of
the entire economy.
In recent years, political sociologists have focused their attention on some
of the mechanisms by which the capitalist class exercises its power in
American society. One of these mechanisms involves the ability of the
corporate rich to control the political agenda in such a way as to prevent
issues contrary to their economic interests from gaining any degree of public
legitimacy. They are able to exercise such a degree of ideological hegemony
because much of the news available to the population at large is produced by
large media corporations, many of which are controlled directly by wealthy
capitalist families. For example, several of the most influential newspapers
in the country, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los
Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune, are owned by corporations that are
still subject to some degree of control by their founding families. These and
other large media corporations also own and operate most of the radio and
television stations in the major metropolitan markets. Needless to say, these
newspapers and radio and television stations do not devote much attention to
issues and policies that challenge the fundamental economic interests of the
corporate rich and the large corporations that are the basis of their wealth
and power. In short, Americans live in a democratic society in which the
political agenda has been set by organizations subject to the control of a
small but powerful minority. As G. William Domhoff puts it, "legally, the
government is of all of us, but members of the upper class have the
predominant, all-pervasive influence."
SURVIVAL STRATEGIES
It is not so much the existence of corporate rich families, as it is their
persistence over several generations, that raises important issues of public
policy. Some of the wealthiest and most powerful families in America today,
such as the Rockefellers and the Fords, were also extremely wealthy and
powerful over a half century ago. As families, their role in the economic and
political affairs of the country has diminished only slightly in recent
decades. Indeed, most corporate rich families have managed to keep their
fortunes virtually intact for generations despite the existence of formally
progressive gift and estate taxes. However, the emergence of each new
generation has invariably transformed the kinship structure of these families.
Most of the established corporate rich families are much larger than they were
even a generation ago. Families that were once composed largely of siblings
are now composed primarily of individuals who are no more than cousins to one
another. As a result of the continual redistribution of wealth within these
families, the members of each new generation have less wealth than the members
of previous generations. Similarly, the family companies that provided the
bases for these family fortunes have generally grown into large corporations.
Although founding families have remained principal stockholders in many of
these corporations, most of them have gradually relinquished the actual
management of these corporations to others. In short, time has taken its toll
on the corporate rich. Each successive generation of family members has been
forced to adapt to a series of inexorable historical developments.
The historical evolution of corporate rich families can perhaps best be
understood in terms of the theory of social reproduction advanced by the
renowned French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu. He was one of the first
researchers to note that the members of wealthy capitalist families employ
strategies of social reproduction in order to enhance and perpetuate their
position in society. According to this perspective, the status of individuals
depends on the degree to which they possess three distinct forms of capital.
The first type of capital, of course, is economic capital in the form of
property. Economic capital is essential because it determines the ability of
an individual to accumulate other forms of capital. Another form of capital is
cultural capital, which consists essentially of the patterns of speech, dress,
and behavior typical of the upper class in a society. In his study of upper-
class society in Philadelphia, for example, E. Digby Baltzell discovered
differences in both accent and word usage, as well as differences in dress,
which serve to distinguish members of the upper class from the rest of the
population. A third form of capital is social capital, which consists of the
network of social contacts accumulated by an individual. In other words,
social capital comprises ties to friends and relatives. For example, another
observer of upper-class society in Philadelphia, Nathaniel Burt, noted that
each member of the upper class has a position within a web of social contacts
in which "everybody is related and connected to each other."
The distinction between various forms of capital explains the basic
relationship between the capitalist class and the upper class in America. By
virtue of their position as major stockholders in large corporations,
corporate rich families are at the heart of the capitalist class. In the words
of Karl Marx, these families represent the grande bourgeoisie, the richest and
most powerful segment of the capitalist class. As such, they are not to be
confused with the members of the considerably less affluent and less powerful
petite bourgeoisie, which consists of countless small businessmen and
merchants. Despite their enormous wealth, corporate rich families are not
always incorporated into the upper class. Although there is much overlap
between the capitalist class and the upper class, membership in the upper
class is a matter of social status rather than mere wealth. Indeed, many
established upper-class families possess relatively modest fortunes.
Conversely, some of the wealthiest individuals in the country are not welcome
within certain upper-class social circles. Within the social upper class, with
its emphasis on the prestige and status of a family, the size of a family
fortune is less important than its age. As Nathaniel Burt observed of upper-
class society in Philadelphia, "inherited money is better than made money." If
the members of a corporate rich family aspire to high social status, they must
be prepared to accumulate cultural and social capital commensurate with their
economic capital. In short, nothing succeeds like money, manners, and
connections.
