VI. DEPRECIATION—ASPECTS AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Aspects of Depreciation
Depreciation is intimately related to practically all problems of valuation. The engineering profession has made many valuable investigations and contributions to the literature of the subject and constant reference to them and use of some of their findings will here be made. Most of their studies relate to the vexed and still unsettled question of the valuation of public utility properties for the sake of its bearing on the problem of fair and equitable rates to the user or consumer. Accordingly much of this material is not applicable to the accounting phases of the subject. It is purposed here to treat the question from the standpoint of accounting rather than that of engineering.
Depreciation may be considered from many viewpoints. It is involved in the problem of rate-making referred to above; it must be considered in the valuation of fire insurance adjustments; it is bound up with most questions of taxation, with all transactions involving the purchase and sale of enterprises, with negotiations for the procuring of loans, for the determination of the limitation of capitalization; and in all studies of commercial balance sheets depreciation is found to affect the value of going concerns. As stated in Chapter V, these are not always separate and distinct problems of valuation; they may and often do overlap, one basis for valuation sometimes serving several of the purposes or classes named above. The treatment of the subject will be limited in this book to the latter phase of the subject, i.e., going concern valuation, with the object of establishing certain norms and differentiating this phase of depreciation clearly from its other relations.
Definitions
A clear-cut definition of depreciation is desirable. The word in a general sense means a lessening, a decrease in value; decretion; deterioration. Various specific definitions are given, among them being: “the loss, arising from years of service, in the value of the investment in perishable property”; “expired capital outlay.” These and many other similar definitions are met with.
The term “depreciation” is frequently used when the term “amortization” would be more appropriate. R. P. Bolton[14] says: “The subject of depreciation has been greatly misrepresented, because depreciation, which is a financial result, has been confused with obsolescence, which is an economic process, and with deterioration, which is a physical condition. Either of the latter brings about depreciation, and the physical process rarely happens to be more rapid than the economic.
“An illustration of the processes involved is that of the physical deterioration and obsolescence of a work horse, the capacity of which is definitely connected with its condition, and the value of the labor of which is discounted by its up-keep and the cost of its supplies and feed. Its age is productive of reduction of capacity, but this process may be, and often is, anticipated for commercial reasons by its supersession by some other form of apparatus. The horse may be in ever so good a condition at the time when the motor displaces it, but its financial depreciation then is complete, for it could be maintained only at a loss. All the elements which come into consideration in connection with machinery will be better understood if considered in relation to such an animal, the life of which may readily extend beyond the point at which its commercial value has terminated.”
[14] In “Power for Profit.”
Authoritative Opinions
The special committee appointed by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the purpose of formulating principles and methods for the valuation of railroad property and other public utilities, after a study of the question covering a five-year period, presented its report at the annual meeting of the society, January 17, 1917. The question of depreciation receives full and serious consideration in this report, which although treated mainly from the rate-making standpoint offers many suggestions for the valuation of commercial balance sheets. Their statement reads:
“Perhaps there is no single subject in connection with valuation that has caused more trouble than depreciation. This has been due to various causes, perhaps not the least of which has been confusion in the use of the term. Depreciation is sometimes used to mean decretion, which is loss of service life; sometimes to mean the money allowance made in the bookkeeping to offset accruing loss of service life; and sometimes the loss of value existing at any time due to the loss of service life or any other cause. The committee will use it only as meaning the loss of value or worth of property units which are parts of going concerns. Although this may be due to many causes, the general discussion will include consideration only of those effects which, like wear and tear, age, use, and obsolescence or inadequacy, bring a physical property unit gradually to the end of its service life.”
Earl A. Saliers[15] says: “This loss of value, whether tangible or intangible in form, resulting from physical decay, or from obsolescence or inadequacy, which indicate functional decay, is known as depreciation. It necessitates repairs, renewals, and replacements. Did it not occur, every outlay on plant would add to the investment. It does not result from one cause but from many causes, and this sometimes leads to the belief that it cannot be scientifically handled. But some adequate method of handling it is not merely desirable, but necessary, to a solution of the problems arising in the valuation of public utility properties, and in the management of industrial enterprises generally.”
Henry Floy[16] says: “It (depreciation) is used broadly to mean a reduction in utility value, expressed as a percentage but more usually in dollars, due to any deterioration in physical plant by reason of: (a) normal wear and tear, (b) age or physical decay, (c) inadequacy, (d) obsolescence, (e) deferred maintenance. The term depreciation, always used in connection with a reduction in value, has, however, four distinct and separate shades of meaning, so that the term must be qualified when used in order to distinguish which one of the following meanings is intended:
[15] In “Principles of Depreciation.”
[16] In “Value for Rate-Making.”
“First. The annual amount, expressed as a percentage or in dollars, that should be laid aside to renew or replace the article in question at the time of its abandonment.
“Second. The annual amount, expressed as a percentage or in dollars, that should be laid aside to renew or replace the article in question at the time of its abandonment, plus the annual expense of maintenance and repair expended in removing such part of depreciation as is practicable and good economy.
“Third. The total amount—usually that estimated as necessary to be expended to put the physical property in perfect operating condition—determined by the inspection and observation of an experienced engineer, expressed in a percentage or in dollars, which must be deducted from the ‘original cost’ or the ‘cost to reproduce new,’ in order to determine the absolute, actual, present value.
“Fourth. The total amount—it may be the sum of several years of depreciation—computed from ‘expectancy of life’ tables, more or less authoritative, expressed in a percentage or in dollars, that must be deducted from the ‘original cost’ or the ‘cost to reproduce new,’ in order to obtain the theoretical, present, depreciated value. This value may be increased or reduced by the condition of the property, as determined from inspection.”
The foregoing quotations from authoritative sources not only show the efforts made to define the term accurately, but also indicate the various elements included by different writers under the term, and suggest the need of further effort toward the standardization of its meaning.
Why the Depreciation Factor Arises
The distinction made in Chapter V between capital and revenue charges draws attention to the fact that the depreciation factor arises only because the fiscal or other period when information concerning values and costs, i.e., financial condition, is desired, does not coincide with the expiration of service life of the properties used in production. If the information just referred to were not desired at intermediate periods between the date of acquisition of the asset and the date of its discard or obsolescence, its cost should be treated solely as an expense of operation to be charged to the whole period in the same way that the fuel consumed, the raw materials used, etc., are regarded as revenue charges, or costs of manufacture. Practically, therefore, depreciation must be considered because a statement of financial condition is needed at regular stages of the life of the enterprise; and furthermore because the life of the various assets used in an undertaking is not uniform in length and their life histories in consequence overlap. Some assets wear out and have to be replaced, while others have still many years of useful service in them.
Actual or Absolute Depreciation
Before considering the various elements of depreciation, an explanation of some related terms will be given. A distinction is sometimes made between “absolute or actual” and “theoretical” depreciation. Absolute depreciation is the decrease in value of an asset from its state when new, to its present condition as viewed either from the standpoint of the amount it could be sold for or from the standpoint of its serviceability. In the first place, therefore, absolute depreciation is not applicable to going concern valuations. A machine after only a short term of service becomes, from the standpoint of its salability, a second-hand article and suffers a large decrease in market value. A water-pipe or an underground telephone cable immediately after its installation and even before it is brought into service depreciates materially from the standpoint of its salability as a disconnected unit. But from the standpoint of service and operations, i.e., adaptability to its intended use, such an asset may really be more valuable than before or immediately after installation. Again, an asset because of the excellent state of repair in which it is maintained may, so far as the serviceability required of it is concerned, be practically as good as new from the date of its installation until well along towards the end of its life-term. Its actual or absolute decrease in value is very slight during the early years of its life but increases rapidly just before it is discarded. This fact is illustrated by the example of the water-pipe. Slight repairs, the replacement of parts and small units, keep it for a long period 100% efficient, but the time comes when it is completely worn out and repairs are no longer economically advisable. These two examples illustrate absolute or actual depreciation.
Theoretical Depreciation
Theoretical depreciation is based upon, and has reference to, all the factors which must be considered in taking account of depreciation. As so considered the subject is viewed from the standpoint of financing the item of depreciation (sometimes called “accounting depreciation”) rather than from that of its serviceability. The engineer attempts to determine the actual, present serviceability of the asset in comparison with its serviceability when new, and so he leaves out of account its expectancy of life due to whatever causes.
Comparison of Actual and Theoretical Depreciation
The following chart adapted from Henry Floy’s “Value for Rate-Making” admirably illustrates the difference between actual and theoretical depreciation.
Curves 1, 2, and 6 representing actual depreciation have been sufficiently exemplified in the foregoing explanation of actual depreciation. Curves 1 and 2 may well represent the actual depreciation of two assets as viewed from the standpoint of salability; whereas curve 6 represents the actual depreciation of an asset viewed from the standpoint of serviceability, assuming that maintenance has kept the asset practically 100% efficient during most of its life-term. Curves 3, 4, and 5 are illustrations of theoretical depreciation, the different curves representing different bases for calculating the annual amount of the decrease in value, as will be explained in Chapter IX, “Depreciation—Methods of Calculating.” To quote from Mr. Floy’s work at length:
“The curves 3, 4, and 5 indicate several classes of ‘theoretical’ depreciation which have been quite widely used in some cases for estimating present values, but more often for determining the yearly theoretical deterioration for purposes of establishing depreciation funds, which, however, is quite a different subject. Making a theoretical estimate of the probable, future, average, annually accruing deterioration of certain property to provide an item in bookkeeping accounts of operating expense has nothing whatever to do, in making an appraisal, with fixing the definite amount of absolute, actual, or accrued depreciation which depends upon the present condition of physical property, determinable from inspection and not upon historical documents, depreciation funds, or disputed theoretical conclusions.”
In an opinion filed March 8, 1916, by the Public Service Commission of Maryland in the matter of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore City, an interesting commentary on the relative merits of actual versus theoretical depreciation is made. While the opinion concerns primarily depreciation from the rate-making point of view, it shows well the interrelation between the two kinds and answers so conclusively the objection often raised to accounting depreciation that it is here quoted. The statement is:
“Any theory for ascertaining existing depreciation in the plant of a public utility which confines such depreciation solely to the actual, visible, physical, demonstrable deterioration which can be seen by the human eye and measured by the human hand, must of necessity ignore that other species of deterioration which the experience of the past has demonstrated beyond peradventure exists in the property of every telephone company, although it cannot always be seen by the human eye or measured by the human hand. We refer to that tendency upon the part of all such property to become inadequate or obsolete with the lapse of time.”
“Accounting” and “Fair” Depreciation
Another distinction is sometimes made between “accounting” depreciation, previously mentioned, and “fair” depreciation or depreciation of valuation. Accounting depreciation signifies the depreciation, determined by whatever method, which has been taken into the accounts, i.e., the depreciation as shown on the books. This is approximately the same as theoretical depreciation defined above. Its point of view is that of financing the loss of value caused by depreciation so as to cover the entire loss by the time the asset is retired from active service rather than that of establishing a true actual value of the asset at intermediate periods. On the other hand, fair depreciation or depreciation of valuation is the “sum that should be deducted from original cost to date (or from estimated cost of reproduction new)[17] as a step in finding that which the courts have called ‘fair value.’” Here the point of view is essentially that of showing the true value of the asset at a given date. Determination of this is fundamentally an engineering problem in the solution of which cognizance must be taken of:
[17] Material in parentheses is the author’s.
