Measurement of investment property

Measurement of investment property

Introduction

Control of real estate can be obtained through:

  • direct acquisition of real estate;
  • construction of real estate; or
  • leasing of real estate, under either operating or finance leases.

Entities normally perform strategic planning before the acquisition, construction or leasing, to assess the feasibility of the project.

Entities might incur costs attributable to the acquisition, construction or leasing of real estate, during this first step of the cycle. Entities might also enter into financing arrangements to secure the liquidity required for the acquisition and construction of real estate.

The direct acquisition of investment property is presented here and the lease of investment property is presented here (Landlord lease accounting).

In this narrative the investment properties under construction (i.e. initial recognition of the development of real estate) and subsequent measurement of investment properties are handled.

1. Investment properties under construction

An entity might enter into a binding forward purchase agreement to purchase a completed property after construction is completed. Where the contract requires the entity to pay a fixed purchase price, the entity will need to consider whether the contract is onerous. A provision for onerous contracts is recognised if the unavoidable costs of meeting the obligations under the contract or exiting from it exceed the economic benefits expected to be received under it. [IAS 37.66–69].

For example, if this fixed price had a net present value of CU100 million at the reporting date, and the estimated economic benefits of the completed investment property at the reporting date is below that (say, CU80 million), a loss of CU20 million is recognised immediately in the income statement. The resulting provision is recognised on the Measurement of investment propertybalance sheet.

If there is an onerous contract as defined above, an impairment test is performed on any asset dedicated to the contract (for example, prepayments made in relation to the purchase). Such assets relating to an onerous contract are written down to the recoverable amount (see section 3.4 for further guidance on impairment), if this is less than the carrying amount. [IAS 37.69]. A provision is recognised only after such asset is reduced to zero.

Regardless of the assessment as to whether or not there is an onerous contract, contractual obligations to purchase, construct or develop investment property, or for repairs, maintenance or enhancements, should be disclosed. [IAS 40.75(h)].

1.1 Accounting for the costs of construction

1.1.1 Capitalisation of construction costs

Investment property under construction is initially measured at cost. Cost is usually the price paid to the developer to construct the property, together with any directly attributable costs of bringing the asset to the condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management.

Costs that are eligible for capitalisation include, but are not limited to:

  • contract costs with the developer;
  • architecture fees;
  • civil engineer fees; and
  • staff costs for employees employed specifically for the construction process.

Costs that are not eligible for capitalisation include, but are not limited to:

  • feasibility studies in identifying development opportunities; and
  • staff costs for project management if these would be incurred irrespective of any development.
1.1.2 Demolition costs

An entity might acquire a property and demolish some of the existing buildings in order to construct new buildings. Demolition costs are capitalised as part of the investment property if they are directly attributable to bringing the asset to the location and condition for its intended use. [IAS 16.16, IAS 16.17(b)].

Depending on the condition of the acquired property, these costs might be recognised as part of the cost of the land or the cost of the building. Correct classification will impact future depreciation where the cost model is applied and the land and building are subject to different depreciation rates.

Case – Demolition of a building: Scenario 1

Background

Entity A acquires a property for CU100 million.

The fair value of the property (land and building) is represented by the value of the land only, because the current building on the land is derelict and unusable.

The building is demolished after purchase, in order to construct a new building in its place. Entity A incurs demolition costs of CU3 million.

How should entity A account for the acquisition cost of the property and the costs of demolition?

Analysis

Entity A should recognise CU100 million as the cost of the land, and it should not allocate any part of the purchase price to the building. The purchased building is derelict and does not have stand-alone value, since no market participant would be willing to pay consideration for an unusable building. [IAS 16.7].

The economic rationale behind the purchase was to acquire land rather than land and a building. The sole purpose of the demolition was to bring the land to its intended use, because it would not be available for use until the building was demolished. Therefore, all consideration paid (CU100 million) should be allocated to the land.

The demolition costs of CU3 million are capitalised as part of the cost of the land. In accordance with IAS 16.16 and IAS 16.17(b), this represents costs directly attributable to bringing the land to the condition necessary for it to be capable of being developed. Without demolishing the existing building, the intended use of the land cannot be realised.