In order to accumulate the appropriate cultural capital, members of wealthy
capitalist families often send their children to expensive private schools,
beginning with local day schools. Most large metropolitan areas have private
day schools that are roughly the educational equivalent of public elementary
schools. However, the most important stage in the accumulation of cultural
capital is attendance at a preparatory school. Prep schools are the
educational, if not the social, equivalents of high school. They provide their
students with all of the educational advantages that money can buy, including
small classes and posh instructional and recreational facilities. Prep schools
are generally boarding schools, where students live in dormitories during the
school year, although most accept a few day students from the local area.
There are literally scores of prep schools scattered across the country, but a
few are better than most, at least in terms of their prestige. Only a few of
the most established, like Phillips Exeter, St. Paul's, and Groton, are
genuine citadels of upper-class culture. Although several private prep schools
now accept girls as well as boys, many girls still attend exclusive finishing
schools, such as Foxcroft, St. Timothy's, and Miss Porter's. Prep schools and
finishing schools provide their students with cultural capital by inculcating
them with the values and norms of the upper class. According to E. Digby
Baltzell, "these private educational institutions serve the latent function of
acculturating the members of the younger generation, particularly those not
quite to the manor [sic] born, into an upper-class style of life."
Another step in the accumulation of cultural capital is attendance at a
suitable elite private university. The private university provides many of the
same functions of the exclusive prep school, except that it does so on a
larger scale and at a more selective level. The most prestigious universities
are still those associated with the revered Ivy League. However, even some Ivy
League schools are better than others, at least with respect to their prestige
value. In terms of attendance by the scions of upper-class families, the most
exclusive universities are Princeton, Yale, and Harvard. Only slightly less
prestigious are a number of private universities such as Pennsylvania,
Stanford, Cornell, and Brown. Although elite private colleges and universities
are generally known for their stringent admissions standards, exceptions are
routinely made for the scions of wealthy families, particularly those from
families that have contributed or might someday contribute generously to the
school. Even within the confines of these exclusive schools, the scions of
upper-class families are often segregated from their less affluent peers by
their membership in even more exclusive "eating clubs" and secret societies.
As E. Digby Baltzell notes, "an intricate system of exclusive clubs, like
fraternities on less rarefied American campuses, serves to insulate the
members of the upper class from the rest of the students at Harvard, Yale, and
Princeton." At Harvard there are a handful of prestigious eating clubs such as
the Porcellian, A.D., and Fly. Not to be outdone, Yale has its prestigious
secret societies such as Scroll and Key, and Skull and Bones.
Private schools provide their students with more than just cultural capital.
They also provide them with valuable social capital in terms of the
friendships and acquaintances that students form with their classmates, many
of whom are also the scions of wealthy and socially prominent families. In
short, attendance at an exclusive prep school and acceptance into an exclusive
club at a private elite university provide an individual with valuable social
contacts that can be relied on in later life. Social capital can also be
accumulated, of course, by marriage into another wealthy or socially prominent
family. This matrimonial strategy for accumulating social capital accounts, at
least in part, for the high degree of endogamy within the upper class. In the
end, only those individuals who possess the appropriate cultural and social
capital, as well as sufficient economic capital, are likely to gain acceptance
into the most exclusive circles of upper-class society. Perhaps the final
validation of membership within- the American upper class occurs when the
scions of these wealthy families gain acceptance to one or more exclusive
metropolitan social clubs or country clubs. Of course, the most exclusive
social clubs are those located in the oldest metropolitan cities, such as New
York, Boston, and Philadelphia, but there are comparable clubs of roughly
equal status at the local level in other major cities, such as Pittsburgh,
Chicago, and San Francisco. In New York, the most exclusive clubs are The
Links and the Knickerbocker; and the Philadelphia and Rittenhouse clubs enjoy
comparable status in Philadelphia. In other cities, a country club such as the
St. Louis Country Club, the Woodhill Country Club in Minneapolis, or the
Everglades Club in Palm Beach may become the center of the local upper-class
society.
