Your reporting is very timely and the description of the issues are strong. This harkens back to the prevalence of off-balance sheet financing issues that, though still remain, are no longer forgotten post-Enron.

This said, while I am not a big fan of layering more technical requirements in reporting requirements, I disagree that reporting reform is not enough in this case. Instead, consistency can be achieved by noting the outstanding balances of SCF and the accompanying interest expense either separately in a note or explicitly in reclassifying to where they beyond in debt and interest expense. Your alternative solution, while creative, would lead to even more restating of financials by analysts across the market and still only be a proxy. Again, while I think the current lease capitalization rules are overly complex, they have normalized just such a similar adjustment to compare firms that rely on leasing instead of debt so have materially reduced the ad hoc adjustments needed.

In this case, it is clear to me, if it walks, talks, and levers like debt, it should be treated as debt and not be allowed to burry in payables from supplier credit.

Again, thank you for this contribution.