Cost of:

Land

(CU million)

Building

(CU million)

Initial acquisition costs

100

Demolition

3

Cost – post demolition

103

Case – Demolition of a building: Scenario 2

Background

Entity B purchases land together with a building. The purchase price is CU200 million. The fair value of the property is CU190 million for the land and CU10 million for the building. The building has value, because a market participant would normally use the building rather than demolish it.

Entity B plans to demolish the building immediately after purchase, in order to construct a new building in its place. The costs of demolishing the old building will be CU3 million.

How should entity B account for the acquisition cost of the property and the demolition costs?

Analysis

Entity B should recognise CU190 million as the cost of the land and CU10 million as the cost of the purchased Measurement of investment propertybuilding. This is because the purchased building has value, based on the fact that a market participant would normally use the building rather than demolish it.

The intended use of the land has already been achieved – in contrast to the previous example, where the intended use had not been achieved because of the presence of the derelict building on the land. On demolition, the carrying value of the building is derecognised and expensed to the income statement.

The demolition costs of CU3 million are capitalised as part of the cost of the new building. In line with IAS 16.16 and IAS 16.17(b), this represents costs directly attributable to constructing the new building, and they are capitalised when incurred.

Cost of:

Land

(CU million)

Building

(CU million)

Initial acquisition costs

190

10

Demolition of old building

-10

Demolition costs – part of new building

3

Cost – post demolition

190

3

1.1.3 Borrowing costs for properties under construction

The cost of investment property might include borrowing costs incurred during the period of construction.

Under IAS 23, borrowing costs are capitalised if an asset takes a substantial period of time to get ready for its intended use. Capitalisation of borrowing costs is optional for qualifying assets that are measured at fair value (for example, investment property under IAS 40). [IAS 23.4(a)].

Borrowing costs include, but are not limited to:

  1. Interest expense calculated using the effective interest method, as described in IFRS 9;
  2. Finance charges in respect of finance leases; and
  3. Exchange differences arising from foreign currency borrowings, to the extent that they are regarded as an adjustment to interest costs.

Borrowing costs should be capitalised while construction is actively underway.

These costs include the costs of:

  1. specific funds borrowed for the purpose of financing the construction of the asset; and
  2. general borrowings, being all borrowings that are not specific borrowings for the purpose of obtaining a qualifying asset. The general borrowing costs attributable to an asset’s construction should be calculated by reference to the entity’s weighted average cost of general borrowings.

Capitalisation starts when all three of the following conditions are met:

  1. expenditures for the asset are incurred;
  2. borrowing costs are incurred, and
  3. the activities necessary to prepare the asset for its intended use are in progress.

Capitalisation of borrowing costs in respect of real estate developments can commence before the physical construction of the property (for example, when obtaining permits, completing architectural drawings, or other activities necessary to prepare the property for its intended use.

Case – Capitalisation of borrowing costs

Background

Entity A contracts a third party for the construction of a building. Entity A will make progress payments to the third party over the construction period of the building.

Entity A obtains a loan from the bank to finance the progress payments made to the third party, and it incurs borrowings costs on this loan.

How should entity A account for the borrowing costs incurred?

Analysis

The borrowing costs incurred by entity A to finance prepayments made to a third party to construct the property are capitalised on the same basis as the borrowing costs incurred on an asset that is constructed by the entity itself.

Capitalisation should start when:

  1. expenditures are incurred – expenditures on the asset are incurred when the prepayments are made;
  2. borrowing costs are incurred – borrowing costs are incurred when borrowing is obtained; and
  3. the activities necessary to prepare the asset for its intended use are in progress – this is met when a third party has started the construction process; determining whether construction is in progress will likely require information directly from the contractor.
1.1.4 Income arising on redevelopment of property

Properties might need to be redeveloped following initial acquisition. Redevelopment might include structural changes to the building, renovations or construction of new facilities. Property owners usually contract property developers to run the redevelopment process.

Depending on the extent of redevelopment, property owners might be unable to lease out the property to tenants and generate income during the redevelopment period. Developers might undertake to compensate the property owners for their loss of income during the period by agreeing to refund the owners for a ‘licence’ or ‘interest’ fee.

The fee is normally paid throughout the period of redevelopment, and its payment usually reduces the total development cost payable to the developer. Such income is neither revenue nor rental income. It represents a deduction from the total redevelopment cost to the property owner, similar to a discount, and it should be deducted from the total property cost.

