The Journey - Chris Ashenden

[Josko]

Hi Chris

Great thread. I am a small time investor (read 1 IP) but would like to grow much bigger.
The problem is getting the required returns to grow bigger.
Here in Christchurch the cheapest 3BR house you are likely to find is about $180K. Rent on such a place is likely to be around $230 P/W giving the grand return of 6.6%.
Considering that our bank (BNZ) will only consider 70% of the incoming rents and that they base their debt servicing on a principal and interest loan at the current floating rate (not sure but this could be about 8.5% at the moment) I would need to get a return of over 12% just to break even in the banks eyes as far as not affecting my serviceability for any future loans. (12% return on 180K = $415 p/w - - it's not going to happen)

I read that you would not buy any property that had a detrimental effect on your serviceability.

I have tried thinking outside the square (adding extra bedrooms, extra dwellings if possible) but still wouldn't come close to a 12% return.

I would very much like to be a bigger fish but I cant seem to find the right fish food.

Should I be looking in smaller regional areas or is there something I am missing.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

I would like to be a whale but I'm looking more like a whitebait at the moment.

Thanks

I know you have addressed Chris on this one smallfish, I am sure he will respond in kind.

In the mean time as I am much on the same dark path as you may I requote some points you might have missed.

I physically looked at over 300 houses inside a 2 month period. I think I went to every open home in Avondale and Mt Albert, dutifully making notes on every property that I saw. After all that I only made ONE offer and it wasn't accepted.

and

I proceeded to make over 100 written offers over the next three months of which 11 were accepted.

and

I made about 350 WRITTEN offers in that month, of which I think only about 150 were presented as I wanted them to be. By the time I got my act together and started to figure out what I needed half of March was gone. It didn't matter too much as in the next week I had eight offers accepted.

The pond is as big as you see it.

Swim hard and be free to enjoy the velocity.

PS. Welcome

My Best Regards,

[Julian]

Spaceman,

My guess is because the "L" stands for LOSS and Chris wants to make money on every deal from day one.

You are suggesting (tongue in cheek, I suspect) all LAQC structured investors don't want to make money from day one. You are dismissing the reality that it is possible to realise cash while making a taxable loss. For those on a high salary taking the slower property road this might be an advisable route.

My bet is that Chris uses trusts solely because he values the assett protection they offer more than tax minimisation. He is building wealth at such speed that the $27k gifting process could not keep up, should he wish to transfer assets into a trust at a later date.

No doubt all will be revealed.

Julian

[The_Dog]

In the event that I bought a dog I would sell it and carefully document the process with my accountant

BAD BAD BAD!

A dog is for Life, not just for Christmas.

The SPCA will be hearing about this!!

[ChrisAshenden]

Hello drelly,

You'll really need the holiday after all these questions...

No problem with the questions.

I wouldn't buy a house to keep on a 9% return

What return do you require to hold a house?

I won’t buy a house as a keeper unless it delivers me sufficient velocity on both my borrowings and capital. This means that I must buy it well under market and be able to refinance all my original capital out (without relying on capital gains) AND it must deliver a return on my end borrowings sufficient to not only BOOST my net borrowing power with lenders (on a debt servicing basis) but also deliver to me a REAL positive cashflow return before tax, proportional to the amount borrowed.

If you are just starting out or early in your portfolio development, then you can and probably should stop reading here.

IF however you have played for a bit or want to think about your REI more like a business then this final point should not be overlooked. Say I bought a 500K house for 400K, and the rents were sufficiently high to appease any lender at the time that my debt servicing position was enhanced (at least above where it was prior to buying) then on paper this will cover the first two criteria just fine as it is improving my debt servicing and I can refinance it to around the 400k mark, getting all my original capital back (yes yes less a few fees to the ANALytical out there). Hell it’s basically a no-money down deal right?

What if for whatever reason however I find that after all management, maintenance and debt servicing my REAL positive cashflow before tax actually only came out at a whopping $40.00 per week? Wouldn’t you then have to ask yourself whether this is a sufficient return on your $400K borrowings to warrant keeping the property in the absence of capital growth (or any significant factors under my control that might significantly improve the return). When you consider that everyone’s borrowing power is ultimately finite, I would wonder whether there is more to life than getting a HALF OF ONE PERCENT return on my 400K exposure to the deal (2000/400000).