1. Accounting depreciation. 2. The managerial policy as to repairs, maintenance, and renewals. 3. The past performance and expected future performance of the asset. 4. All other factors locally present which may affect the determination of the present, existing values in the asset.
Under certain conditions fair depreciation corresponds roughly with actual or absolute depreciation as defined above.
Complete and Incomplete Depreciation
Depreciation is sometimes classed as “complete” and “incomplete.” Complete depreciation refers to those assets or properties which have been discarded because no longer capable of economical service. When their cycle comes to an end, depreciation is complete. Incomplete depreciation refers to the amount of the decrement in value of assets which are still in service. The accounting for complete depreciation requires little consideration except so far as rates of depreciation are concerned. This class of depreciation represents the accomplished fact and therefore furnishes data and statistics by which the expected depreciation of similar new assets can be calculated. The accountant, therefore, is concerned with it purely as an experimental means of forecasting the future.
Individual and Composite Depreciation
Again, depreciation is classed as “individual or unit” and “composite.” Unit depreciation is the amount of the decrease in value of the individual parts which compose the whole of a property; composite depreciation is the amount of the decrease in value of the plant or property as a whole. Its amount in dollars is the sum of all unit depreciations similarly expressed. Expressed as a percentage it represents the effect of all unit depreciations weighted by the ratio of the value of each to the whole. Thus a plant as a whole may be depreciated 20%, but the numerous units of that plant may have a range of depreciation of from 0% to 100%. Some items may be ready to be discarded and others will probably have just been newly installed.
In connection with composite depreciation the term “normal” or “average” value is used. The normal value of a plant is the average value at which it must be maintained to give efficient service. Any drop below that point results in increased cost per unit of service rendered, and is consequently evidence of poor management. Normal value may sometimes be expressed in percentage as the difference between 100%, original cost, and composite depreciation. In the case cited above, where composite depreciation is 20% the normal value would be 80%, under a proper policy of management.
Physical and Functional Depreciation
Finally depreciation is classed as “physical” and “functional,” definition of which are deferred for treatment in Chapter VII, “Depreciation—Its Causes.”
Deferred Maintenance and Accrued Depreciation
Other terms needing definition are: “deferred maintenance” and “accrued depreciation.” The former refers to repairs which at any given time are needed for the proper up-keep but which for one reason or another have not yet been made. So long as an asset is giving reasonably satisfactory service, repairs are usually deferred to a convenient time—such as when work is slack, or until similar repairs may have accrued elsewhere, or until weather conditions have changed, or in general until the repairs can be most economically done. Similarly, accrued depreciation refers to the depreciation which has taken place between the last time an item was brought on the books and the present time. The inevitable forces causing depreciation are constantly at work bringing about the decretion of the asset day by day, but it is impracticable to reflect such condition daily. Only at the close of each fiscal period is it deemed necessary to adjust the books so that they reflect the depreciation which has taken place during the period just closed.
Attitude of the Law
Before studying the factors of depreciation it is interesting to note the attitude of the courts towards depreciation. Accountants and engineers recognized the necessity of taking account of depreciation considerably in advance of its recognition by the courts of this country. H. R. Hatfield[18] says: “France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Austria all prescribe in their statutes that depreciation must be reckoned before showing profits.” The French Joint-Stock Company Law specifically requires the reservation of some portion of the company’s surplus for taking care of the depreciation of the assets. While the method may not be scientific, the principle involved is recognized as correct. But in an early English case, Lee v. Neuchatel Company, it was held, in the case of a company operating inherently wasting assets “that even depreciation by waste is not necessarily a revenue charge.”
[18] In “Modern Accounting.”
Early decisions in this country likewise fail to sustain the propriety of depreciation charges. The cases usually cited are The Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 99 U. S. 402, and United States v. Kansas Pacific Ry. Co., 99 U. S. 455 (1878), the first not passing specifically on the question of depreciation but showing a lack of appreciation of the distinction between capital and revenue charges, and the latter stating that “only such expenditures as are actually made can with any propriety be claimed as a deduction from earnings.” The Supreme Court of California in San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 556 (1897), and in Redlands, etc., Water Co. v. Redlands, 212 Cal. 312 (1898), refused all allowances for depreciation except necessary amounts for “maintenance and repairs during the year.” However, in Pioneer Tele, and Tele. Co. v. Westenhaver, 118 Pac. 354, the language of the court is not uncertain: “A sufficient sum should be allowed from the earnings of a utility to make good the depreciation of the plant and replace the deteriorated portions thereof, when they become so impaired that they can no longer be made useful by repair.”
Decision of Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court recognizes the necessity for an allowance for depreciation in Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Knoxville, Appt., v. Knoxville Water Co., 212 U. S. 14 (1909), which forms the basis of judicial attitude towards the question at the present time. The decision of the court which has been supported and reaffirmed in all subsequent decisions, reads, in excerpts:
“A water plant with all its additions begins to depreciate in value from the moment of its use. Before coming to the question of profits at all the company is entitled to earn a sufficient sum annually to provide not only for current repairs, but for making good the depreciation and replacing the parts of the property when they come to the end of their life. The company is not bound to see its property gradually waste, without making provision out of earnings for its replacement. It is entitled to see that from earnings the value of the property invested is kept unimpaired, so that, at the end of any given term of years, the original investment remains as it was at the beginning. It is not only the right of the company to make such a provision, but it is its duty to its bond- and stockholders, and in the case of a public service corporation, at least its plain duty to the public. If a different course were pursued, the only method of providing for replacement of property which has ceased to be useful would be the investment of new capital and the issue of new bonds and stock. This course would lead to a constantly increasing variance between present value and bond and stock capitalization—a tendency which would inevitably lead to disaster either to the stockholders or the public, or both.”
Recognition of the Depreciation Factor
Following this decision the rules and regulations of the public service commissions of practically all the states now require that provision for depreciation be made. In the case of some of the smaller public service companies the failure to make this provision is overlooked but the practice is generally recognized as absolutely necessary. The Interstate Commerce Commission has led in this respect, although its early rulings relative thereto were strenuously objected to in some quarters. Private concerns in their contact with the government now almost invariably see the value, or at any rate the self-interest, of a deduction for depreciation. In the case of the Special Excise Tax, a Treasury decision on account of Internal Revenue provides that “deduction on account of depreciation of property must be based on lifetime of property, its cost, value, and use, and must be evidenced by a ledger entry and a like reduction in the plant and property account with respect to which depreciation is claimed.”
Similarly, the present Federal Income Tax Law recognizes allowances for depreciation, but perhaps errs in placing too stringent safeguards on the amounts to be deducted therefor, whereas the Federal Trade Commission realizes the need of liberal provision. The law reads: “That in computing net income in the case of a citizen or resident of the United States, for the purpose of the tax there shall be allowed as deduction a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property arising out of its use or employment in the business or trade. No deduction shall be allowed for any amount paid out for new buildings, permanent improvements, or betterments, made to increase the value of any property or estate, and no deduction shall be made for any amount of expense of restoring property or making good the exhaustion thereof for which an allowance is or has been made.” The depreciation allowed as a deduction from income must have actually been charged off the books. Many interesting rulings—some almost absurd if carried to their logical conclusions—have been made by inspectors and the Treasury Department on points raised as to the application of the above law to particular cases. A perusal of these decisions will well repay the student who is interested in the subject.
Distinction between Repairs and Renewals
At this point attention is called again to the need of a careful distinction between repairs (up-keep and maintenance charges) and renewals (replacements and betterments). Only a clear definition of the terms and a strict adherence to an adopted policy can prevent endless confusion and absolutely misleading results. Such a policy is necessary because in the practical handling of such items on the books the theoretical aspect of the distinction between repairs and renewals must always be modified by reason. The student is referred to the preceding chapter where more detailed treatment of this point is given.
Depreciation and Plant Efficiency
The relation of depreciation to the efficiency of a plant or an asset will now be considered. The amount of depreciation is not based on the degree of efficiency of the service rendered by the asset. In other words, a depreciation reserve is not in any sense an inverse measure of the productive efficiency of the asset to which it relates, nor does the sum of all depreciation reserves either indicate or measure the degree of efficiency of the whole plant. A comparison of present with normal value (as defined above) affords some index of productive efficiency, but there is no direct ratio between the two. In any well-maintained plant, however, the normal value is the value below which the plant cannot be allowed to fall if the standard of efficiency is to be maintained; and good management requires nothing less than this. It has been variously estimated that normal value ranges from 75% to 90% of the original cost, and in some instances runs as low as 50%. The composite depreciation of from 10% to 50% represents the limit beyond which the decrease in value cannot pass if efficient service is to be given by the plant. Usually the sum of the depreciation reserves for all the assets of the plant remains fairly constant because the large reserves against assets that are almost ready to be scrapped are offset by the smaller reserves of the assets just replaced.
Unit Efficiency
The efficiency of the unit, however, has a somewhat different relation to depreciation. Units, i.e., individual assets comprising the plant, are constantly wearing out and being replaced. The plant, aside from exceptional cases, never reaches the point where it must be discarded in its entirety and replaced as a whole. The depreciation of each unit continues until the point of inefficiency is reached, when it is scrapped and replaced. The unit frequently is allowed to drop below its margin of efficient service before being scrapped, and it may be made to render service much longer than is customary, by means of heavy repairs and a relatively high up-keep expense. When to scrap a particular unit involves a nice calculation. The heavy cost of repairs necessary to secure good service from the old unit and the possible loss through failure to accumulate a sufficient reserve must be weighed against the cost of a new unit and its up-keep and running expense. Usually the efficiency of the individual unit is very like the parson’s one-hoss shay which “ran a hundred years to a day and then of a sudden it went to pieces all at once.”
The following chart illustrates accurately the relation of efficiency to uniform depreciation, the XCY line being the efficiency curve and XY the depreciation curve. Also curve 6 of the chart on page 105 gives a good illustration of the same point. Inasmuch as the depreciation reserve must provide for the loss of the entire asset by the time it goes out of service, it is readily seen that in judging an asset from its bookkeeping record of cost and reserve there is no measure of efficiency shown therein, since a normal efficiency must be maintained by repairs at all times. The record is, however, a good index of the time when the point of inefficiency will be reached.
Engineers hold the opinion that machinery as a rule cannot suffer more than 25% to 50% actual depreciation and give efficient service. A depreciation reserve of anything more than that does not mean that the point of inefficiency has been reached, for the reserve is usually estimated and applied on the basis of theoretical depreciation and so takes cognizance of all its factors. It has sometimes been stated that inefficiency is a factor of depreciation distinct from wear and tear, obsolescence, and supersession. It seems a better statement of the relation to say that the point of inefficient service is the limit beyond which the three factors named cannot be allowed to operate or have effect. The need of judging the efficiency of some kinds of assets is not so apparent as of others. Thus in the case of poles, wires, conduits, and the like, efficient service is secured until they are worn out, with very little expense for up-keep. That is, such assets are normally efficient throughout their whole term of life, and the application of repairs will not appreciably extend their life nor will it affect their efficiency. In the case of other assets, such as machinery, telephone switchboards, motors, etc., the item of up-keep is a very vital one in the determination of the point or margin between efficient and inefficient service, and that in turn is an important factor in the determination of the length of service life of the asset. Thus, although efficiency and depreciation are intimately related, the degree of depreciation at a given time is not by any means an inverse measure of the efficiency of the service being rendered by an asset.