Case – Development contracts: treatment of ‘interest/licence fee’

Background

Entity A acquired a real estate property, and has decided that the property needs to undergo redevelopment activity to continue to be used as investment property. It has entered into a five-year development contract with a developer. Under the terms of the agreement:

  • The property will not generate any rental income from tenants during this period.
  • The developer will pay a ‘licence fee’ to entity A over the five years as compensation for the loss of rental income.
  • The fee is calculated based on a rental yield.
  • The fee is invoiced on a typical rental payment date, but remains unpaid.
  • The developer will deduct the total fee from the final payment due from entity A to the developer.

How should entity A account for the fee income?

Analysis

The fee income is part of the negotiated cost for the redevelopment of the property. The income should be recognised as a deduction from the cost for the redevelopment of the property.

2. Subsequent measurement of investment property

The standard permits an entity to adopt either the fair value model or the cost model as its accounting policy for subsequent measurement of investment property. The policy selected must be applied to all of its investment property. [IAS 40.30].

If an entity adopts the fair value model of accounting for investment property, there is a property-by-property choice to classify and account for a property interest held by a lessee under an operating lease as an investment property (see Property held under operating leases). [IAS 40.6]. There is no such choice if an entity adopts the cost model for investment property.

IFRS 16 has removed the above option relating to property interests held under an operating lease, since right-of-use assets related to leased property are recognised on the balance sheet. Therefore, entities have a choice of applying either the cost or fair value model for investment property, and this is not restricted by whether or not property is held under a lease. Once the entity chooses an accounting policy, it applies this to all of its investment property, regardless of whether property is held under a lease or not.

2.1 Costs incurred after initial recognition

Subsequent expenditure should be recognised in the carrying amount of the investment property if it is expected to produce future economic benefits to the entity and its costs can be reliably measured. [IAS 40.16].

Such costs are usually capitalised within the carrying amount of an investment property when they increase the investment property’s originally assessed standards of performance.

If an entity acquires a property that requires renovation, the price and initial carrying amount would reflect this and would be lower than the cost of a fully renovated property. The cost of renovation work would be capitalised when incurred, because the renovation costs give rise to additional future economic benefits.

Investment property often includes parts, such as lifts or an air-conditioning system, which have shorter useful lives than the rest of the property and might require regular replacement. The replacements give rise to future economic benefits, because the carrying amount takes into account the loss of economic benefits from the deterioration of the originally acquired assets, and the new assets give rise to new economic benefits. Parts that require regular replacement are often called ‘components’, and the accounting applied to them is referred to as the ‘component approach’ (see below).

Subsequent costs of day-to-day servicing and maintaining a property are not recognised as an asset. Instead, they are expensed as incurred. Such costs normally include costs of labour and consumables and the cost of replacing minor parts. They are normal repairs and maintenance and, as such, they do not meet the criteria for recognition as an asset, because they do not add future economic benefits. [IAS 40.18].

A provision for such subsequent expenditure should be recognised when, and only when, an entity has a present obligation, an outflow of resources is probable, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. [IAS 37.14].

Case – Provision for repair and maintenance

Background

Entity L has acquired an investment property for CU100. The building’s sewage system was not operating, and entity L decided to incur the minimum expenditure that would make the sewage system operational (which is CU5), and to undertake major maintenance of the system at the end of year 5.

Entity L uses the cost model and is proposing to initially recognise this investment property at CU115 (being cost of CU100, expenditure of CU5 and the present value of the planned expenditure at the end of year 5 of CU10).

Can an investment property entity establish a provision for planned repair and maintenance expenditure on an investment property?

Analysis

No. A provision should be recognised when:

  1. an entity has a present obligation;
  2. an outflow of resources is probable; and
  3. a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation.

The repair and maintenance expenses that will arise at the end of year 5 do not meet the definition of a present obligation, so a provision in accordance with IAS 37 cannot be established.

Entity L should recognise the investment property at CU105, and it should depreciate CU5 over five years. At the end of year 5, when the sewage system will be replaced, CU10 will be capitalised and depreciated over its useful life.