I’m not saying that the above deal is necessarily a bad one, you might be able do a few things to massive boost the income, refurbish it to proportionally increase the value and at the same time reduce maintenance or you may be able to play games with land and carve of sections/build a hotel or skyscraper or whatever. But if the deal as presented above is as good as it’s going to get I would think hard about the velocity I would have keeping this deal vs the velocity I could have moving on and buying something else.

I know I know I know there are plenty out there who would tout some or all of:

“What about the capital gains?” Might happen, might not and besides, waiting for something outside my control to make the deal work doesn’t make it a better deal in my book.

“What about the after tax-returns/cashflow/tax savings?” This could also be taken away from you (anyone heard of the Tax Reform Act in the USA in 1986?). More importantly I wouldn’t buy a deal if it took the TAX system to make it a good deal. Plain and simply it should be a good deal in its own right.

If you extrapolate the above numbers right out you might get a better feel for what I’m talking about. What if the deal was $100,000,000 (one hundred million dollars) in borrowings and for this you would receive the same wondrous return (0.05%) and pick up a cheque every year for the amount of $500,000 (five hundred thousand dollars) for your troubles? Don’t try selling it to Warren Buffet.

What would I do with it? Well, if I couldn’t play any capital improvement games or come up with anything to make the return more promising I would sell it for $500K to a “check out the after-tax cashflow!” proponent and go on holiday for a month in Europe.

Regards,

Chris Ashenden

[orion]

Hi Chris,

Well done on the thread so far, excellent effort and great info.

Just a question on the above re $400,000 deal. The income for this to work on a 25yr loan would have be be $800 a week plus. Are you meaning a house, or block of flats? If it's a block of any more than 3 or 4 units, the bank usually want 40% down, unless you get vendor funding etc.
Are you still buying in Invercargill??

Regards
Graeme Fowler

[duvetray]

Hey Chris

further from my previous post about ACTION, are you visiting the UK in your Europe trip, i am a Kiwi based here, With IP's in New Zealand and now the USA, would be great to have a beer with ya, i know theres a few other guys on the Forum based here too who might like to Pick your brain

We have a farm near the coast 4 hours west of London

PM me if you are free

Ray

[ChrisAshenden]

Hello drelly, Robot, Oopsick, Spaceman, Julian et al.


Ah, the LAQC question…………

I suspect that like many on here, I'm in the position of having an LAQC that has lots more equity in it than was anticipated. Do you have any advice regarding what to do in this situation?

.......interesting. You have an LAQC with LOTS more equity in it than obviously you (or your accountant) anticipated...…. and this has created a situation…...your question provides a good backdrop for my answer…..

Why no LAQC grand master sensei? Also, any tips on setting up a buy and hold trust the right way?

….not sure if I’m quite worthy of grand master sensei but regarding your post….yep, and the answer to the second question is part of the answer to the first…..

If I may be so bold as to answer for Chris.

Regarding why he has no LAQC…………My guess is because the "L" stands for LOSS and Chris wants to make money on every deal from day one.

………..this IS part of the answer, but there is more to it than that…….

(to Spaceman)
You are suggesting (tongue in cheek, I suspect) all LAQC structured investors don't want to make money from day one. You are dismissing the reality that it is possible to realise cash while making a taxable loss. For those on a high salary taking the slower property road this might be an advisable route.

….it could be, and in some circumstances a LAQC can be quite a good idea……

My bet is that Chris uses trusts solely because he values the assett protection they offer more than tax minimisation.

….actually I do value asset protection more than the tax minimization, but “solely” is incorrect as trusts offer some amazing tax advantages to both the property investor, and the entrepreneur………

He is building wealth at such speed that the $27k gifting process could not keep up, should he wish to transfer assets into a trust at a later date

…..this is ALSO part of the answer and naturally there is more to it.

Some might notice that there is no LAQC listed up there. This is intentional.

I’ll start this off by saying that I am not an expert on structures, taxation, accounting or just about anything else related to the technical or legal elements of this post. I’ll also add that the last time I thought about an LAQC was nearly three years ago, so if I’m rusty, forgive me. I do however, know a thing or two about how to create wealth and financial freedom by investing in real estate. Most of your accountants and lawyers are probably fairly good at what they do (accounting etc), but unless they are used to dealing with fairly large players, they are very unlikely to be thinking about the much bigger picture. And this presents a problem.