In general, the strategies of social reproduction designed to accumulate the
necessary cultural and social capital encompass more than one generation. As a
rule, the process of elevating a nouveau riche capitalist family to the status
of an established "old wealth" family commonly requires a couple of
generations. For example, John D. Rockefeller gave hundreds of millions of
dollars to charity, but he was considered an undesirable arriviste by most
members of the American upper class because the family bore the stigma of its
association with the infamous Standard Oil Trust. In addition to his famous
philanthropic activities, John D. Rockefeller took a number of steps to ensure
that his children and grandchildren would not be denied access to the upper
class. His son, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., attended several prep schools before
being sent to Brown University. Moreover, in order to avoid any social stigma,
the son was never connected officially with any of the Standard Oil companies,
even though the family was the largest stockholder in those corporations. As a
result of these steps, as well as his marriage into a socially and politically
prominent family, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., became accepted as a provisional
member of upper-class society. His children, of course, were even more secure
in their acceptance within the upper class. The grandsons of the original
founder of the family fortune attended exclusive preparatory schools and elite
private universities. Several of them eventually gained acceptance to the most
exclusive social clubs. In some cases, the integration of the Rockefeller
grandchildren into the upper class was expedited by marriages with the scions
of other socially prominent upper-class families.
HIDDEN FORTUNES
Very little is known with certainty about most corporate rich families or
their fortunes. The reason, of course, is that the members of these families
want all the advantages of being rich without any of the disadvantages of
being famous. As a rule, the members of wealthy capitalist families refuse to
divulge even the most rudimentary details of their wealth. Moreover, the
secrecy that surrounds many of the largest fortunes often extends to the
families that own these fortunes as well. In order to maintain their
anonymity, the members of corporate rich families typically refuse to disclose
even basic biographical information about themselves. Many of the richest
Americans are not listed in Who's Who in America, simply because they refuse
to provide the editors of this directory with any biographical information.
One extreme example of this obsession with secrecy is the Mars family, which
owns and manages Mars Inc., one of the largest food companies in the country.
Although the company spends heavily to advertise its products, Forrest E. Mars
and his three children, who control almost all of the stock in the company and
are its only directors, have not granted any interviews to journalists in many
years. There are not even any current pictures available of Forrest Mars or
his children. Other corporate rich families that have demonstrated a similar
obsession with secrecy include the Lillys, Pews, Klebergs, and Basses. As a
result, some of the wealthiest families in America have achieved almost
complete anonymity, despite the fact that they exercise enormous power as a
result of their control over many major corporations and philanthropic
foundations.
The first obstacle to any systematic analysis of the corporate rich is one of
identification. In order to identify the wealthiest capitalist families in
America, it is necessary to examine systematically those reports issued by
large corporations that contain information about their directors and
principal stockholders. All large corporations with more than five hundred
stockholders are required to comply with the disclosure requirements imposed
by the Securities and Exchange Commission. To begin with, these corporations
are required to disclose the amount of stock owned or controlled by each of
their directors. They are also required to disclose the identities of their
principal stockholders of record, defined as any person or institution that
owns or controls more than 5 percent of any class of corporation stock. This
requirement to identify major stockholders of record does not necessarily
reveal the identities of the beneficial owners of that stock. For example,
proxy statements issued by The Gannett Company over the past several years
have disclosed that about 10 percent of its common stock was held of record by
Lincoln First Bank of Rochester but did not identify the beneficial owners of
this stock. An analysis of earlier reports issued by The Gannett Company
reveals that most of this stock is held in a series of trusts for the benefit
of the widow and two children of Frank E. Gannett, the founder of the company.
The identities of the beneficial owners of this stock were revealed in 1969
only because Caroline W. Gannett, the widow of the founder, served as a
director of the corporation at the time.
Furthermore, the stockholdings disclosed by individual directors are often
misleading simply because they are required to reveal only the number of
shares owned or controlled by them and the members of their immediate family.
The regulations promulgated by the SEC define immediate family members as
those individuals who share the same household with the director. Normally,
this requirement includes only the stockholdings of the director, his or her
spouse, and their minor children and excludes the stockholdings of their adult
children. For example, William L. McKnight, as the chairman of Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company, disclosed that he and his wife owned 7.6
percent of the company stock as of 1972. He did not disclose the stockholdings
of his adult daughter, Virginia McKnight Binger, because she maintained her
own household. Only after his son-in-law was elected as a director the
following year was it disclosed that Virginia McKnight Binger and her
immediate family held another 1.6 percent of the stock in Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company. Moreover, these disclosure requirements do not usually
pertain to collateral relatives such as siblings and cousins. For example, two
of the current directors of Dow Chemical Company are grandchildren of its
founder, Herbert H. Dow. According to a recent proxy statement issued by the
company, these two directors own only about I percent of the stock in Dow
Chemical. However, earlier disclosures by the company indicate that twelve
other members of the Dow family, most of them either siblings or cousins of
these two directors, probably own at least another 5 percent of Dow Chemical
stock.
