Accountancy Forum

Dears

IAS 23 requires to capitalize the costs directly attributable to the acquisition of the asset. (qualifying asset).

IAS 17 requires to recognize the assets subject to finance lease on PV of MLP (other option not intended to be discussed)....

One thing is clear that there is no apparent contradiction between two as the asset subject to finance lease does not fulfills the definition critaria of 'Qualifying asset'.

But what is the rationale of not capitalizing finance charge associated with lease, as it is also un-avoidable directly attibutable cost incurred solely due to acquisition of that asset.

Regards

Ahmed

Dear

The asset which is not a qualifying asset is supposed to be available for use at the date of acquisition (or soon after it), so its financing cost is associated with its operations and not with capitalization activity. Say, if you get such asset on operating lease and pay the rent, whether you will be capitalizing such rents?

If at any corner of the world a qualifying asset will be leased, capitalization of interest will also be allowed, provided that the total capitalized cost does not exceed PV of MLP (which has a purpose as well).

I could not understand what you actually want to ask. If you will explain it will help.

Regards,


KAMRAN.

I donot understand why the finance cost incurred on the acquisition of a qualifying asset is capitalized and why the finance cost incurred on the acquisition of a non qualifying asset is not capitalized.


(After your reply to this question, I hope we will have to discuss whetner the finance costs associated with finance lease are operational costs or the acquisition costs.)

Regards

Ahmed

Dear

In concept, borrowing costs have to be capitalized on borrowed funds in the cost of related asset over the period of construction or period of getting the asset ready for use for intended purpose.

Once the period of construction is over, no further borrowing cost can be capitalized as the qualifying asset starts operating and generating revenue/economic benefit. Such economic benefit is earned against two conceptual costs; the principal portion of borrowed amount used and capitalized (incl some interest during construction phase) and the borrowing cost incurred when asset is put into operational use.

The earlier one is represented in the shape of depreciation and later is obviously interest. These two costs are matched with revenues generated, so nothing can be as such capitalized.

In case the asset is not qualifying, there is no period of construction (presumably) and the asset is supposedly available for use from day 1. So costs are supposed to match revenues and no capitalization is allowed.


Regards,



Kamran.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, san" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kamranACA</i>
<br />
The asset which is not a qualifying asset is supposed to be available for use at the date of acquisition (or soon after it), so its financing cost is associated with its operations and not with capitalization activity.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I believe that this statement is not true for finance leases. The financing cost in case of finance lease to my understanding is not associated with the operations of the asset instead it is associated with the acquisition of asset so is a part of capitalization activity.

The point made by Ahmed appeals me that the finance cost relating to a qualifying asset is capitalized in pursuance with the requirements of IAS 23, and in case of finance lease, financing cost, obviously a directly attributable cost is not capitalized. And, he very aptly makes things simpler in his succeeding post that why only financing cost of qualifying assets are capitalized. Obviously, it has got to have some rationale behind it. However, the reasons provided by Mr. Kamran either are not exactly relevant or to complex for a person with my level of understanding.

Shoaib,

I could not understand if this post in fact is yours. I wish you should have given explanation as well.

IAS-17 and IAS-23 together do not allow what Ahmed is asking. If something is not allowed to be capitalized or deferred in the form of any asset, how you will not find it having any operational inference? I hope you must know that IAS-1 has eliminated the differences of "operating activities" and "non-operating activities" as well in the recent amendments. So, rest assured, now everything is operational that does not qualify for capitlaization.

I wonder how finance cost of leasing arrangement is a capitzalition activity. You acquire an asset on rent and the rent is supposed to be operational expense. What is wrong in it. Just for accounting purpose and to follow substance over form rule, if you are distorting such "rent" into "depreciation" and "finance charge", it will not make you to capitalize any of these two portions of such rental that is being paid for usage of asset.

I guess it is very easy to understand.

I believe you must know that IAS-17 does allow deferring of "Gains arising on Sale and Lease Back arrangements" but together with other explanations in IASs does not at all allow deferring of or capitalizing of the "Loss on Sale and Lease Back arrangement". People used to say that this is a financing arrangement so deferring of loss (or in your words capitalization thereof at least) should be allowed as well. But you know this is not what standards suggest.