As I understand it, LAQC’s were originally brought into play mainly at the behest and encouragement of the forestry industry, in an attempt to foster investment into forestry products. After all, little trees take a while to grow into big trees and being able to pass on tax losses to shareholders (to reduce their personal tax liabilities) each year in the long period prior to cutting them down and realizing a profit seemed like a nice idea. Accountants and property investors soon jumped on the bandwagon and now here we are….. everybody needs an LAQC.

In my experience standard the mantra for LAQC’s (let me know if your accountant had something completely different as I am always looking for original work) goes a little something like this:

“Purchase your investment property (usually only a few and usually negatively geared or close to it) in an LAQC, this will allow you to enjoy most of the asset protection benefits of a limited liability company and enjoy the tax benefits from the properties by using “paper losses” on the properties to offset the tax liability from your personal income. These properties will typically show a tax loss for between 7-10 years. Towards the end of this period (sometimes “when you retire”), and you either no longer have or are no longer able to use any tax losses, we will transfer the shares of the LAQC to your trust for asset protection and forgive the debt (relating to the equity in the property(s) at the time of transfer) at the rate of 27K per year (more if two of you).”

To be honest, having to rely on the IRD maintaining the current status quo to make a project viable is a bit of an issue for me, for starters.

This idea has some validity as per Julian’s post but it takes a very POOR view of how much and where your wealth is going to be created, and where you are going to receive the bulk of your income over time. And it is this shortsightedness that I believe is the problem with this structure.


Here are a few questions for you to ponder:

Do you think it is better to own and create wealth in your own name, or in an entity where you control the wealth and have access to the wealth, but partition it away from yourself (and frequently your other activities)? This is a no brainer - but whose name is on the shareholder list of an LAQC? (You’re probably also a director, which increases your chances of getting sued). This is very poor asset protection.

With the exception of (VERY FEW) stars, athletes and some extremely well remunerated CEO’s (and a few other TOP professionals), where do the BULK of the world’s millionaires actually MAKE their money? You guessed it, from investing or business related activities. Although I am an advocate of working and saving (or working while you start your empire) on the path to wealth creation, with very few exceptions, “It ain’t the day job itself that’s going to get you there, honey.”

A large portion of the LAQC strategy relies on you not actually doing that well in any endeavor other than your job and perhaps your own home (most accountants will actually tell you to put your home into a family trust). They expect you to make predominantly losses from your property investments over at least the medium term and don’t expect you to become a millionaire (baring lotto) in a short period of time. They definitely don’t expect you to suddenly buy 50 houses. They also are not expecting you have your greatest REVENUE source from anywhere apart from your day job and it is this final one that puts the icing on the cake for me.

To tell a true story - When I first started I was quoted the LAQC pitch as mentioned earlier by many including my then accountant. I bought it hook line and sinker and fired one up for my Invercargill purchases. (They never actually made a tax loss which was a shame and rather annoying). I won’t deny that I enjoyed being in social gatherings where the minute someone mentioned real estate I would jump in with “I buy my houses using my….. LAQC” whooopah! Now that I look back and realize what an idiot I was and in how many different ways, I feel like I have found the meaning of zen. Funny, because these days I will never mention real estate unless someone REALLY pesters me.

This accountant shouted me to my first Auckland Property Investors meeting where he unintentionally sealed his own doom as manager of my future accounts. Speaking there as the guest speaker of the evening and talking on the merits of positively geared property and other matters was one Graeme Fowler. Eventually Graeme was harassed by a member of the crowd about what sort of structure he used to maximize his losses. When Graeme said “trusts” the great “what about losses and an LAQC” shout went up. Graeme simply replied that he was in real estate to make a profit, not a loss and that was exactly what he was doing. This immediately lost him most of the crowd but it gained him my immediate and complete attention. It was obvious to me that not only was Graeme playing at a whole different level from the bulk of the room (he even looked a better property investor) but that I had failed to take in the bigger picture. I was easy on myself though as I’d only been read my first book about four months earlier. Though I doubt he remembers (I was just another newbie ) I went up and met Graeme at the end of the evening and got his email address. I actually sent him an email although I can’t remember what it was about. Something to do with accountants I think. Having met Graeme a number of times, and after attending Keith Cunningham’s Graduate Program with him, I now know Graeme rather well. Oh yeah, and it wasn't long before I stopped buying any more properties with my LAQC.