2.2 Replacement of parts of investment property and subsequent expenditure

Subsequent expenditure on an investment property is added to the investment property’s carrying amount when it is probable that future economic benefits will flow to the entity. All other subsequent expenditure is expensed in the period in which it is incurred. [IAS 40.16–18]. The cost of a replacement part is recognised as an asset and, where the cost method is used, the carrying amount of the replaced part is derecognised.

It is compulsory to recognise every replacement of a part, and derecognise the replaced part, if the recognition criteria are met. It is not relevant whether a replacement was planned or not. For example, the unplanned replacement of a significant portion of the windows should not be treated as a repair expense. The carrying amount of the replaced windows is derecognised, and the cost of the new windows is recognised.

The significance of the cost of the part, compared to the cost of the total item, is not a criterion for determining the parts of a building for recognition and derecognition purposes. Significance is relevant for the identification of the parts that need to be depreciated separately where the cost model is applied. [IAS 16.43]. See Depreciation below.

Where the cost model is applied, management should document the historical cost of the parts of a building that are not depreciated separately. An entity should derecognise the carrying amount of a replaced part, regardless of whether the replaced part had been depreciated separately or not. [IAS 16.70]. In order to ensure the correct derecognition of replaced parts, the entity might need to determine the carrying amount of the replaced parts. To do so, the entity depreciates the historical cost of each part over its useful life.

If it is not possible to determine the carrying amount of the replaced part based on historical cost, the cost of a replacement might be a good indication of the cost of the replaced part at the time when it was acquired or constructed. [IAS 16.70].

Case – Change of a roof: cost model

Background

Entity A acquired an investment property on 1 January 20X0. During 20X9, entity A spent a significant amount of money to install a modern upgraded glass roof on this property. Management believes that it is important for the property to have a modern roof system, to attract and retain tenants and resist downward pressure on rents. It also enables management to reduce electricity costs.

Entity A’s management would like to capitalise the expenditure.

Can subsequent expenditure on investment properties carried at cost be capitalised if it enhances the property’s future income-earning potential?

Analysis

Yes. The roof is usually replaced during the life of a building. The new roof should be capitalised. It is considered likely that the new roof will provide future economic benefits for entity A. The existing roof must be derecognised. The roof of a building is a separate component of the building, and it should be depreciated separately. [IAS 16.43].

Case – Change of a roof: fair value model

Background

The facts are as in the above example, except that entity A applies the fair value model to its investment properties.

Can subsequent expenditure on an investment property carried at fair value be capitalised if it enhances the property’s future income-earning potential?

Analysis

Yes. Subsequent expenditure relating to an investment property is added to the investment property’s carrying amount where it is probable that future economic benefits will flow to the entity. All other subsequent expenditure is expensed in the period in which it is incurred. [IAS 40.16–18].

The new roof should be capitalised, because it is considered likely to provide future economic benefits for entity A. On the next reporting date, the building’s new fair value will be assessed, and any gains/losses will be adjusted accordingly through the income statement. There is no need to derecognise the existing roof or to establish the components of an investment property carried at fair value.

2.3 Subsequent measurement: Cost model

Entities that choose the cost model should apply the requirements in IAS 16 for property, plant and equipment measured at cost. Investment properties that meet the criteria to be classified as held for sale, or that are included in a disposal group that is classified as held for sale, should be measured in accordance with IFRS 5 (see Disposal of investment property).

Food for thought – Leases under IFRS 16

For right-of-use assets that are investment property under IFRS 16, in addition to applying IAS 16, entities have a further option to adopt a policy of measuring these assets in accordance with IFRS 16, provided that they are not held for sale in accordance with IFRS 5.

2.3.1 Depreciation

Under the cost model, an entity will need to separately depreciate each component part of investment property which is significant in relation to the total cost of the property.

Depreciation should be recognised over the useful life of each individual component.

Component approach and depreciation

Under the component approach, each part of an investment property with a cost that is significant in relation to the total cost of the property is depreciated separately.

The objective of the component approach is to reflect more precisely the pattern in which the asset’s future economic benefits are expected to be consumed by the entity.

To apply the component approach, it is necessary to identify the various parts of an asset. There are two reasons for identifying the parts: depreciation; and the replacement of parts. IAS 16 requires separate depreciation only for significant parts of an item of property, plant and equipment with different useful lives or consumption patterns.

However, the principles regarding replacement of parts (that is, subsequent cost of replaced part) apply generally to all identified parts, regardless of whether they are significant or not.