We have to treat the things with various concepts given by IFRSs placing them together for making a conclusion. I would suggest Ahmed to study Framework of IFRSs. in my view it is vital to understand what elements we must always keep in view for basing a concept under IFRSs.

In his last post he was curious about why such finance cost cannot be capitalized. My response is easier; IFRSs do not allow it firstly; and secondly, the finance cost attributed to non-qualifying asset is periodic/operational cost and does not come under the ambit of a capitalization activity.

I would look forward to see what suggestions or sloution you have to suggest. If you know something different, please at least share with us so that something better can be concluded.

Regards,


KAMRAN.

Dear Kamran,

The point made here has not been grasped by at least one of us. WHAT IS THE TREATMENT? Its absolutely not the issue here, IFRSs are quite categoric about capitalizing and expensing of finance cost. However at the same time I hope you do understand that there is got to be a rationale behind any accounting treatment described by reporting standards. I hope I need not to clarify it through of examples here. Keeping this point in mind, to my reckoning the question asked here was to know the rationale behind capitalizing only the financing cost related to qualifying asset. For which I am afraid I didn't find any relevant explanation in any of your posts except the following lines in your last post.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, san" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kamranACA</i>
<br />
the finance cost attributed to non-qualifying asset is periodic/operational cost and does not come under the ambit of a capitalization activity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is again is more a conclusion instead of explaining the concept behind. I didn't find the basis of conclusion or dissenting opinions as regards this subject which I believe could have helped to understand the concept.

Coming back to another point
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, san" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Schuaeb</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, san" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kamranACA</i>
<br />
The asset which is not a qualifying asset is supposed to be available for use at the date of acquisition (or soon after it), so its financing cost is associated with its operations and not with capitalization activity.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I believe that this statement is not true for finance leases. The financing cost in case of finance lease to my understanding is not associated with the operations of the asset instead it is associated with the acquisition of asset
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There is no discussion what so ever as regards the treatment of finance cost for non-qualifying assets as per the provisions of IAS 17 & 23, these are very well known. I don't know why you so often base your discussion with an assumptions that the person you are talking to is absolutely ignorant. Referring to the latest quote please be considerate to explain that how financing cost in case of FINANCE LEASE is a cost related to the operations of the asset. Obviously the accounting treatment suggests so, but that is not the point in discussion here.

Digressing from the main point and beating about the bush I don't think suite a PROFESSIONAL. Still I didn't find any relevance of most part of your post with the subject of thread. I suggest you need to get through the entire thread once again with a calm mind.

Shoaib,

I did not find or anticipate you as an “ignorant” because you are an aspirant student and well trained in practical terms as well. I don't know where you found this for yourself. However, the ones who are not ignorant and (also not been deemed as such by any one) should also come up with suggestions. Of course we can be deficient or wrong in our explanation but we have to sort it out as well; so must give it a try. We can get knowledge from each other only by exchanging our viewpoint.

This is what I wrote about you from which you got wrong meanings. Anyway, this is nothing to be discussed any further. I don’t also wish to discuss about your “beating about the bush” stuff that has arisen as a result of different understanding of what I wanted to communicate.

First of all I accept that the developing (and under-developed) nations always look forward the developments of others and oftenly accept and implement the pronouncements ‘as it is’ without any brain storming locally. However, fortunately, in case of IFAC’s pronouncements the case is little different. I appreciate the matter raised by Ahmed since it is offering an opportunity to know something deeply.

I have to visit some one at this very moment, so I will again try to clarify the question in further detail in tomorrow. So, please bear with me and don’t go where things are ruined.

Until then, just a food for thought; the definition of borrowing costs given by IAS-23 includes the Finance Charge in respect of finance lease. Whether or not this borrowing cost is eligible for capitalization will be discussed tomorrow. I will also try to explain (to the extent of my understanding) that why borrowing cost is “only” allowed to be capitalized in Qualifying Assets “only” during the period of their construction. Whether or not IFRSs discuss or cover the matter raised by Ahmed, will also be discussed.