To be honest I have just come back to this and am fairly tired so while I had every intention of writing a monster expose my brain has stopped working so instead I will nut it out in a few bullet points:

1) I invest in real estate for PROFIT. CASH, CASHFLOW, and EQUITY. I want you to show me the money and I don’t care if there isn’t a single L for LOSS in there. I’m not interested in a system that is based on LOSSES and NOT DOING VERY WELL.

2) I do not want to HOLD, CREATE or GROW wealth in my own name. That is the number one point.

Though it’s irrelevant now I don’t want to be in a position where I am gifting gifting gifting to sort this one out and relying on the IRD to let me do it just as my property’s start showing taxable profits with the TAX liability directly attributable to ME PERSONALLY. (As a shareholder of an LAQC the shareholders are directly liable for the tax of the company). This would suggest you set up suitable entities sooner rather than later. You can play harder, faster, and with much more confidence that you won’t end up sleeping in a trailer park at age 60. The reality is that most accountant’s and lawyers playing with Mom and Pop investors have no idea of the speed at which wealth can be created merely by gumption, some education and steady, consistently better than average results…let alone when these are compounded by one of the biggest booms in history. You should have seen my first accountant’s face when I said (five months after meeting him) that I had eight houses. I moved on but I can just imagine what it would have been like a year and a half later.

Accept the reality that if you ever want to be reasonably rich, you should try and do what rich entrepreneurs and investors DO. Think of the BIGGER picture. I want a set up that will let me play between my entities, as that is where the real money is always going to be and it is actually where I WANT it to be.

3) Unless you intend that your job provide the bulk of your income for the rest of your life then set yourself up in a structure that can accommodate the scenario where the bulk of your taxable revenue actually comes in from a different source other than your direct efforts (ie job). Do this sooner rather than later. See 1 and 2 above if you want to know why and then consider the other reason, tax. Yes tax. You want velocity on your capital, velocity on your borrowings, and you definitely want velocity in growing your portfolio. You also want velocity on your INCOME (which is why most people invest using a LAQC as they think it will provide this) which is where tax strategy comes into things. If your real money is going to be made outside of your job, then you want entities that are not only structured for asset protection but which also provide the best tax advantages for this scenario and for playing between your various activities and entities. (“you take a profit over here/ and a loss over there/ and you put them both together/ and make them disappear” – Money nursery rhymes volume 1, by Chris Ashenden).

Wait wait wait, I hear some of you say. I kind of understand what you’re saying, but isn’t that last bit why we have an LAQC anyway?

Yes it is, but the point I am trying to make is that as they are really set up for losses ahead of profits and designed to accommodate only average performance, they are NOT EFFICIENT. They are not efficient at asset protection, they are not efficient at maximizing your wealth creation, they are not efficient at minimizing tax from sources other than your earned income, and they are definitely not efficient when it comes time to not only think of but also play in a much bigger picture.

If you are happy chugging along and have no aspirations or desire to get it done faster and asset protection doesn’t really bother you, OR you are knocking over 2 million plus change a year in your personally earned income and it is merely a part of a very well thought out strategy then feel free to stay with a Loss Attributing Qualifying Company.

In my opinion, and I am not alone, if the above don’t apply to you and you want to be rich faster than you want to be average, dump the LAQC.

I hope that gives a little bit of clarity and I also hope that I wasn’t so tired while writing this that I’ve raised more questions than I’ve answered.

I will endeavor to answer the rest of the questions tomorrow.

Regards,

Chris Ashenden

[ChrisAshenden]

Hello drelly,

I suspect that like many on here, I'm in the position of having an LAQC that has lots more equity in it than was anticipated. Do you have any advice regarding what to do in this situation? I already have a "wealth trust".

Short answer: Set up a buy and hold trust and start moving your equity across sooner rather than later.

There are some games you could play but they are pretty much in the grey. I wouldn't bother. Just start now and grow the rest of your wealth inside a more adequate strucutre.

Think Big Picture then go out there and hammer it.

Regards,

Chris Ashenden

[ChrisAshenden]

Hello ivi,

I would like to find out, when you were new to investing, (say in your first 50 transactions) if you have a favorite memorable DEAL, and why?