Depreciation and Fluctuations in Market Value
The relation of depreciation to fluctuation in value, due to whatever causes affect the market, also deserves consideration. Depreciation primarily refers to a decrease in value from a definite cost figure, such decrease being due to certain well-recognized causes, of which change in market value is not one. Thus, while it may be correct, through a loose use of the term, to use the expressions, “depreciation of securities,” “depreciation of real estate,” and similar phrases, and there may be no likelihood of any misunderstanding, that is not the sense in which the term depreciation is used here. Unfortunately, market fluctuations are sometimes allowed to influence depreciation charges.
Such influence may come about in three ways: (1) In valuation proceedings for the determination of rates for a public utility company, a basis frequently used is that of the cost of reproduction or renewal less depreciation. The theory is that under existing views of private property such a company has the right to the enjoyment of all increments in its own properties and therefore has a right to such rates as will earn a fair income on the present value of those properties. Depreciation based on the present reproduction cost is in this way influenced by fluctuations in market value, and the oftener a physical appraisal is made and its determined values brought upon the books, the greater will be the disturbance of the basis for the depreciation charge. (2) Occasionally the practice is met with of basing the present depreciation charge upon the estimated cost to replace the old asset. This is discussed later and is mentioned here merely to show a possible relationship between fluctuations and depreciation. (3) Finally, in the periodic adjustment of depreciation rates and charges, the estimated scrap value of the asset does affect the amount of the periodic charge. Changes in market value of scrap, which may be considered as due to causes which will continue in force rather than to the ups and downs of the market, may legitimately be reflected in the depreciation charge for the remaining life-term of the asset and must be so reflected in the interests of accuracy in any statement of true values.
Distinction between Depreciation and Depletion
Inasmuch as depreciation is not here used to apply to current assets (with one exception noted below), and fluctuations in the market value of any asset subject to depreciation need not be considered, it may be well to state the class of assets to which it does apply. In general the value of all fixed or capital assets is affected by depreciation. The term frequently used in this connection is “wasting” assets. Under this nomenclature is included any asset which wastes away or is used up. For the sake of clarity the author desires to limit the term depreciation to those assets which are clearly affected by any of the causes of depreciation as discussed in the following chapter. For those assets which are used up without any possibility of their being replaced, and the life of which cannot be prolonged by repairs and renewals, the term depletion will be used. Accordingly the term “depreciation” will be applied to mine buildings and machinery; “depletion,” to the mine. Both are wasting assets, but their waste is due to somewhat different, although vitally related, causes. No better definition of wasting assets has been formulated than that by P. D. Leake[19] who says that they “consist of all forms of exchangeable value which inevitably diminish while applied to the purpose of seeking profits, increase, or advantage otherwise than by purchase and sale.”
[19] In “Depreciation and Wasting Assets.”
Effect on Different Kinds of Business
Some types of undertakings are more subject to the effects of wasting assets than others. Concerns dealing in investments, insurance of all kinds, brokerage and commission, manufacturers’ agents, banking and financial houses, professional firms, and the like, only a small portion of whose capital is tied up in fixed assets, are comparatively unaffected by the charge for depreciation. Practically all other concerns are subject to it in marked degree—manufacturers, mines, transportation companies, light, heat, and power concerns, the telephone, telegraph, and cable, construction companies, agricultural, etc. Those engaged in extracting raw materials from the ground are, with few exceptions, subject to a charge for depletion. Those with an investment in any kind of terminating rights, such as leases, patents, copyrights, non-renewable franchises for a fixed term of years, and so on, are also subject to it. Opinions differ as to whether good-will and trade-marks may properly be considered as subject to depreciation. They will not be so considered here for reasons which will be stated when the principles of their valuation are discussed.
It will be noted that thus far all examples given have been those of fixed assets. The exception already referred to is made in the case of the current asset, merchandise or stock-in-trade. The term depreciation can perhaps correctly be used in connection with merchandise, which, however, is not to be classed as a wasting asset. Due to some of the causes discussed in the next chapter, the stock-in-trade of an undertaking does truly depreciate in value. The method of accounting for such depreciation differs entirely from that used for wasting assets. Hence, the treatment of depreciation of merchandise will be considered at the same time that its valuation is discussed (see Chapter XIII.)
Having cleared the ground with this definition of terms and the general statement of what the depreciation problem is, attention will now be directed to a consideration of the causes of depreciation, to be followed by the method of accounting for depreciation and a treatment of some points growing out of the general discussion.
VII. DEPRECIATION—ITS CAUSES
Analysis of Causes
Most definitions of the term depreciation set the boundaries or limits of its meaning by naming the causes. These are normally: (1) wear and tear, or physical factors; (2) inadequacy and obsolescence, or functional factors; and (3) accidents or contingent causes. This statement of causes applies specifically only to physical or tangible properties. In the case of intangible property, consisting for the most part of rights of various sorts, the controlling cause is usually merely lapse of time. The chart on the following page analyzes the various causes and shows their detailed ramifications.
Age as a Cause of Depreciation
The physical depreciation of tangible properties arises from two main causes, viz., the wear and tear from operation and the use of the asset and the wear and tear of age, known as decrepitude. Immediately upon the installation of an asset the forces of time and the elements begin their ravages even before operations begin. As H. R. Hatfield[20] trenchantly puts it, “all machinery is on an irresistible march to the junk heap,” and the statement is equally applicable to all other forms of wasting assets. The ties placed on the roadbed of a railway, conduits put in place for carrying water, gas, steam, electric current, or oil, rolling stock, poles for telephone and telegraph lines, buildings, even interior installations of various types—all are subject to the normal ravages of time and the elements, and nothing which man has been able to devise can do more than retard the inevitable. Thus, all assets decrease in value through the inevitable lapse of time. Attention should be here directed to the fact that decrepitude depends on the normal action of time and the elements, whereas accidents due to action of the elements (listed in the chart on page 121, under III, 1, b) are of an abnormal character and cannot usually be taken into full account at the time of the installation of any particular piece of property.
CAUSES OF DEPRECIATION[21]
{ { 1. Wear and Tear from Operation { I.Physical { (a) Maintenance Policy { { 2. Decrepitude { { (a) Action of Time and the Elements { { II.Funct- { 1. Inadequacy or Supersession { ional { 2. Obsolescence { { { (a) Negligence { { { { Fire { { { { Lightning { { 1. Accidents { (b) Elements { Wind A. Tangible { { { { Water Property { { { { Temperature { { { (c) Structural Defects { { { { { (a) Parasites { III.Contin-{ { (b) Pollution of Water { gent { { { Mineral { { 2. Diseases { (c) Growths in { Vegetable { { { Water-Mains{ Animal { { { (d) Electrolysis { { { (e) Crystallization { { { { 3. Diminution in Supply { (a) Natural Gas { { { (b) Water
B. Intangible Property—Rights { 1. Limited in Time { 2. Abandoned
[20] In “Modern Accounting.”
[21] Chart adapted from “Regulation, Valuation and Depreciation,” by S. S. Wyer.
Wear and Tear of Use
The wear and tear due to use or operation usually has a much more potent effect on the service life of an asset than that due to decrepitude. The established policy as to repairs and maintenance has an important effect on this kind of depreciation. Sooner or later every machine becomes unfit for service, due to the friction of its parts, the strains to which it is subject under normal load, those of much greater effect under abnormal load, the method of applying its power, etc. It must then either be withdrawn from service and completely depreciated, or it must be repaired in an effort to lengthen its life. It should be kept in mind that the determining factor here is efficiency. The serviceability of the machine must be kept up to a recognized standard through adequate expenditures for repairs and up-keep until the cost of up-keep is disproportionate to the service rendered, or until the machine becomes so decrepid as to make its operation hazardous.
The application of theoretical depreciation to operating wear and tear must proceed with great care. This is so because of the varying factor of maintenance. If the cost of maintenance Could be standardized, experience under such standard would give a reliable basis for the calculation of the depreciation charge. Since adherence to such a standard is difficult or impossible under the conditions that are constantly arising in a given establishment, the depreciation policy must of necessity be based on actual observation and inspection by experts. The expenditure necessary to restore an asset to a state of operating efficiency is called “deferred” or “accrued” maintenance, and it is the amount of this at a given time, estimated by expert inspection, which compared with normal maintenance forms the basis for an estimate of the depreciation charge.
Functional Depreciation
Tangible property is subject also to “functional” depreciation. This means a lessening in worth or service value due to causes, other than those already treated, which interfere with and operate against the proper functioning of the asset, making it impossible to render effectively and economically the full requirements of service expected of it. This inability to fulfil its proper function may result either from inadequacy or obsolescence. “Thus the structure may suffer total depreciation and be thrown out of service, not only because through wear and tear it has reached a condition where further expenditures for repairs or attempts to make it suitable for the required service would not be economical or expedient, but also because recent improvements, or new inventions, new developments and radical changes in service, or the demands of one kind or another involving sweeping changes in the existing plant, make abandonment necessary.”[22]
[22] Leonard Metcalf paper on “Water-works Valuation and Fair Rates” before the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. LXIV, 1909, page 16.
Inadequacy as a Factor
Inadequacy is a condition in which the asset is found unable to meet the demands made upon it, due usually to growth of business or to some rearrangement made necessary by changed policy before the asset has reached the end of This condition is also called “supersession.” For economical operation the asset must be discarded and superseded by a larger unit. As an example, dynamos and motors of a capacity sufficient to meet all demands on them at the date of their installation may, through growth of business, prove entirely inadequate after a few years to meet the service expected of them. Inadequacy as a factor of depreciation will have no appreciable effect in cases where the demand is fairly constant and the market does not permit of much expansion. Where there is a growing community and (or) a growing appreciation of the commodity manufactured, demand may increase to a point where original judgment and expectation will be shown to have been in error and the equipment will have to be superseded if advantage is to be taken of the expanding market.
Two main factors or compelling forces may bring about inadequacy, viz., those of internal origin and those of external origin. Those of internal origin may become effective because of: (1) abandonment of original financial policy, (2) considerations of engineering economy, and (3) unforeseen development.
Inadequacy through Change of Policy
Perhaps the best illustration of the first type is that of a plant built to supply a certain commodity to the local community. A change in ownership brings about an abandonment of the original policy and a determination to provide neighboring communities with the commodity also. This change in policy frequently comes about when several smaller plants are merged under one control and the original units are found to be entirely inadequate to meet the demand. Again, when through a change in financial policy it is decided to lower the rates of a public service commodity, the original equipment may prove inadequate to meet the increased demand. It is not contended here that this type of inadequacy is to be taken into account in estimating the depreciation charge. Usually it cannot be foreseen and should therefore be provided against under the head of a general contingent reserve or appropriation of profit. If it can be foreseen intelligently, it should be taken into account in the estimate of depreciation.
Inadequacy through Motives of Economy
The second type of inadequacy may be a foreseen and calculated inadequacy. In a new community or in the case of a new commodity whose virtues are little known, it may be the part of economy and business sagacity to install originally only such equipment as will be adequate to meet the requirements during the development stage and then when the commodity is introduced and established to discard the old and install larger and more adequate structures. Although it may be foreseen with reasonable certitude that a power plant generating a thousand horse-power will be entirely inadequate in ten years, yet it may be the better business economy to scrap it at the end of ten years rather than incur the up-keep and depreciation charges on a larger plant which would give longer service. Whichever policy, according to best engineering economy, results in the lowest unit cost of product is usually the determining factor. If with all the facts and reasonable expectations under view the smaller plant is decided upon, then assuredly the depreciation due to inadequacy must be taken into consideration.