Yes, of course why the borrowing cost specific to non-qualifying assets is out of the ambit of capitalization activity, and is an operational/performance item, will also be pondered upon.

In the mean while it will be good for us if you share your view point and suggest some answer of the query.

Regards



Kamran.

Kamran sb after this post (your last one) at least it can be said that things at last have been understood in same perspective by us. And in my opinion the lack of understanding was primarily at your end, however, by saying this I never intend to undermine your ability to comprehend and explain things. Most of people here while putting such queries impliedly or expressly are looking at you for professional input. However, one thing I always disliked about you is that you lack patience, and in the pursuit of grasping things quickly sometimes you end-up misinterpreting the situation/question.

I infact do have some sort of reasoning of the point in discussion here in my mind but the thoughts yet are not refined enough to be shared. If I got any answer I will surely like to discuss it and will never hold it deliberately until others (including you) give their opinion first. Furthermore, I am well aware of the fact that I'm not at par with you or some of the others for discussing matters like this. Reasons obviously are the difference of professional experience coupled with qualifications.

Meanwhile, I wait for the author of the post that what he comes up with.

Shoaib

I remained busy for the whole day and am exhausted at the moment. However, I wish to reiterate that the explanation of the question raised by Ahmed is too straightforward for a person who is supposed to be conversant with accounting matters. I guess you and Ahmed both should have developed the required concepts and in my view, for both of you things should not appear so illogical and unexplained.

I believe, a person having inside view of this profession could have found required clarification from the previous posts. There was and is no misunderstanding of the issue. When I will reply you at length, I will also make it clear that how previous reply was relevant. So please don’t feel any thing newly invented by you after reading latest post of mine.

In my last post I did nothing but mentioned a few lines how the matter could be arrived at some result; and those few explanatory lines providing a basic roadmap have appealed to your thought. Please go through it or its modified form which you may like to, and you will find nothing new.

Certainly every one could have personalized problems in perceiving, interpreting and expressing the things. There are also no two opinions that every one has to learn life long and can commit mistakes, so I am none of the exceptions. However, you are no authority to make any personalized conclusion as to how do I perceive. Did you ever bother to mention here that how do you perceive, interpret or express. We can discuss it as well, if doing so is the intent of this forum and purpose of the query. I hope it’s not the intent and objective. It could very much be your childish way to discuss a matter or issue. If you wish to ignite something or start some purposeless exchange of sour words, then be informed I am not going to do it with you for the sake of some query on the forum.

I would like to see your view point whenever you will be able to develop it or summarize your findings on it. In the meanwhile I will try to post another reply to the query with particular references from IFRSs. Hopefully after some time in today's evening.


Regards,


KAMRAN.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, san" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kamranACA</i>
<br />Dear

In concept, borrowing costs have to be capitalized on borrowed funds in the cost of related asset over the period of construction or period of getting the asset ready for use for intended purpose.

Once the period of construction is over, no further borrowing cost can be capitalized as the qualifying asset starts operating and generating revenue/economic benefit. Such economic benefit is earned against two conceptual costs; the principal portion of borrowed amount used and capitalized (incl some interest during construction phase) and the borrowing cost incurred when asset is put into operational use.

The earlier one is represented in the shape of depreciation and later is obviously interest. These two costs are matched with revenues generated, so nothing can be as such capitalized.

In case the asset is not qualifying, there is no period of construction (presumably) and the asset is supposedly available for use from day 1. So costs are supposed to match revenues and no capitalization is allowed.


Regards,



Kamran.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Nice and well-explained answer

Dears

The question in hand has two aspects to be considered and replied. Let me have clarified the question first for readers so that the objective is clear beforehand.

QUESTION

The post first asked

“what is rationale of not capitalizing finance cost associated with lease as it is also unavoidable directly attributable cost incurred solely due to acquisition of that asset.

The poster again emphasized his query as under

“why the finance cost incurred on the acquisition of a qualifying asset is capitalized and why the finance cost incurred on the acquisition of a non qualifying asset is not capitalized.”