On replacement of a part, the remaining book value of the replaced part is derecognised, and the cost of the new part is recognised, irrespective of whether the part was depreciated separately or not.

The diagram below illustrates the steps required by the ‘component approach’.

Measurement of investment property

2.3.2 Identification of significant parts of an asset

The significance of a part of a building for depreciation purposes is determined based on the cost of the part in relation to the total cost of the building at initial recognition. [IAS 16.43].

The standard is silent on how to determine the parts of a building. The asset’s specific circumstances need to be taken into account.

Separation between interior and exterior parts would normally not be sufficient for all types of building and across all regions, depending on the type of building.

Management should carefully evaluate whether separation into interior and exterior truly reflects the significant parts of the building, taking into account the need to make replacements during the useful life of the building. For example, solid walls, floors and ceiling can be used over a longer term, and they can be replaced later than the plasterboard walls and the heating system.

In practice, the first step in determining the parts of a building should be analysis of the construction contracts, the inspection report or the invoice (being parts of the acquisition cost). If these documents do not provide sufficient information, other sources such as construction catalogues should be taken into account.

For construction catalogues to be a sufficient source, they need to be a standard that is commonly used in the economic environment in which the entity operates. It would be expected that such standards take into account the specifics of the geographical area as well as type of building.

It might be necessary to request an expert opinion (for example, construction experts) in order to determine the parts of a building.

The following practices are commonly used to identify the parts of a building:

Example practice 1

Example practice 2

  • Exterior walls
  • Interior walls
  • Windows
  • Ceiling
  • Roof
  • Staircase
  • Elevators
  • Air conditioning system
  • Heating system
  • Water system
  • Electrical system
  • Major inspections
  • Structural design
  • Membrane
  • Exterior doors and windows
  • Interior walls, doors, windows
  • Heating and other technical systems
  • Sanitary facilities
2.3.2.2. Replacement of parts

When a part of an asset is replaced and the recognition criteria are met, the entity needs to derecognise the carrying value of the replaced item and recognise the cost of the replacement.

Note that, for insignificant parts that are replaced, the carrying amount of the replaced parts should be derecognised, regardless of whether the replaced part had been depreciated separately. [IAS 16.70].

2.3.2.3 Depreciation principles

Determining the useful life of the building

An entity is required to estimate the useful life of a building as a whole, in addition to estimating the useful lives of the parts of the building. The entity might include, in its accounting manual, guidance on how the useful life of a building as a whole is estimated.

An entity should estimate the useful economic life of the building, to ensure that the individual useful economic lives of the individual components are reasonably determined within the context of the overall utility of the building to the entity.

Management should estimate the useful life of a building as a whole on a stand-alone basis, taking into account only the expected utility to the entity. [IAS 16.57]. The average of the useful lives of the parts is not a sufficient basis to estimate the useful life of the building as a whole.

However, to estimate the useful life of the building as a whole, it might be necessary to consider the useful life or the economic life of significant parts, and whether these parts are so significant that they could affect the useful life of the building as a whole. Management should carefully evaluate situations where the useful life of a building is considered to be longer than the useful life of the structure of the building, such as walls and roof.

Determining the useful life of significant parts

The cost of a part is depreciated on a systematic basis over its useful life. The asset management policy of the entity might involve disposal of significant parts after a specified time, or after consumption of a specified proportion of the future economic benefits embodied in the asset. Therefore, the useful life of the asset could be shorter than its economic life. The estimation of useful life is a matter of judgement, based on the entity’s experience with similar assets.

An entity should review the useful life (and the residual value) of an asset at least at each financial year-end. However, an entity can choose to evaluate the estimated useful life of an asset additionally at each interim reporting date. [IAS 16.51].

In principle, the useful life of a part of a building should not be longer than the useful life of the building as a whole. For example, it would be unlikely for a building with a useful life of 25 years to have interior walls with a useful life of 30 years. However, an entity should carefully assess whether parts might be transferred to another building for further use. In those cases, the useful life of the parts might reasonably be longer than the useful life of the building as a whole.

Significant parts can be grouped and depreciated together if their useful life and the depreciation method are the same. [IAS 16.45].