Inadequacy Due to Unforeseen Development
The third type of inadequacy, unforeseen development, has been shown to be due to an unexpected expansion of the market. This may be brought about by growth in population of the present market, growth in appreciation of the commodity manufactured, or sometimes by a lowering of transportation rates whereby new markets are opened. The very fact that this kind of inadequacy is unexpected and unforeseen makes impossible its inclusion in the current depreciation charge. This kind of inadequacy is revealed by a post-mortem determination of causes of which there were no symptoms leading to a correct diagnosis during life. The loss to be incurred through the scrapping of the property before its expected termination of service is a loss which must be borne by the future and not by the past. It is in the nature of a development cost which must be incurred if the opportunities of the new market are to be seized, and which must enter into a consideration of the advisability of making a bid for the new business.
Business policy might or might not dictate that these costs be charged against reserves of profits from the past. Theoretically they should be spread somewhat evenly over the future but in neither case can they have any place in present depreciation charges. It should be thoroughly understood that depreciation is a charge which relates always to the past, never to the future. There is no contradiction here in that a consideration of the future must help to determine the amount of waste which has taken place in the past. P. D. Leake[23] says: “It is a misconception to describe the annual provision for depreciation as a provision for future renewals, as though it has reference to the future. The annual provision for depreciation has nothing to do with the future but relates solely to the past. It is a replacement of capital in respect to past capital outlay expired in the process of carrying on the business.”
[23] In “Depreciation and Wasting Assets.”
Inadequacy Imposed from Without
Inadequacy may be imposed by external forces or authority. In public service utilities this has often proved a source of expense. In the interests of a supposedly enlightened opinion—oftentimes a badly mistaken opinion—present equipment is found inadequate to meet the new demands. This type of inadequacy merges imperceptibly into obsolescence. Again, a municipality at the time of repaving the streets may require that the utility company discard present equipment and install a larger and heavier type; it may require that overhead wires be carried in underground conduits; and prudence on the part of the company may lead to the installation of larger carriers than the old. These losses—and there is almost invariably a loss to the utility company—must be charged against the future. So also, the passage of laws and ordinances in the interests of sanitation and fire protection frequently compels the private owner to discard equipment and devices before their service life has passed and install more adequate equipment.
Obsolescence as a Cause
The second factor of functional depreciation is obsolescence. By this we mean that lessening in worth which is brought about by the development of something new whereby production becomes more economical or is changed to meet new ideas, fads, or fancies of the consumer. Obsolescence may be imposed by outside forces through the exercise of the police power under circumstances analogous to those mentioned under the discussion of inadequacy brought about by external means. Municipalities and regulating commissions have speeded up the “irresistible march to the junk heap” in numberless instances. Cotton-spinning and shoe machinery, lasts and patterns of all sorts, electrical devices in particular—all have been subject to obsolescence charges. The horse car gave place to the cable car, which in its turn was displaced by steam locomotion, and today this has given way to electrically propelled street cars. The old wooden rail gave way to the rail of wood capped with a strip of steel, the light “T” steel rail, and the present heavy steel rails—changes all necessitated by changes and developments in the art and a demand for better service by the public. The stick used by the Indian to turn the ground and plant his corn has been displaced successively by hand tools of iron and steel, horse-driven plows, and the big steam and gas tractors of the present day. No industry has escaped the seemingly inevitable trend towards the displacement of the old and antiquated but not worn-out equipment, by newer, more up-to-date, and more economical equipment. Obviously the last word has not yet been spoken or the last refinement been made in the development or application of art and science to any industrial enterprise. Life means development; dry rot and retrogression are the fate of any art, any industry, any people which has reached the limit of its development.
Since, therefore, obsolescence is so common an occurrence, so absolutely a fact of general experience, it would be folly to ignore it. Many writers and some authorities have said that while obsolescence is as certain and ever present as the forces of nature, it seldom is more possible of measurement than are they. However, engineers tell us that in most cases it is possible for qualified experts to foretell with reasonable certainty the effect of obsolescence. “Those most familiar with the art know the units which will be able to serve their entire physical life, and what classes are so uneconomical or otherwise defective that some improvement must be expected.”
Treatment of Obsolescence
As to the effect of obsolescence, attention should be called to the fact that it is seldom operative to its full extent. The decision as to the exact time of discarding the old and installing the new rests on a nice balancing of many factors. Thus, the safety devices operated by hand on railroads are not displaced in a wholesale manner by those which operate automatically. In a large telephone company old switchboards are not discarded for new over the entire system at the same time. Much of the old is oftentimes allowed to serve out its life-term, and obsolescence has no effect. Under the circumstances stated above, and many similar and more complicated conditions, it requires a nice calculation to determine the actual effect of the factor of obsolescence in depreciation. Many inaccuracies, even many ridiculous conclusions, in estimates made by experts are met with, times without number. The novice thus fears even to guess as to the amount of the depreciation due to this factor. That is perhaps as it should be; there is no place here for the novice. Inasmuch, however, as the trend is to estimate the depreciation due to obsolescence, and such practice has the unqualified approval of many public service boards and at least the silent approval of our courts, it would seem that an attempt should be made to include it in the depreciation charge. As to its sufficiency or insufficiency, an amount can be estimated with as much accuracy under the head of depreciation as under that of a contingent reserve, and the former course is to be preferred in that an inevitable fact of experience in almost every industry is thereby recognized. The past, and not the future, is thus burdened with the accomplished waste. There doubtless will be instances where depreciation due to obsolescence palpably cannot be foreseen. For such there is but one of two courses, viz.: either to charge it against profits reserved out of the past, or burden the future with its cost.
Relative to the inclusion of obsolescence in the depreciation charge, the Illinois Public Service Commission says in the case of the City of Springfield v. Springfield Gas and Electric Company, March, 1916: “In view of all the facts in this case, the Commission finds that it is but reasonable, proper, and equitable to make deductions from cost new to cover accrued depreciation, both physical and functional....” The statement of the Maryland Public Service Commission in the case of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore City has already been cited on page 106. Quoting from the report of the Valuation Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers: “A limited search ... indicated that inadequacy and obsolescence were included either in ascertaining the amount of depreciation to be included in cost, or to be deducted from earnings ... by the commissions of the following states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin.”
Covering this feature, i.e., the depreciation feature, in making returns to the government under the Federal Income Tax of 1916, the Commissioner ruled as follows: “The deduction for depreciation should be the estimated amount of the loss, accrued during the year to which the return relates, in the value of the property in respect of which such deduction is claimed, that arises from exhaustion, wear and tear, or obsolescence out of the uses to which the property is put.... The depreciation allowance, to be deductible, must be, as nearly as possible, the measure of the loss due to wear and tear, exhaustion, and obsolescence.”
Although not specifically mentioned, functional depreciation may be said to have the sanction of the United States Supreme Court in its decisions covering the Knoxville and Minnesota rate cases. In the case of the Des Moines Water Company v. City of Des Moines, 192 Fed. 193, September 16, 1911, the court allows both “functional and physical depreciation.”
It would seem, then, that the legality of the practice is pretty well established and the ability to compute the amount has been recognized. It is not often the case in matters of business policy and prudence such as this that the courts lead where business men and some professional men are reluctant to follow.
Contingent Depreciation
A third factor in depreciation is given in the chart on page 121 as contingent. The term would seem to indicate on the face of things that it is not a factor of sufficient definiteness and certainty to make possible its prevision and therefore the calculation of its effect. Hence it might seem that provision could be made for it only by means of a general reserve. In many individual cases and as to its application as a universally operative factor in the same sense that are use and wear and tear, the position is undoubtedly well taken. The term contingent, as here used, is meant to cover not only things which have happened and may happen again, but also things which in given localities and under known or knowable conditions are more or less inevitable. Hence while not found present in all cases, where conditions are favorable to the happening of any of the contingencies, from the standpoint of prudence and an equitable distribution of the burden of costs, provision should be made for them as one of the items comprising depreciation. Contingent depreciation may comprise three classes of contingencies, viz., (1) accidents, (2) diseases, and (3) diminution in supply.
Accidents. With regard to the first class, M. E. Cooley, in the Milwaukee Three-cent Fare Case, says: “An engine or a boiler may be wrecked and with it other machinery. This might, and probably would, involve a considerable expense for repairs or replacement, besides possibly crippling the plant in part. Cars may collide or a car may drop through a bridge. A bridge itself may fall or be carried away by floods. A storm, as a cyclone, may work havoc, entailing costs in excess of those proper to be charged to ordinary maintenance of property.” Accidents may happen either as a result of negligence or as a so-called “act of God,” i.e., the elements, or a hidden defect in the structure. With regard to depreciation from accidents it may be quoted, “There is always a certain amount of loss by accident which seems to be inseparable from the business. Usually it can be counted on in advance, and no amount of care and precaution will entirely eliminate it.”[24] The Railway Library for 1910 says that of 899 railroad accidents the various causes were:
Malicious acts 30 accidents Elements 104 ” Structural defects 117 ” Various forms of negligence 648 ”
[24] Spring Valley Water Co. v. San Francisco, 165 Fed. Rep. 703.
In a large concern where past experience may serve as a guide to the future, depreciation of this sort can be rather accurately estimated. In the case of the rolling stock of a railroad, statistics make available the yearly loss due to accidents from whatever cause. It is argued that such losses are fairly uniform from year to year in a large system of that sort, and each year’s operation carries the burden simply by charging all repairs incident thereto against the revenues of that period. This is, of course, true in the main and may give sufficiently accurate results. The same treatment may also be applied to replacements, and if the units are sufficiently small in value in comparison with their number, practically no inequity as between periods will result. However, the Interstate Commerce Commission has ordered that depreciation reserves shall be set up for the proper handling of such accidents and this seems the better method. Statistics are available as to how frequently explosions in powder factories are apt to occur and the losses due to them, so that a manager can calculate the provision to be made on that account. Those are simply the risks of the particular business, and wherever it is known that they are applicable to any kind or group of equipment or other assets, certainly the current operations should bear their share.
After all, depreciation charges due to any causes are much of the nature of insurance which has to be carried by the enterprise itself because the risks have not yet been reduced to an insurable basis. Much as a proprietor may dislike to carry his own depreciation insurance, he is compelled to. In connection with accidents as a part of the depreciation charge, it should be noted that the product should not be charged twice for this item. If regular insurance is carried for fire, flood, tornado, earthquake, and the like, certainly those elements should be omitted from the insurance risk carried as depreciation by the concern itself.
Disease. Under certain conditions as to climate and local environment, the ravages of disease must be reckoned with. Diseases are caused by:
1. Parasites 2. Water pollution 3. Growths in water mains 4. Electrolysis 5. Crystallization[25]
[25] A. S. C. E., Vol. 31, page 220, article by R. Montfort. A. S. C. E., Vol. 40, page 178, article by C. H. Snow. Association Engineering Societies, Vol. 31, page 49, by F. W. Hodgson. U. S. Gov’t, Bureau of Entomology Bulletin #94, Pt. 1, by T.E. Snyder. U. S. Gov’t, Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin #64, by G.T. More and K.F. Kellerman. U. S. Gov’t, Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin #76, by G.T. More and K.F. Kellerman. U. S. Gov’t., Dep’t of Agriculture, Forest Service, Circular #128 by C. S. Smith.
