i don't understand how is it incorrect. regulations are introduced for reasons. for example frs 1 was introduced to prevent cashflow problems after pollypeck. so why would they bother to maintain and go to the extent of updating the regulation in an area unless they thought it was likely it would occur. note it is not like other regulations when it is dealing with the working of a business it is a standard set if an irregular situation occurs. so why would they update that standard unless they thought it was likely it was needed to be used. this is like an exam question on reporting standards there is no correct answer. i respect your view, you clearly do not respect my view even though i have back it up with an argument. thank you for replies.