Determining the useful life of the remainder

An entity is obliged to depreciate significant parts of a building and the ‘rest of the building’ separately. The ‘rest of the building’ consists of parts that are not individually significant. An entity groups these parts to one depreciation unit: ‘the remainder’ (see diagram above).

The remainder consists of those parts of the building that are not individually significant but could have a useful life significantly different from the useful life of the building as a whole.

The applicable useful life of the remainder, as well as the depreciation method used, needs to be determined in a way that faithfully represents the consumption pattern and/or useful life of its parts. [IAS 16.46]. One acceptable method to determine useful life of the remainder could be the average of the useful life of its parts, rather than the useful life of the building as a whole.

The standard is silent on whether one remainder is sufficient where the useful lives of insignificant parts differ significantly (for example, parts with five years and parts with 20 years of useful life). In such a case, it would be appropriate to have more than one remainder. Further, applying a depreciation rate – calculated based on the average useful life of the parts in the remainder – in that instance might not faithfully represent the consumption pattern and/or the useful life of the parts. [IAS 16.46].

2.4 Subsequent measurement: Fair value model

An entity that chooses to apply the fair value model for its investment property measures its properties at fair value, with any resulting gain or loss being recognised in the income statement.

The measurement of fair value of investment properties is within the scope of IFRS 13. Fair value measurement is a market-based measurement. It is the price that would be received to sell an asset in an orderly transaction between market participants. Market participants are independent, knowledgeable buyers that would be willing to transact with the entity in an orderly transaction.

Management measures the property at fair value until disposal or change in use (for example, the property becomes owner-occupied, see Transfers out of investment property), even if comparable market transactions become less frequent or market prices become less readily available. [IAS 40A.55].

In this case, management uses alternative valuation methods, such as discounted cash flow projections. [IAS 40A.46(c)]. It is prohibited to change from the fair value model to the cost model. [IAS 40A.31; IAS 8.14(b)].

2.4.1 Application where fair value cannot be determined on a continuous basis

The fair value of the investment property is not reliably determinable on a continuing basis only when comparable market transactions are infrequent and alternative reliable estimates of fair value (that is, based on discounted cash flow projections) are not available. [IAS 40.53]. In general these situations should be rare.

Fair value measurement is applied if the fair value is considered to be reliably measurable. [IAS 40A.53]. Excluded from the fair value measurement requirement are investment properties for which:

  • the fair value cannot be reliably determined whilst the property is under construction, but for which the entity expects the fair value to be reliably determinable when construction is completed; or
  • in exceptional cases, there is clear evidence when an entity first acquires or initially recognises the investment property that the fair value cannot be determined reliably on a continuing basis.

IAS 40 requires an investment property, for which the fair value cannot be reliably determined, to be accounted for at cost. [IAS 40.53]. In general such situations should be rare.

In the rare event that fair value of a property cannot be reliably determined for any of the reasons stated above, management:

  1. applies the cost model in accordance with IAS 16 for that property [IAS 40A.53]; and
  2. accounts for its remaining investment properties at fair value if their fair value can be determined reliably.

In order to evaluate whether the fair value of an investment property under construction can be determined reliably, management considers the following factors, among others:

  • The provisions of the construction contract.
  • The stage of completion.
  • Whether the project/property is standard (typical for the market) or non-standard.
  • The level of reliable information as to cash inflows after completion.
  • The development risk specific to the property.
  • Past experience with similar developments.
  • Status of construction permits.

The general presumption, for properties under construction, is that fair value can be reliably determined. This presumption can only be rebutted on initial recognition. [IAS 40A.53B]. We would expect rebuttal of this presumption to be rare.

In the event that the presumption is rebutted, once a reliable fair value can be determined for an investment property under construction, management is required to measure the property at fair value if the fair value model is applied to investment property. [IAS 40A.53A]. Subsequently, the entity can no longer conclude that the fair value of the property cannot be determined reliably. [IAS 40A.53B].

See also – Fair value measurement of investment property

Annualreporting provides financial reporting narratives using IFRS keywords and terminology for free to students and others interested in financial reporting. The information provided on this website is for general information and educational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional advice. Use at your own risk. Annualreporting is an independent website and it is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or in any other way associated with the IFRS Foundation. For official information concerning IFRS Standards, visit IFRS.org or the local representative in your jurisdiction.

Measurement of investment property

Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property

Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property

Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property Measurement of investment property

Leave a comment