Losses and deterioration from these causes are quite appreciable in some enterprises. Telephone poles are subject to attack by borers and woodpeckers. “More than 50% of the weight of the wood may be removed ... without being greatly manifested upon the surface.” “At least 10% of the chestnut poles reset or replaced are injured by insects.” Railroad trestles, bridges, docks, piers, wooden shipping, and structures of all sorts are more or less subject to this kind of depreciation. Minute vegetable growths known as algae may cause a marked depreciation in a water utility. Other forms of vegetable and animal organisms sometimes cause growths in water-pipes, resulting in a partial shutting off of the capacity. Similarly, mineral growths may produce like effects. Iron oxide (common rust) and lime deposits or scale are frequent causes.
Electrolysis. Depreciation caused by electrolysis is a highly technical subject, discussion of which will not be attempted here. “Electrolysis is a chemical decomposition produced by an electric current. As applied to utilities, electrolysis is the disintegration of metal structure caused by the electrolytic action produced by stray electric currents, generally from the return circuits of single trolley electric railways.” The damage, both direct as above stated, and indirect as in the leaking of water, gas, etc., or in the flooding of adjacent premises or injury through gas explosions, is recognized by the courts, but the satisfaction granted is limited to enjoining a continuance of the injury.
Molecular Change. In some kinds of machinery subject to heavy strain and shock when in use, a disintegration of the structure itself takes place whereby its resisting power and therefore its efficiency are greatly impaired. This condition is known as a crystallization of the molecules.
Depletion. Finally depreciation due to contingent causes may be brought about by a diminution in the supply. This is more in the nature of a depletion charge and will be fully considered in connection with that subject treated on page 117.
Terminable Rights
The intangible property subject to depreciation consists of terminable or limited rights. Rights given or held for a definite period of time expire or waste away through the lapse of time. Decrepitude is the controlling factor here, and because of the definiteness of the length of time, the depreciation charge is easily calculated. Therefore provision must be made for it. Various methods, resulting in quite different charges to each period, are sometimes employed. These methods will be discussed in Chapters IX and X. Rights which are not terminable or limited—and even limited rights—may, however, be given up or abandoned. This is a situation which cannot usually be foreseen and therefore cannot be provided against except by means of a general reserve.
Effective Depreciation
One final point in connection with the causes of depreciation needs consideration. Though all of these various causes or kinds of depreciation are seldom found operative on a given asset, frequently several of them are so operative. Where this is the case their effect is not cumulative. One or the other will prove a controlling factor in determining the service life of the asset and thus the amount of its periodic depreciation. There is a close relation between the operation of the chief factors in depreciation and the scrap value of the asset. Thus, if it is estimated that physical depreciation will be complete in 8 years, obsolescence in 10 years, and inadequacy in 12 years, scrap value would be slight. If, however, inadequacy is the controlling factor, becoming operative in 8 years, with obsolescence in 10 years, and physical depreciation in 12 years, clearly scrap value might be quite appreciable. Whichever factor is the controlling one, that factor is said in a given case to constitute the effective depreciation for that asset. Thus, in the first case mentioned, physical depreciation constitutes effective depreciation and would form the basis for the estimated charge, while in the second case inadequacy is the effective factor.
VIII. DEPRECIATION—FACTORS OF RATE DETERMINATION
Fundamental Purpose of Depreciation
Under the head of accounting for depreciation, which forms the subject of this and following chapters, will be considered:
1. The purpose of the depreciation charge. 2. Rates of depreciation and their relation to repairs, renewals, and replacements. 3. Methods of reckoning depreciation and their effects. 4. Handling depreciation on the books. 5. Financing depreciation and some related problems.
Though much has been written about the causes and kinds of depreciation, the necessity of considering it, and methods of calculating its amount, so far as the author knows there has been no adequate presentation of the fundamental purpose of the depreciation charge viewed both from the valuation or balance sheet point of view and the operation or profit and loss standpoint. The statement is frequently made that the purpose of depreciation and the necessity for considering it is to maintain intact the value of the original capital invested. In so far, therefore, as this necessitates a periodic charge against revenue, resulting in a retention in the business, either in a specific or floating form, of some of the revenue-producing assets, the operating or profit and loss phase of the business is affected. This secures the integrity of the original fund of capital by making the revenue receipts unavailable for distribution among the stockholders until the portion of the assets wasted away has been made good. This view of depreciation has as its actuating purpose a showing of correct values in the balance sheet, with little regard to the purposes to be served by the depreciation charge against operations. This emphasis of the problem of valuation is usually looked upon as primarily the engineering viewpoint.
Depreciation a Cost of Operation
On the other hand, many students of the problem view the depreciation charge as incurred for the sole purpose of determining the correct costs of doing business. Unquestionably, depreciation is a cost of production. A portion of the service life of equipment goes into each unit of the product, and depreciation constitutes a cost which must be borne by the product with as much reason as the labor power that fashions and forms it and the raw material out of which it is made. To determine a cost of production and a profit without the inclusion of the depreciation charge would be, as R. H. Montgomery[26] says, just as logical as “to state that a candy manufacturer had earned a net profit of $100,000 and that out of said $100,000 there had been set aside $20,000 to pay for the sugar consumed in the manufacture of the product. The use of that which is consumed is a loss or expense. Machinery is consumed; sugar is consumed. You cannot say that one is an operating expense and the other is an item which need not be ascertained nor taken into account until the net profit is shown.... If the provision for depreciation is an item which cannot be included among the costs of operation, there is something wrong.”
[26] In “Income Tax Procedure, 1918.”
This view of depreciation attempts to show the correct costs in the profit and loss statement of operations, without much regard to its effect on the balance sheet except that, in so far as every charge against operations is reflected among the assets, the fact of its inclusion as an operating cost automatically works also as a means of declaring correct values. Under this view—which may, without any misstatement perhaps, be called the accountant’s viewpoint—the emphasis is placed on the effort to show true costs of the product, and only incidentally a true valuation of the assets.
Complication of Short Fiscal Periods
Theoretically there is no conflict of views here—only a difference in emphasis. It is purposed, however, to show some of the practical difficulties encountered in the full application of either view. As has been stated in an earlier chapter, the ideal time in so far as depreciation is involved for the determination of financial results would be the time when all the elements of production entering into the product have been completely used up—if this were possible. There would then be no troublesome problems as to inventories, accruals, or deferred charges. The fiscal period would coincide with the natural service-life periods of all the producing elements. The problem of depreciation would then be a simple one, and the entire value of the equipment would be a charge to the product turned out during its life-period. Such a method of determining the financial results of an enterprise is, of course, merely fanciful. There is always, and will be always, an overlapping of the life-periods of the various units of a plant. Furthermore the practical necessities of modern business and competition require a much shorter fiscal period with a more frequent figuring of results and showing of condition. It is due to this shortening of the fiscal period to one month, six months, or a year that the difficulties of the depreciation problem arise and inaccuracies of statement are consciously or unconsciously made.
The handling of the problem hinges on the answer to the question as to the correct basis for the distribution of the depreciation charge. Shall a fiscal period of arbitrary length be used as the basis for determination of the service life of the operating equipment? Or shall the life of inanimate equipment be measured in terms of units produced, service rendered, results achieved, just as human life and age may be measured in terms of intensity of thought and action? It is unfortunately true that once the depreciation charge is settled, this same charge is constantly applied with little adjustment to changing conditions. Thus, varying intensity of service is not reflected in the periodic charge.
The Factor of Idle Time
Were it possible to foretell length of service life in terms of units of product instead of units of time, a much better approximation to actual results would be secured. And this very thing is attempted under almost all methods of estimating depreciation. The life-period of the equipment is estimated on an assumption of average, normal use of the equipment—an assumption which will give good practical results when and so long as operations are normal or average. When, however, a period of depression comes and much of the equipment is idle, it is clear that that period would be burdened unduly with a depreciation charge based on years or months of service life. On the other hand, a period of feverish activity would not bear its just share of the burden of wasting assets. The period which is really overburdened must necessarily reflect it as an undervaluation of the assets—more has been charged off than has been used up; while the opposite is true of an underburdened period. Of course, on the theory of averages, by the end of the life-period of an asset all inequalities would be ironed out. Some methods of cost-keeping take this factor of intensity into account and spread the depreciation charge on a man-hour or machine-hour basis, which proportions it somewhat equitably to the product turned out by the use made of the machine and not to its elapsed life in days or months. The best that can be hoped for is as near an approximation to the truth as possible.
Depreciation a Means of Financing
Another view of the purpose of the depreciation charge is that it is a method or means of financing depreciation as it is sometimes termed. Under this view the effect of the depreciation charge on intermediate periods is lost sight of and it is used solely as a means of securing a sufficient contribution in hand at the end of the service life of the asset to finance its replacement. In other words, no attempt is made through the periodic depreciation charge to secure an accurate or necessarily true statement of the values of the assets, nor to see that the product of a given period is burdened with its just share of all costs, though this may be an incidental purpose. H. V. Hayes[27] in discussing this phase of depreciation says:
[27] In “Public Utilities, Their Cost New and Depreciation.”
“It is argued that the plant unit ‘deteriorates’ year by year and that this ‘deterioration’ is the true measure of the ‘depreciation’ in the value of the unit during the intermediate years of its life, and, being a physical condition of the plant, can in no way be measured by the purely financial considerations upon which the reserves for depreciation necessarily must be based. Such a line of reasoning is absolutely faulty. Any attempt to reconcile ‘deterioration’ with ‘depreciation’ at any intermediate period in the life of the plant of an undertaking, is not only unnecessary but futile. The error in such an attempt arises from a failure ... to recognize the fact that ... if definite agreement has been reached as to the serviceable life (of the asset), the physical ‘deterioration’ of the unit, at any time during its life, can be a matter affecting its intrinsic value in no way whatever.”
Danger of the Financing Viewpoint
The above statement is a fair presentation of the case for depreciation as a financing device. It would seem, however, that the exponents of this view lose sight of the inevitable fact that the depreciation charge is pro tanto an evaluator of the wasting asset during the intermediate period of its life. Therefore a logical conclusion to be drawn from the view as expressed in the quotation above, would be the countenancing of any method by means of which provision could be made to replace the asset by the end of its life, no matter whether the charge was spread evenly over its life, was made all in one year, or was made to depend on the amount of the net profits at the end of a given year. This latter alternative is a dangerous policy, always to be deprecated, for depreciation is a cost of production to be taken account of before profits can be determined.
After all, it may be said without fear of serious contradiction that all three views, i.e., the engineering, the accounting, and the financing viewpoints, must be held in mind in any adequate treatment of the depreciation charge. The important point from the commercial and accounting standpoint is to secure a fair and equitable charge to each unit of product, regardless of whether or not the burdens of each fiscal period are equal. This is particularly evident when wear and tear from use is the effective factor in depreciation—and it is also contended that the factors of obsolescence and inadequacy may be as successfully and relevantly estimated in terms of business output as in years. If this results in an accurate valuation of the asset—and it is conceded that from the engineering viewpoint it may sometimes so result—the inaccuracy is of minor importance. According to the general law for the valuation of fixed assets, changes in the market need not and should not, as a general thing, affect the values at which the assets are carried on the books of a going concern. It is, of course, a corollary to the main proposition that this treatment also makes adequate provision for financing the fact of depreciation. Various methods and means for the accomplishment of these purposes are given in Chapter IX.