Another question was

“we will have to discuss whether the finance costs associated with finance lease are operational costs or the acquisition costs.”

ANSWER

I would like to enumerate following in response to the above queries

The matter here being discussed has more significant association with what can be capitalized and until what time such capitalization activity can be continued. So, issue is not merely of “borrowing costs’ or “leases”; rather is mainly of “capitalization” and encompasses the following

- when an asset is recognized;
- what is capitalization (elements of cost of any asset);
- when the capitalization activity has to be ceased;
- what is directly attributable acquisition cost;
- what is borrowing costs and whether or not finance cost associated with lease is its part;
- which borrowing cost is eligible for capitalization;
- why borrowing cost is eligible to be capitalized only in qualifying assets;
- when capitalization of borrowing cost has to be stopped even in a qualifying asset;
- what would be the nature of a borrowing cost that is not allowed to be capitalized;
- what would be the nature of borrowing cost (even on funds obtained for capitalization) after the date when qualifying asset has been completed.

There may arise some more issues connected with the query. However, the core issues will remain same.

Regarding the recognition of an asset and the nature of components of costs that are allowed to be capitalized as directly attributed to an asset, I hope there is no need to go at length since it is commonly known and if some body wishes to re-read can be seen at paragraphs 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 etc of IAS-16.

The basic rule for recognition is that “future economic benefits are probable to flow in and an estimate of related costs can be made”. This has to be kept in mind as an essence to decide what is to be capitalized and what is operational or periodic.

The most significant and primary thing is, however, to find that up to what time such costs could be capitalized. Paragraph 20 of IAS-16 states that,

“Recognition of costs in the carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment ceases when the item is in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of “OPERATING” in the manner intended by the management. Therefore, the costs incurred in “USING or “Re-DEPLOYING” an item are not included in the cost carrying amount of that item”

IAS-16, for quite logical and obvious reasons states further in same paragraph that

“The following costs are not included in the carrying amount of an item of PPE

(a) costs incurred while an item capable of “OPERATING” in the manner intended by management has yet to brought into use or is operated at less than full capacity.
(b) Initial operating losses, such as those incurred while demand for the item’s output builds up; and
© Costs of relocating or reorganizing part or all of an entity’s operations”

Paragraph 22 of IAS-16 confirms that the cost of “self-constructed” assets is determined using the same principles as for an “acquired asset”.

…………………..{I would like the readers going back to Framework of IFRSs as well that establishes a foundation for all the pronouncements made or to be made and defines various elements of the financial statements.”}……………..

Now, having been mentioned the recognition criterion and the conditions on which capitalization should be stopped (crucial to the topic), I would like to straightly go on the issue of what exactly a qualifying asset is; and how it differs from non-qualifying asset. I hope again there is no need to narrate every thing and a brief discussion can serve the purpose.

As I earlier wrote finance cost on leasing arrangement is included in the ambit of borrowing costs by paragraph 6 of IAS-23. Its definition however includes all interest and other costs incurred in connection with borrowing of funds.

On one hand IAS-23 states that the borrowing costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition, construction or production of a qualifying asset are those borrowing costs that WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDDED if the EXPENDITURE on qualifying asset HAD NOT BEEN MADE; (Please keep in mind it talks about expenditure i.e. borrowing cost and not about the funds obtained).

On the other hand this standard also puts cap on capitalizing such costs to a certain extent i.e. until such asset is not completed. In more clear words standard says;

“A qualifying asset is an asset that necessarily takes a substantial period of time to get READY for its INTENDED USE or SALE.”

The words “intended use” and “sale” are vital to understand the issue. Once an asset is available for “intended use” presumably its operations start. Like-wise when an asset is available for “SALE” it is again a finished product and ready for use.

Like inventories that are finished products, no further cost can be allocated, in case of qualifying fixed assets, once they are complete and available for “OPERATION” i.e. for intended use or sale, no further cost can be allocated in their carrying values. If we are arguing on it why we don’t argue in case of inventories?