Information about the stockholdings of founding families is also revealed in
the prospectuses that corporations must file whenever their principal
stockholders sell part of their stock to the public through secondary
offerings. The SEC requires that the sale of a large block of stock by the
principal stockholders of a public company must be conducted through a
registered secondary offering instead of through private sales. Furthermore,
the prospectus issued in connection with such a secondary offering must
disclose the stockholdings of any principal stockholders as well as the
stockholdings of those individuals and institutions participating in the stock
offering. For example, when The Upjohn Company, a large pharmaceutical firm,
applied for a listing on the New York Stock Exchange in 1958, it filed a
prospectus for a secondary offering of its stock held by several family
members as well as a few minority stockholders. In addition to providing
information on the financial condition of the company, this prospectus
revealed that the descendants of the founder, William E. Upjohn, and his
nephew owned over 71 percent of the Upjohn stock at the time. It also listed
the exact stockholdings of thirty-four individuals, most of them members of
the Upjohn family, as well as the stockholdings of twenty-two fiduciary agents
for various family trusts, estates, and foundations. Subsequent secondary
offerings of Upjohn stock in later years revealed the stockholdings of still
other members of the Upjohn family. The reports issued by the company over the
past several years indicate that, even after selling roughly $280 million in
company stock, family members probably still own nearly 30 percent of Upjohn
stock.
In the absence of secondary offerings, it is necessary to infer the proportion
of company stock held by the founding family from the stockholdings disclosed
by those family members who serve as directors of the family corporation.
However, these inferences must be based on information about the exact
position of these individuals within the family as a whole. Fortunately, it is
usually possible to glean the requisite information from biographical
articles, family histories, obituaries, and other genealogical records. For
example, recent proxy statements issued by Cabot Corporation, a specialty
chemical company, have indicated only that three of its directors owned
roughly 5 percent of its stock. These reports failed to mention that these
directors were all grandsons of Godfrey L. Cabot, the founder of the company.
Indeed, a complete genealogy of the Cabot family shows that there are
seventeen Cabot grandchildren. On the basis of this genealogical information,
as well as information revealed in a secondary offering of Cabot stock by
several descendants of the founder in 1968, it is possible to infer that the
Cabots still own about 45 percent of Cabot stock. Similarly, proxy statements
issued in recent years by Potlatch Corporation, a forest-products firm, have
only indicated that four of its directors owned close to 7 percent of its
stock. These reports did not indicate that these four directors were all
either descendants or the spouses of descendants of Frederick Weyerhaeuser.
Only after another company proposed to acquire Potlatch did the company
disclose that members of the founding family still owned roughly 40 percent of
its stock.
In many cases, it is possible to trace the stockholdings of a company founder
and his descendants over several decades. Any such historical analysis of the
specific stockholdings and aggregate wealth of a family must take into account
the effects of any stock distributions, the cumulative dividend income paid on
such stock, the proceeds received from stock sales, and the taxes paid by
family members. For example, as the result of numerous stock splits, the $3
million in International Business Machines stock held by Thomas J. Watson and
his wife in 1938 would now be worth over $1.4 billion. Moreover, the Watson
family would have received over $480 million in dividends on their IBM stock
during that same period. These initial estimates of the wealth of the family
are only heuristic because the Watsons, like most corporate rich families,
have diversified much of their fortune by selling some of their stock in the
family corporation and reinvesting the proceeds in other stocks, bonds, and
real estate. In point of fact, the extent of diversification by a founding
family can often be deduced from secondary offerings by individual family
members or inferred from private sales of company stock reported by those
members of the founding family who serve as directors of the corporation. In
addition, information obtained from corporate reports can be collated with
information on charitable bequests and estate taxes obtained from probate
records. In the case of the Watson family, for example,
Thomas J. Watson, his wife, both of his sons, and the husbands of both of his
daughters served as directors of IBM at one point or another. Indeed, the
available evidence indicates that the Watsons gradually sold over half of
their IBM stock over the past three decades. As a result, the entire Watson
family is actually worth only about $800 million today.
pps. 1-31
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