The Standardization of Depreciation Rates
The determination of the rate of depreciation of a given asset is essentially an engineering problem. But as the accounting for depreciation is dependent on the rate, and the records of the accounting department must furnish much of the information for estimating the rate, the whole problem of fixing depreciation rates will be considered under the one head. Much study and effort to reduce all the conditions under which assets depreciate to a common basis and so to a definitely stated rate for each set of conditions, have, so far, come to naught and all qualified experts say without reserve that the rate of depreciation is an individual problem. It is to be hoped that a further gathering of statistics as to expectations of life of different assets under varying conditions will ultimately furnish tabulations, corresponding to insurance tables, according to which under known and expected conditions a fairly accurate rate of depreciation for a particular asset may be made. Unlike insurance rates, however, the depreciation rate once established will not necessarily remain constant, but must be subject to a periodic revision in the light of new data and conditions.
Effect of Local Conditions
Many factors enter into the rate of depreciation. They may be classed roughly as “stable or normal” factors and “contingent” factors. It should be constantly borne in mind that in the present state of the actuarial development of the subject, general rates, i.e., rates which will apply without readjustment, cannot be determined. For the determination of individual rates local conditions are always the controlling factor. An illustration in point is given by Henry Floy,[28] showing the varying rates used by thirty-one different concerns for the depreciation of their rolling stock equipment. The methods vary in almost every case, comprising annual charges of an arbitrary amount, per cent of the original cost, cents per car mile, arbitrary deductions from income irregularly applied, per cent of gross earnings, per cent of present estimated values. Reduced to a common basis, the per cent methods show a range of expected life varying between ten and one hundred years. While it is improbable that had the determination of the depreciation rate for the different concerns been in the hands of the same expert, there would have resulted these bewildering variations in method, still it does bring out in strong relief the fact, well recognized by experts but so often lost sight of by those unacquainted with the technical phases of the problem, that local conditions are a controlling factor; and that until local conditions can be somewhat standardized there is no hope of establishing rates of depreciation which will be of general application.
[28] In “Value for Rate-Making,” pp. 255-256.
Factors in Determining Depreciation Rate
In the determination of rates the factors to be taken into account are:
1. Normal operating conditions. 2. Normal load or normal intensity of operation. 3. Normal repairs policy. 4. Normal climatic conditions.
These constitute the most important stable or normal factors. Among the contingent elements, the most important are:
5. Probable misuse and neglect brought about by the demands of the trade, resulting in a change in the factor of normal intensity. 6. Probable change in ownership and consequent change in policy. 7. Probable change in the requirements of the market, necessitating an adaptation of the equipment to uses for which it was not originally intended.
At the time of installation the rate of depreciation must be based only on the normal factors—things which can with reasonable certainty be counted on. At intermediate periods in the life of the asset, a physical inspection should be made to compare the actual depreciation of the property with the estimated. If, then, it is found that any contingent factors have become real or reached the point of reasonable expectancy, these provide the basis for an adjustment of the rate for the remaining life-term of the asset.
Basis of Normal Rate
With regard to the normal rate, the following items demand first consideration:
“1. Exterior or movable apparatus
(a) Abuse (b) Neglect (c) Temperatures (d) Oxidation (e) Irregular shocks in use, such as starting or braking, also road or rail defects
2. Installed operating and generating machinery
(a) Reversals, increased by rapidity and aggravated by shock (b) Irregular loads or service, aggravated by speedand sudden character (c) Excessive usage, resulting in increase of temperature of parts
3. Fixed equipment including boilers and piping
(a) Excessive and irregular strains (b) Interior causes of decay (c) Chemical action
—all these being of greater or less effect, according to the time of daily usage and lack of periods of rest.”[29]
[29] R. P. Bolton in “Power for Profit.”
Policies as to Repairs
Without doubt the most important single factor in the determination of the depreciation rate is the normal policy as to repairs and maintenance. Physical deterioration is constantly at work. If this is counteracted by a liberal maintenance policy, not only is more efficient service secured but a longer service life is thereby insured. As soon as repairs are needed, although the efficiency of the asset may not be immediately impaired, the rate of deterioration is much accelerated unless the condition is corrected. Deterioration takes place day by day, but repairs obviously cannot be made at such short intervals—both because of the difficulty of detection and also because such a policy would not be economically practical. Every concern must consider its own peculiar problems and determine from these what shall constitute its normal repairs policy, and so far as possible this should be adhered to. The charges for repairs are bound to be of a more or less irregular character. Their handling is discussed on page 147.
Regardless of what the established policy as to repairs may be, conditions are sure to arise which make strict adherence to it impossible. There may occasionally be lack of funds at the time repairs are customarily attended to; it may be impossible to get the expert labor needed or the parts to replace worn-out units; or, and of oftenest occurrence, the need of repairs may coincide with a period of intense activity when the plant is being worked to its limit and in consequence there is no opportunity for making repairs. It is clear that rates based on one shift and the normal use of equipment during eight hours would be inadequate for three shifts and twenty-four hours of use; for in addition to a threefold intensity of operation this makes impossible adherence to the normal repairs policy based on an eight-hour schedule.
Depreciation Rate an Engineering Problem
From the above discussion it is apparent that the determination of rates is essentially an engineering problem. The accountant, however, needs a knowledge of the fundamental considerations and requirements of fixing depreciation rates and an appreciation of the difficulties of the problem. As Henry Floy[30] says: “What engineer is able to foretell the misuse and neglect or care and high degree of maintenance that any given apparatus or ... property as a whole will receive, even during the next five or ten years, with vicissitudes of climate, load conditions, changes of management, and requirements of the public?” On the other hand, in the opinion of another prominent engineer, “Consideration of these matters (misuse, neglect, etc.) may eventually form the basis for a systematic appraisal of the probabilities of life, or average of the risks, which would provide a method for the insurance of the life of machinery.”
[30] In “Value for Rate-Making.”
The author does not attempt to discuss the relative merits of the two contentions other than to point out the fact that engineers are not discouraged in spite of the many contingencies and uncertainties inherent in the problem. They are constantly gathering data from which conclusions as to rates are being formed, the use of which is being compelled by regulating bodies. It is possible that the problem will ultimately be worked out on some kind of an insurance basis.
Attitude of Regulatory Bodies
At the present time the attitude of most regulatory bodies—public service boards, federal commissions, and tax officials—is well expressed by a regulation of the Public Utility Commission of New Jersey which says that, “Until otherwise prescribed, the amount estimated to be necessary to cover such wear and tear and obsolescence and inadequacy as have accrued during any month shall be based on a rule to be determined by the accounting corporation; such rule may be derived from a consideration of the said corporation’s history and experience. A general statement of the rule in use by each company, together with the general information upon which it is based, is to be filed with the Board of Public Utility Commissioners.” The trend at the present time is towards a more thorough supervision of depreciation rates on the part of many public service boards, and the future will undoubtedly see interesting developments.
Methods of Handling Repairs
Three distinct practices are met with in handling repairs and renewals on the books. The most general method is dictated by ease of application and rests on the theory of averages, viz.: that the amount of repairs annually recurring for depreciating equipment in all degrees of deterioration and all stages of decay and age is a fairly constant figure which secures an equitable distribution over the product of the different years. The larger the plant and the greater the variety of the equipment used, the more nearly does this work out as expected.
Further consideration will be given to this point in the discussion in Chapter X of the effect of the various methods used for calculating depreciation on the equality of the distribution of the charge.
Another method, used in plants where a very accurate determination of the costs of production is desired, has as an outstanding feature a preliminary estimate, made at the time of installation, of the expected amount of repairs needed during the entire life of the asset. Periodically this estimate, or proportional share thereof, is brought on the books as a charge to Repairs and credit to Reserve for Repairs and so is spread evenly over the service life of the asset. As repairs are actually made, the cost of these is not charged against operation but against the reserve created for that very purpose. At a given time, the status of the reserve account shows: (1) if the equipment has just been placed in a normal state of repair, the under-or over-estimate of the amount of actual repairs needed, or (2) if the equipment is not in repair, the reserve account gives an index of the probable amount of deferred maintenance. Both items of information are of value in the proper management of properties. It is to be expected, of course, that during the early years of the life of an asset there will be a fairly large credit balance in the reserve because repair charges are light. The credit balance so accumulated will be needed during the later years when the costs of maintenance become heavier.
The third method, which is a variation of the second, has as its characteristic feature the inclusion of the repairs cost with the depreciation charge. This likewise necessitates a preliminary estimate of the amount of expected repairs during the life of the asset. Instead of being handled separately, it is added to the depreciation rate and in this way charged against the product. This method has been prescribed in the case of some utilities in England but is not much used here. Under this method two depreciation estimates of probable life are necessary, viz.: (1) maximum life brought about by an inclusion of repairs, renewals, etc., and (2) minimum life without such repairs. By this it is not meant that other methods of calculating the depreciation rates fail to take cognizance of the repairs factor, but that this method specifically calls attention to it and includes it in the charge made. It seems best for regulatory boards to make a separate book record of repairs and depreciation, thus insuring against any oversight of the factors of depreciation and also insuring the correctness of a statement of condition.
IX. DEPRECIATION—METHODS OF CALCULATING
Methods of Calculation
Many methods of reckoning depreciation have been devised; some good, some bad, and some too theoretical and involved ever to serve the practical needs of business. It is proposed here to explain those methods which have found most favor and, in Chapter X, to discuss their effects from the standpoint of the true purpose of any scheme of depreciation.
There are several ways in which the depreciation calculation can be made, and the methods may be classified broadly, though with some overlapping, under four heads. These classes are:
1. Proportional Methods 2. Variable Percentage Methods 3. Compound Interest Methods 4. Miscellaneous Methods
Factors of Calculation
The factors which must be known under most methods of calculation are:
1. Original cost of the asset 2. Scrap or residual value 3. Estimated service life 4. Under some methods, an arbitrary interest rate
By original cost is meant full cost of the asset in position ready for use. By scrap value is meant the estimated value of the asset at the time of its discard, when removed from position and ready for sale or other mode of disposal. This is sometimes called its salvage value as distinguished from its value while still in position to render service but awaiting discard or break-up. By estimated service life is meant the time during which the asset will be used for service. This may be expressed in ordinary units of calendar time, such as the year; or in units of service time, such as working hours; or finally in units of output, such as tons, cubic feet, kilowatt hours, etc.
Symbols to be Used
For purposes of notation and reference the following symbols will be used:
V = original cost V₁ = depreciated value at end of first period V₂ = ” ” ” ” ” second period Vₙ = ” ” ” ” ” last period, i.e., scrap value n = length of service life d = rate of depreciation per period D = total amount of depreciation, i.e., V - Vₙ D₁ = amount of depreciation during first period Dₙ = ” ” ” ” last ” r = rate of interest R = 1 + r, i.e., 100% plus the rate 1 - r = 100% minus the rate A = annual amount to be paid under the compound interest methods
It should be noted that the foregoing factors are all estimates, with the exception of original cost, and that when making these estimates the principles of depreciation as discussed in preceding chapters must be taken into consideration. Thus, a decision must be made as to whether physical or functional depreciation is the controlling factor in determining service life. In the determination of service life, the policy as to repairs, renewals, and maintenance has a very important bearing. In fixing the scrap value, the relation of inadequacy, obsolescence, wear and tear, and age to the values remaining in the asset must be considered.