Paragraph 20 of IAS-16 which I reproduced earlier is of vital most importance in understanding when adding up any further cost in carrying amount of an asset will not result in making up any probability of generating economic benefits from an asset and when “capitalization activity” should come at an end/ be ceased. It (para 20 of IAS-16) says that such point is reached “when the item is in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of “OPERATING” in the manner intended by the management.”

Readers can see that IAS-23 is not saying any out of the world thing. Rather is addressing same issue that has been capped by IAS-16 for so clearer and well founded reason. What is that reason; certainly that if capitalization activity will not be stopped after completion of an asset, it will certainly lead to insensible increasing of the cost of the asset which will tantamount to overstatement of its carrying value that will not be causing any extra/additional inflow of economic benefits to the company. Anything that is not contributing in deriving economic benefits from an asset cannot be capitalized. Readers must also go through paragraph 12 of IAS-16 which also elaborates which “subsequent costs” can only be capitalized. No body will find out anything different than what IAS-23 says. It is the judgment about recoverability/inflow of economic benefits.

Every thing that does not contribute in enhancing the inflow of Economic Benefits cannot be added up / capitalized in carrying amount of an asset. This is further more clarified by IAS-23 in its paragraph 16 which states

“When the carrying amount or the expected ultimate cost of the qualifying asset exceeds its recoverable amount or net realizable value, the carrying amount is written down or written off in accordance with the requirements of other Standards. In certain circumstances, the amount of the write-down or write-off is written back in accordance with those other Standards.”

Here the term “recoverable amount” is taken from IAS-36 and ultimately carries same meaning i.e. anything that can ensure inflow of economic benefits through which such capital expense can be recovered. Any expenditure that does not enhance inflow cannot be capitalized and if has been capitalized for some reason has to be charged off to profit and loss account as an “operational or periodic item”.

A qualifying asset takes a tenure for completion during which, if any borrowings have been made, the related cost can be capitalized in the carrying value of such asset to the extent

- such assets remains under active constructions; and
- the over all capitalized value does not exceed “recoverable” value, and if it happens the excess is charged as impairment to periodic operational results (profits).

So even for a qualifying asset there is specified TIME for ceasing the CAPITALIZATION ACTIVITY and a specified limit over which the capitalized value cannot go.

All other expenses and borrowing costs are “periodic” or “performance” or “operational” costs.


In case of non-qualifying assets, the asset is already in finished form with a specified (having market based evidence) value/cost beyond which if capitalization will go, will be detrimental to “recoverability” of economic benefits attributed with the asset.

Even if some one will make a logic to capitalize borrowing costs in the carrying amount of the asset, he will immediately have to write down the carrying amount by charging impairment under IAS-36; since un-necessarily allocated costs, when asset was already available “FOR INTENDED USE OR SALE”, will not contribute in generating cash or economic benefits for the entity.

Nothing different applies in case of assets under finance lease arrangements, so similar concept is applied on that facet as well.

I can go in further detail on this topic but hope if some one is in confusion can get rid of it after reading this hastily drafted post. However, if some one wishes to develop an altogether different set of standards and framework, he is fully welcomed to share his ideas along with solutions as well. The above discussion establishes certain things such as

- IAS-23 does not say anything in isolation and we have to build our concept by looking at other pronouncements as well
- There is a limit to which costs can be capitalized and after which capitalization activity stops;
- The costs and expenditures (even on assets) that cannot be capitalized due to the reasons/limits prescribed, have to be taken to profit and loss account as current period expenditure;
- IAS-1 has eliminated the differentiation of “operating activities” and “non-operating activities” in relation to profit and loss account, so all costs charged to it are operational costs.

These are logics, parameters, limits, checks and balances created, developed and accepted worldwide. Even others who do not follow IFRSs have developed similar logics and parameters. We have to accept them since they are based on facts. Otherwise if some out of the world logic is to be questioned, there might not be found any logic of creation of this universe. Decision has to be made by us individually in each matter and satisfaction comes by understanding the things in more depth. If this is “beating about the bush”, I don’t mind it to be called as such.; and if this is not, then others should also not mind.