Sure, I have a few actually. But I'll do my first one for now.

The first house I bought was the one and only time I ever paid retail. I bought a 2bedroom unit in Invercargill for 30K, RV 31K. It was rented back to the owner for $100 per week for a month and after he left, it immediately got raised to $120 per week, where it has been ever since. The return on the deposit I paid ($6k) seemed pretty good, in the high teens as a cash on cash return. A short while later I started looking harder at the velocity on my money and realized that it would take 5 years to get my deposit back (in the absence of capital growth). Velocity was everything, especially when I had practically no cash. After talking to valuers and agents I soon admitted that there was little I could do to do boost the value and I was going to have to WAIT.

This near zero maintenance property was returnig 20% on my purchase price so it was a great cashflow deal and a good return on my borrowings. However, it offered very poor velocity on my capital as I would only be able to buy another similar property after five years from my original deposit (in the absence of capital growth). I was actually subsequently saved by capital growth (it was worth 42k by the end of the first year and is around 60K now). But that was not a result of any skill on my part.

The lesson: If you wish to stay in control of your destiny and ramp up your wealth creation (as it relates to growth of an internally funded PI portfolio), NEVER buy a property for retail or you will have to join the rest of the masses and BUY, HOLD and PRAY the values go up. Great cashflow, but the velocity on capital in REI comes from MAKING MONEY WHEN YOU BUY. Period.

The other 7 properties I bought in Invercargill were all bought under market with the able to greatly increase the value (and rents) with relatively minor work. Hence the reason I was able to get away with buying all these houses using high interest debt to fund the deposits, I new I would be able to refinance the expense money out, regardless of capital growth.

I learnt this lesson early and very cheaply, as it didn't cost me any money or much lost time. Just professional pride, as I would love to be able to say that I have NEVER had to rely on capital growth in any property deal.

Regards,

Chris Ashenden

[ChrisAshenden]

Hello Robot,

Also, any tips on setting up a buy and hold trust the right way?

Trustees: I prefer trusts with a corporate trustee (instead of individuals). This gives a bunch of advantages and to put it bluntly, if your accountant looks at you with a blank face when you suggest it to him, move on.

There are different ways of setting up the shareholding of the corporate trustee, either by dividing the shares directly between the people in control of the trust and an independent party, or by creating different classes of shares.

Trust deed: The trust deed be flexible, give you all the powers and might need and should be up to date. By this last one I mean that deed should be reviewed and updated at least yearly by a legal professional (typically a specialist barrister) who is current with trust case law.

Beneficiaries: This will vary depending on your circumstances and whether or not you are also going to set up a trading trust (or be tainted in your own name).

Basically, go and see a professional for the set up of your structures. I have used Garth Melville of company solutions succesfully in the past, as he gets his trust deeds reviewed regularly and understands the interplay between trust structures better than most people below the level of partner in a big firm. I get the deeds reviewed by both my lawyer and a specialist barrister.

Regards,

Chris Ashenden

[ChrisAshenden]

Hello Oopsick

Hello Chris!

Thanks for spending your precious time typing these posts. They are great!

I think you could easily print a book with all that info and charge us for reading it

Thank you. I am enjoying the process to be honest but should probably have timed it better.

As for the book, maybe one day.

I was curious what your question was going to be actually. Hope I answered it in a manner that strikes more of reality than opinion.

Regards,

Chris Ashenden

[ChrisAshenden]

Hi Chris

Thanks for your comprehensive response to my question. This thread has really made me look hard at my property investment plans and in some instances refine them.

That's great! and you are welcome.

The finance question is a challenge for me as my husband and I live in Brunei and lenders really favour 20% deposit each purchase (there are a few exceptions though) and I have been trying to think outside this little box to work out how to best us the tax free dollars earnt up here.

Good question, I buy with 20% deposit as my standard format now. Read this quote....

It is obvious that I need to buy more prudently when making future purchases.

You got it. Assuming you have solid borrowing power nothing will give you greater direct velociy on your deposits than buying WELL below value and being able to refinance all of it (or more) out sooner rather than later.

You could always use other people's money for deposits and lending or buy and sell using lease options or any other more creative means but I would hammer the purchasing side first (your money + bank), do the same with other people's deposit money second (and a lot further down the line) and worry about the rest later.