1. PROPORTIONAL METHODS
Proportional methods include all those in which the periodic depreciation is calculated as a proportional part of some fixed basic value. These may be grouped under the following subclass titles, each of which will be separately considered:
(a) Straight Line (b) Working Hours (c) Composite Life (d) Service Output
(a) Straight Line Method
The “Straight Line” method, so called because its graphical representation is a straight line, is perhaps the simplest of all methods for calculating the periodic depreciation charge and is therefore the most widely used. Under it the loss of value for each period is proportioned to the length of service life. Thus, an asset whose service life is reckoned as 10 years will have depreciated one-tenth by the end of the first year, two-tenths by the end of the second year, and so on. The depreciation for each year is the same. Shown by formula, using the notation above, this will be:
(V - Vₙ) D (1) D₁ = ------- or --- and, evidently, n n
V₁ = V - D₁; V₂ = V₁ - D₂; etc.
From these formulas a schedule of appraisal for a given asset may be made up showing its values as at the end of each year of its estimated life. For an asset costing $150, of which the service life is 5 periods and the scrap value, due to inadequacy, is $50, such an appraisal schedule would work out as follows:
==========+==============+==================+================== Age in | Periodic | Depreciated or | Total Accumulated Periods | Depreciation | Appraised Value | Depreciation ----------+--------------+------------------+------------------ 0 | $..... | $150.00 | $..... 1 | 20.00 | 130.00 | 20.00 2 | 20.00 | 110.00 | 40.00 3 | 20.00 | 90.00 | 60.00 4 | 20.00 | 70.00 | 80.00 5 | 20.00 | 50.00 | 100.00 ----------+--------------+------------------+------------------
Here, the fixed depreciation base, i.e., the amount to be written off over the 5 periods, is $100 ($150-$50). Graphically presented below, we have the straight line AB representing the periodic appraised values, and the line OC, the accumulating depreciation.
(b) Working Hours Method
Where the “Working Hours” method is used, the life of the asset, instead of being estimated in calendar units of time, is given in service units as so many working hours. Thus, if it is estimated that a machine will stand 12,000 hours of operation, its service life is stated as 12,000 working hours. Record is kept of the number of hours the machine is operated during each fiscal period and compared with the estimated length of service life (also in working hours) to give the proportion of the total depreciation which must be charged to a given period. Using the same example—an asset costing $150, with scrap value of $50, and service life of 12,000 working hours—the appraisal schedule will be as shown below, assuming that during the first fiscal period the asset was used 3,000 hours, during the second 4,500 hours, the third 2,700, the fourth 1,200, and that it was scrapped some time during the fifth fiscal period after another 600 hours of operation.
=========+=========+==============+=================+============= | | | | Total Age in | Service | Depreciation | Depreciated or | Accumulated Periods | Hours | Rate % | Appraised Value | Depreciation ---------+---------+--------------+-----------------+------------- 0 | ..... | ..... | $150.00 | $...... 1 | 3,000 | 25 | 125.00 | 25.00 2 | 4,500 | 37½ | 87.50 | 62.50 3 | 2,700 | 22½ | 65.00 | 85.00 4 | 1,200 | 10 | 55.00 | 95.00 5 | 600 | 5 | 50.00 | 100.00 | ------ | ------- | | | 12,000 | 100 | | ---------+---------+--------------+-----------------+-------------
The following chart shows graphically the appraised values and the accumulated depreciation as at the end of successive fiscal periods. The character of the curves here has no relation to the lapse of calendar time, i.e., fiscal periods, but depends entirely on the degree of intensity of operation of the asset, i.e., its service life in working hours. The above curves are true, therefore, only for the particular data assumed and do not, in any way, indicate a characteristic tendency of this method. Were the bottom line of the chart, the abscissa, laid off proportionately on the basis of working hours instead of fiscal periods, both graphs would, of course, become straight lines. It is only because information as to values is desired at the close of each fiscal period that the curves representing values become broken lines.
(c) Composite Life Method
Another proportional method, which in its operation is similar to the straight line method, is known as the “Composite Life” method. Its feature is the calculation of depreciation on the plant as a whole, rather than on each individual asset. Under it what is known as the mean life of the plant is calculated. Depreciation may then be estimated, on the straight line or other basis, for the entire plant. To determine mean life it is necessary to “weight” the life of each individual asset with its value and so get a common basis, the dollar-year, for all assets. The process of calculating mean life will be explained in Chapter XI where also its use and adaptability are discussed. Aside from the determination of mean life, the method does not differ from others which have been or will be discussed.
(d) Service Output Method
A fourth type of proportional method is known as the “Service Output” method. Under it, the life of the asset is reckoned in terms of quantity of output. This is very similar to the working hours method but differs in the unit of measurement for service life. The life of the asset is measured by its product. Thus, the life of a water filter may be given in terms of gallons or cubic feet of water run through it; that of a rock crusher in terms of the cubic feet of rock handled; that of a freight car or engine in terms of car miles; and so on. If, therefore, record is kept of the performance of such an asset for the fiscal period, the amount of depreciation to be charged off is readily calculated, being such a portion of the total depreciation as the units of output for the current period bear to the total units of life output. It is thus a straight proportional method. Its appraisal schedule and graphical representation are exactly similar to those of the working hours method. It should be said, however, that sometimes the service output method is operated on a sinking fund basis instead of on a total depreciation basis. When the sinking fund basis is used, the total payments into the fund, excluding all interest accretions, constitute the total amount of depreciation to be distributed over the service output.
2. VARIABLE PERCENTAGE METHODS
The second main classification of methods, called for want of a better title, “Variable Percentage” methods, differs from the proportional methods in that either the base or the percentage rate varies for each estimate of depreciation. The various proportional methods can all be expressed as percentages but their base remains fixed and is always the total amount of depreciation to be charged off. Under the variable percentage methods, if the percentage is fixed, the base varies; and if the base is fixed, the percentage varies. The subclasses here are:
(a) Fixed Percentage of Diminishing Value Method (b) “Changing Percentage of Cost Less Scrap” Method (sometimes known as the “Sum of Expected Life-Periods” Method) (c) Arbitrary with Increasing Amounts (d) Arbitrary with Decreasing Amounts
(a) Fixed Percentage of Diminishing Value Method
The “Fixed Percentage of Diminishing Value” method estimates the periodic depreciation as a fixed percentage of the appraised or book value of the asset as at the time of the last appraisal. Thus, if the asset cost $1,000 and the fixed rate is 10%, the first depreciation estimate is $100 (10% of $1,000) giving an appraised value of $900; the second depreciation estimate is $90 (10% of $900), with a new appraised value of $810; the third estimate is $81 (10% of $810), with an appraisal of $729 for the asset; and so on. It is evident that a final zero valuation can never be reached (although it may be approximated) as the series becomes an indefinite or indeterminate series. If there is any scrap value, and there usually is, the series becomes determinate. From the standpoint of calculation the problem here is the determination of the fixed rate necessary to reduce the asset value to residual or scrap value in the given life-term. Using the standard notation, we may formulate the following equations:
V₁ = V(1 - d); V₂ = V₁(1 - d) = V(1 - d)(1 - d);
V₃ = V₂(1 - d) = V(1 - d)(1 - d)(1 - d); whence
Vₙ = V(1 - d)ⁿ, which solved for 1 - d gives ______ 1 - d = ⁿ√Vₙ/V) , and, solving for d, we get _____ (2) d = 1 - ⁿ√(Vₙ/V)
While complex, the formula is readily solvable by means of logarithms. For an asset costing $150 with a service life of 5 years and a scrap value of $50, the rate is found by the above formula to be approximately 19.726%.
_______ d = 1 - ⁵√(50/150) = .19726
The appraisal schedule is, therefore, as follows:
=======+==============+============+=================+============== | Fixed | | | Total Age in | Depreciation | Periodic | Depreciated or | Accumulated Periods| Rate % |Depreciation| Appraised Value | Depreciation -------+--------------+------------+-----------------+-------------- 0 | ..... | $ ..... | $150.00 | $ ..... 1 | 19.726 | 29.59 | 120.41 | 29.59 2 | 19.726 | 23.75 | 96.66 | 53.34 3 | 19.726 | 19.07 | 77.59 | 72.41 4 | 19.726 | 15.32 | 62.27 | 87.73 5 | 19.726 | 12.27 | 50.00 | 100.00 | | ------ | | | | 100.00 | | -------+--------------+------------+-----------------+--------------
The following chart shows graphically the appraised values and the accumulated depreciation:
(b) Changing Percentage of Cost Less Scrap Method
Similar in effect to the method just explained is the “Changing Percentage of Cost Less Scrap” or the “Sum of Expected Life-Periods” method. Here, the base remains fixed, but the periodic depreciation rates change. Each depreciation rate is a fraction the common denominator of which is the sum of the expected life-periods as viewed from the beginning of each successive period, and the numerator of which is the expected life for the period in question. For example, an asset of which the expected life is 5 periods has at the beginning of each successive period expected life-terms of 4, 3, 2, and 1 periods respectively, making a total of 15 which becomes the common denominator of the fractions whose numerators are 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively; i.e., the changing depreciation rates are ⁵/₁₅, ⁴/₁₅, ³/₁₅, ²/₁₅, and ¹/₁₅. For an asset costing $150 with expected life of 5 periods and scrap value of $50, the appraisal schedule would be as follows:
=========+==============+==============+==============+============= Age | Changing | | Depreciated | Total in | Depreciation | Periodic | or Appraised | Accumulated Periods | Rate % | Depreciation | Value | Depreciation ---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------- 0 | ..... | $ ..... | $150.00 | $ ..... 1 | 33⅓ | 33.33 | 116.67 | 33.33 2 | 26⅔ | 26.67 | 90.00 | 60.00 3 | 20 | 20.00 | 70.00 | 80.00 4 | 13⅓ | 13.33 | 56.67 | 93.33 5 | 6⅔ | 6.67 | 50.00 | 100.00 ---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-------------
A comparison of this appraisal schedule with that of the fixed percentage of diminishing value method shows that this method charges more depreciation during the early life-periods and less during the later periods. The general effect of this method and its significance are discussed in Chapter X where the relative merits of the various methods are considered. The graph for the sum of expected life-periods method is not shown as it differs little from that of the fixed percentage of diminishing value method on page 158.
(c, d) Arbitrary Methods
The two other arbitrary types of this variable percentage method are hardly to be classed as methods as they do not rest on any law according to which they may be operated. Under them arbitrary amounts are charged to depreciation each period, the only controlling principle being that in the one case these periodic amounts increase from period to period, while in the other case they decrease. In the one case, therefore, the appraisal schedule would be similar as to its “Periodic Depreciation” column to those of the two methods just explained, excepting that the column must be reversed, i.e., read from the bottom upward. In the other case, the appraisal schedule would be exactly similar to those just shown. Within the restriction that they must be increasing or decreasing amounts for succeeding periods and that the total depreciation must be charged off within the estimated life-period of the asset, the periodic depreciation charges are, under these methods, purely arbitrary, neither based on fact nor logic.