I wonder what is different in this post and earlier ones, except the length and some references. If some one is not agreeing to this, its his prerogative; but please let us know your view point instead of raising objections.

Regards,


KAMRAN.

Dears

First of all, i would like to express my in-ability to properly read
posts of Mr. kamran (with all due respect to him), may be those were more long.

As you also mentioned

"On one hand IAS-23 states that the borrowing costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition, construction or production of a qualifying asset are those borrowing costs that WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDDED if the EXPENDITURE on qualifying asset HAD NOT BEEN MADE;"

My question was simply this, "As the the finance charge on finance leases can be avoided if the expenditure (Prinicipal amount of the Finance lease)on Finance lease had not been made,therefore it is (Finance charge) directly attributable cost. Why the directly attributable cost to qualifying asset is allowed to be capitalized and why the directly attributable cost to non-qualifying asset is not allowed by the standards to be capitalized.

I know what are the qualifying assets - I even mentioned in my first post.

I know it is not allowed by the standards.

Please donot take anything personal and have at least a little patience for the criticism...If you would have only written, please read IAS16, IAS 23, IAS 17, IAS 1 and other related material, that would be the shorter answer.


Regards

Ahmed

On the other hand this standard also puts cap on capitalizing such costs to a certain extent i.e. until such asset is not completed. In more clear words standard says;

“A qualifying asset is an asset that necessarily takes a substantial period of time to get READY for its INTENDED USE or SALE.”

The words “intended use” and “sale” are vital to understand the issue. Once an asset is available for “intended use” presumably its operations start. Like-wise when an asset is available for “SALE” it is again a finished product and ready for use.

IAS 23 states that finance charges on finance lease asset maybe capitalised. What if the leased asset is already in a condition of operating? The finance cost then won't be capitalised, right? If it will be capitalised then why?

Ahmed

I don't tend to be impatient on your queries since I already know you take too long to understand or don't even understand even after this "too long".

You see even knowing this I am writing long posts with patience; and yet you are trying to don't understand it.

So, still I am not losing patience, who knows one day you may understand.

No criticism, no offense.

Buddy, you have been told that although finance costs on finance lease are included in the definition of borrowing costs given by IAS23, and can be capitalized if the leased asset is capitalized, YET, there is a limit for every sort of capitalization.

Simply being "directly attributed" may not be sufficient basis unless it meets all requirements which I have in detail written in above post.

Masla lease ke borrowing cost ka nahi hai; problem is with capitalization, its limits, recoverability, impairment and inflow of economic benefits.

Had you been expected to learn from directly mentioning of IASs as a reply, it would have been so easier. I know you cannot and this is based on previous experience with you.

I will again ask you to see this issue in the light of more than one IFRS since the matter is interconnected and you cannot make an isolated decision ignoring the boundries of other pronouncements.

Mind it, entities can capitalize borrowing cost of finance lease arrangements provided, such leased asset is a qualifying asset; the aggregate costs eventually do not cause any impairment to be recorded immediately (economic benefits and recoverability); the aggregate cost is also strictly as per basis given in IAS 17; and the borrowing cost is not that which has been incurred after the completion of such leased qualifying asset.

I already told you that issue is not with leased asset in fact, issue is of limits of capitalization of carrying cost of an asset; and the time when capitalization ceases.

One more thing, leased assets are not necessarily only the non-qualifying assets. If this concept is not in Pakistan it is the problem of local NBFC laws. IAS 17 does not make any condition that no qualifying asset can be leased.

Here I would like to ask that please also read IAS 17 as well.

Don't mind my replies since I will like you to get rid of any confusion if the purpose of your query is to do so. If the purpose is to see others getting confused (which you know will not happen) on your query or to advise others to remain patient, then you should clearly inform the forum.

We may pretend confuse, worried or impatient to applause the "depth" of your invented idea and query.

It's so interesting that you ask a question from IFRSs and also resist that why it is being answered from IFRSs. Should it be answered from SAHI BUKHARI?

Wishing to learn from you more with lot more patience.


Regards,



Kamran.