Make sure you are set up right structurally so the wealth is growing where its hard for people to touch it. And don't forget to check out your own back yard over there for various investment options, not necessarily just REI either, when looking for velocity on your capital.

Regards,

Chris Ashenden

[ChrisAshenden]

Hello HermanZ

Superb thread, thanks for sharing.

Thanks, you are welcome.

How would you structure a JV where one partner does all the work,
and the other provides all finances (and only finance, broad brush strokes only)?
Buy and Hold or Trade

This is a very broad topic and there are too many variables for me to make up to give you a concise answer. Nor do I wish to go through 10 different ways of doing things.

That said, I'll give you a little bit of food for thought:

A couple of rules that work are:
Money follows management - the better you are at what you do, the more specialised your skill set/resources and the better the track record, the less you will have to give away to do the deal. The more predictable and sustainable the investment, the lower the required return.
Put yourself on the other side of the table - if it seems fair and you (or nearly anyone) would do it if your circumstances were reversed then it is probably a fair deal.
But before you do any of these, find out what they want (so you can go and get it, and give it to them - part of KJC's three steps to being a billionaire).

The JV itself can be just that, a joint venture agreement (roles and profit/loss share), or a split of an entity, or a management agreement, for starters.

For buy and hold, to do the deal try any or a mix of: a fee for finding and securing a GOOD deal, an ongoing management fee (this can be on the high side), a percentage share of any value increase above the purchase price (this should be on the very low side unless YOU are creating any added value)

For trading: look at a finders fee again, plus project management fee and split of the profits. OR, just a straight profit split, OR giving the financier a preferred return followed by a split of the profits OR and as the trader, this is my preference, give them a fixed GUARANTEED return (your nuts are on the line if you don't perform) and no profit split. If all goes to plan, this last one is the cheapest cost of capital for the trader and the most secure (and therefore probably lowest) return for the investor.

First rule, and it always is - Find out what they want.

Hope that helps mate. Good luck

Regards,

Chris Ashenden

[ChrisAshenden]

Hello smallfish,

Great thread. I am a small time investor (read 1 IP) but would like to grow much bigger.
The problem is getting the required returns to grow bigger.....I read that you would not buy any property that had a detrimental effect on your serviceability........I have tried thinking outside the square (adding extra bedrooms, extra dwellings if possible) but still wouldn't come close to a 12% return.

I would very much like to be a bigger fish but I cant seem to find the right fish food.

Should I be looking in smaller regional areas or is there something I am missing.....I would like to be a whale but I'm looking more like a whitebait at the moment.

Thanks

Firstly you are welcome mate. Secondly good question. When it comes to buying great deals (which is what you are after) there are really only TWO FACTORS.

YOU and the MARKET.

Change one or both. ivi's post discusses some of the things that I DID, this would be part of the YOU equation. You will always find that there are people buying well in any market. Have a good look and you will see someone buying well and structuring deals to make that money, so it can be done. I would suggest that for starters you work on YOU and your approach.

However, I am also a big fan of following the path of least resistance. The reality is that if you are in a hot or overcooked market (and looking at your post I think we both agree Christchurch is one or both of those) there is a lot to be said for moving to where the going is a great deal easier, this especially applies if you are at the entry level (or close to it). If I was starting again right now I would not be doing it in my current market. If I was hungry for rapid success I would move (or at least travel) to where the going was easier, BUT only after ensuring that I was attending to my own attitude, skill set and resources first. This is what I have advised every single one of my friends to do when they ask what I would do now if I was just starting out (and determined to do it in real estate - which I normally try and talk them out of). So far, only one of them has even attempted it.

Work on YOU first and foremost, but move to an easier market to get the most bang for your buck.

To name drop, John Burley and Robert Kiyosaki did this 15 years ago by moving to Phoenix, Arizona. Damion Lupo, who I know, recently moved his investing OUT of phoenix to middle (of nowhere) USA and is well past 250 deals in a very short period of time. For the record Damion is another KJC graduate and has actually written a good book on all his MISTAKES. You can check it out at www.maverickmistakes.com. It reinforces the need to stick to sound rules and makes for good reading.

Regards,

Chris Ashenden

[drelly]

Hey Chris,

I'll definitely be quizzing my accountant about some of the things that you've raised.

Thanks for your responses to me and to everyone else on here.
Enjoy your well-earned holiday!