3. COMPOUND INTEREST METHODS
The third general type of methods for making the depreciation estimate may be called the “Compound Interest” type. This differs radically from any of the others in that it uses the compound interest principle to determine the amount of periodic depreciation. In the practical application of some of these methods, not only is depreciation estimated on this basis but an actual fund of cash or other assets is set aside for accumulation on the compound interest principle so as to provide ready funds for financing the replacement when the old asset is discarded. The setting aside of the fund is not an essential part of the method, and its discussion is therefore deferred to Chapter XXV where the subject of funds and their treatment is fully considered. Under this type there are three methods:
(a) Sinking Fund (b) Annuity (c) Unit Cost
(a) Sinking Fund Method
The problem under the “Sinking Fund” method is the calculation of the amount of a sum of money which placed at compound interest at the end of successive periods will accumulate to the amount of the total depreciation of the asset during its life-term. At the end of each period, this amount plus any accumulated interest on the amounts previously set aside becomes the depreciation estimate for this period. Unless a fund is actually established, there can, of course, be no accumulation of interest. Under this method the amount of such theoretically accumulated interest is, nevertheless, made a part of the periodic depreciation charge.
The method thus becomes simply a mathematical device for making the estimate. The calculation of the fixed periodic amount is in accordance with the following mathematical formula, using the notation given on page 151. The development of this formula is given in full in Chapter XXV, “The Sinking Fund”:
(V - Vₙ)r Dr (3) A = --------- = ------ Rⁿ - 1 Rⁿ - 1
For the asset used in the other illustrations, i.e., for an asset with a full valuation at the beginning of its life of $150 and a residual value of $50 after a service life of five years, this periodic amount is $18.10, if interest is reckoned at 5%. Any other rate of interest within reason would, of course, be equally appropriate.
The following appraisal schedule may be set up:
=======+==================================+============+============ |Periodic Depreciation Composed of:| | Age in +-----------+----------+-----------+Depreciated | Total Periods| Periodic | Interest | Total |or Appraised|Accumulated | Amount | | | Value |Depreciation -------+-----------+----------+-----------+------------+------------ 0 | $ ..... | $ .... | $ ...... | $150.00 | $ ...... 1 | 18.10 | .... | 18.10 | 131.90 | 18.10 2 | 18.10 | .90 | 19.00 | 112.90 | 37.10 3 | 18.10 | 1.85 | 19.95 | 92.95 | 57.05 4 | 18.10 | 2.85 | 20.95 | 72.00 | 78.00 5 | 18.10 | 3.90 | 22.00 | 50.00 | 100.00 | | | ------- | | | | | $100.00 | | -------+-----------+----------+-----------+------------+------------
The following chart shows graphically the appraised values, the accumulating depreciation and the elements which compose it, the curve OD representing the fixed periodic amounts, and EF the theoretical interest accumulations. The curve OD is a straight line inasmuch as it represents fixed periodic amounts. The depreciation and interest curves, OC and EF, representing gradually increasing amounts, are both slightly concave and would become increasingly so the longer the period covered. The appraisal curve AB is slightly convex and its convexity is accelerated by lapse of time.
(b) Annuity Method
The “Annuity” method also makes use of the compound interest principle, but in addition to the method of the sinking fund it adds to the periodic depreciation charge as determined thereunder interest on the successive appraised values of the asset. The effect of this is to charge to the product, by way of Profit and Loss, interest on the capital invested in each asset used in manufacture. The appraised values of the asset are exactly the same as under the sinking fund method, but the expense charge to depreciation is larger under the annuity method by the interest on the appraised value of the asset. This charging of interest to the product under the title “depreciation” makes it necessary to capitalize the interest charge by adding it to the value of the asset. If the amount to be charged off, i.e., V-Vₙ is the same under both methods, for both to arrive at the same scrap value, Vₙ, the interest under the annuity method must be added to the value of the asset each time before deducting the depreciation charge, a part of which is this same interest. The annuity method thus makes a larger periodic charge than the sinking fund method.
The problem involved in the calculation of the periodic depreciation charge by the annuity method is sometimes stated as the method of finding a fixed or constantly equal periodic charge sufficient to charge off not only depreciation as such but also the interest which has been added to the value of the asset. The mathematical formula may be derived as follows, using the standard notation:
VR = V(1 + r), or the asset with interest added to it
VR - D₁ = V₁, appraised value at end of first period
V₁R - D₁[31] = VR² - D₁R - D₁ = V₂, appraised value at end of second period
V₂R - D₁[32] = VR³ - D₁R² - D₁R - D₁ = VR³ - D₁(R² + R + 1) = V₃, appraised value at end of third period, etc.
[31] Inasmuch as by hypothesis the periodic depreciation charges are the same D₁ = D₂ = D₃ etc., hence, D₁ is used to represent the fixed depreciation charge per period.
[32] Inasmuch as by hypothesis the periodic depreciation charges are the same D₁ = D₂ = D₃ etc., hence, D₁ is used to represent the fixed depreciation charge per period.
Generalizing, we have:
Vₙ₋₁R - D₁ = VRⁿ - D₁(Rⁿ⁻¹ + Rⁿ⁻² ... + R² + R + 1) = Vₙ,
scrap value. Whence
Rⁿ - 1 VRⁿ - Vₙ = D₁ -------. Solving for D₁; we have: R - 1
(VRⁿ - Vₙ)(R - 1) (VRⁿ - Vₙ)r (4) D₁ = ----------------- = ------------, Rⁿ - 1 Rⁿ - 1
= periodic depreciation charge
That this is the same as the amount of the periodic depreciation charge by the sinking fund method plus interest on the investment, is seen by comparing formula (4) with formula (3). Formula (4) may be written as
(VRⁿ - Vₙ)r + Vr - Vr ---------------------- , Rⁿ - 1
i.e., the quantity Vr-Vr = 0 is put into the numerator. Adding zero (Vr-Vr = 0) cannot change its value. Performing the multiplication indicated by the parentheses, we have
VRⁿr - Vₙr + Vr - Vr --------------------- . Rⁿ - 1
Rearranging the terms, we have
(Vr - Vₙr) + (VRⁿr - Vr) ------------------------, Rⁿ - 1
which factored in each group becomes
(V - Vₙ)r Vr(Rⁿ - 1) -------- + ---------- . Rⁿ - 1 Rⁿ - 1
By reducing the second fraction, this may be written as:
(V - Vₙ)r (5) --------- + Vr Rⁿ - 1
which is seen to be identical with formula (3) for the sinking fund except for the addition of Vr, which represents interest at r% on the investment V. The identity of the annuity formula (4) with the sinking fund formula (3) plus interest on investment can be established similarly for any of the periods.
It will be noted that by the annuity method the whole original value of the investment is always earning interest either in the sinking fund or in the diminishing appraised value. Thus, the portion of original value deducted each period earns interest in the sinking fund, while what is left as appraised value earns interest outside the fund. Thus, the annuity method of charging depreciation may be said to consist of two parts, viz., the fixed periodic amount and interest on the original investment. This will be seen from the appraisal schedule which follows. The same illustrative data are used as before, including interest at 5%.
=========+==========================================+ | Periodic Depreciation Charge | | Composed of: | +--------+----------+------------+---------+ | | | | | Age in | | Interest | Interest | | Periods | Fixed | on | on | Total | | Amount | Fixed | Investment | Charge | | | Amount | | | | | | | | | (a) | (b) | (c) | (d) | ---------+--------+----------+------------+---------+ | | | | | 0 | $..... | $.... | $..... | $...... | 1 | 18.10 | | 7.50 | 25.60 | 2 | 18.10 | .90 | 6.60 | 25.60 | 3 | 18.10 | 1.85 | 5.65 | 25.60 | 4 | 18.10 | 2.85 | 4.65 | 25.60 | 5 | 18.10 | 3.90 | 3.60 | 25.60 | +--------+----------+------------+---------+ | $90.50 | $9.50 | $28.00 | $128.00 | ---------+--------+----------+------------+---------+
=========+===========+==============+========================= | | | Accumulated | | | Depreciation | | +-----------+------------- | Appraised | Depreciated | | Age in | Value | or Appraised | | Periods | Plus | Value | Including | True | Interest | | Interest | Depreciation | | | | | | | | | (e) | (f) | (g) | (h) ---------+-----------+--------------+-----------+------------- | | | | 0 | $...... | $150.00 | $...... | $...... 1 | 157.50 | 131.90 | 25.60 | 18.10 2 | 138.50 | 112.90 | 51.20 | 37.10 3 | 118.55 | 92.95 | 76.80 | 57.05 4 | 97.60 | 72.00 | 102.40 | 78.00 5 | 75.60 | 50.00 | 128.00 | 100.00 | | | | | | | | ---------+-----------+--------------+-----------+-------------
It will be noted, as stated above, that the sum of the two interest items in columns (b) and (c) is the same for each period, viz., $7.50, interest on the original investment. The total of column (d), total charge for periodic depreciation, minus the total of column (c), interest on the diminishing appraised values, gives $100, the true depreciation as shown by column (h). True depreciation under the annuity method is the same as under the sinking fund method. The periodic depreciation charge differs, however.
A graphical illustration of the main items of the appraisal schedule is shown below:
In the above chart the points A¹, A², etc., represent the appraised values plus interest, the segments, A¹I¹, A²I², etc., representing interest on each period’s investment. It is to write down these increases in value that the additional $28 of periodic depreciation charges is needed. The curve OC is a straight line since each period’s depreciation charge is the same. Curves AB and OD are identical with those of the sinking fund method. Curve OE represents the accumulating interest on investment as shown by the segments A¹I¹, A²I², etc. Curve OC is the sum or resultant of curves OD and OE.
The annuity method is termed the “Equal Annual Payment” method in a preliminary report of the Valuation Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers. As here illustrated it does bring about an equal periodic charge but only because the assumed rate of interest for the sinking fund accumulations is taken also as the rate for interest on the investment. If these two rates differ, the periodic charges will also differ. For example, if the sinking fund rate is taken as 5% and the rate applicable to the appraised values is 8%, the sum of these two interest amounts will not be constant because the bases on which they are calculated are changing each period. Because of this fact the Committee above referred to called this the “Compound Interest” method in its final report. To distinguish this from the sinking fund method which also uses the compound interest principle, the title here adopted, i.e., the “Annuity” method seems to accomplish that purpose.
(c) Unit Cost Method
A third method which uses the compound interest principle is called the “Unit Cost” method. Because of the involved mathematical processes required for the calculation of the amount of its periodic charge, and the doubtful practical value of the method, only a description of its main features will be given here.[33] The aim of this method is to equalize over each unit of product three costs, viz.: the cost of interest on investment, the cost of operation and repairs, and the true depreciation cost, all of these to be included in a periodic charge under the title of “depreciation.”
[33] The interested student is referred to Proceedings—American Society of Civil Engineers—December, 1916, in which will be found the Valuation Committee’s report, and to Salier’s “Principles of Depreciation,” in both of which the formula is developed.
The calculation of the true depreciation cost by the sinking fund principle is the reason for including this method in the compound interest type. The problem to be solved is the determination of the price to be paid for an asset at a given time so that the cost of each unit of product turned out during its remaining service life shall be the same as the cost of each unit of product turned out during the spent portion of its service life. The difference between the original cost of the asset and the price determined as above will be the depreciation of the asset for the elapsed period. A symbolic showing of the problem will make the matter clear. The following notation will be used:
V = original cost of the asset installed ready for use V₁ = price that could be paid for it at the end of the period as above explained O = estimated average operating costs per period, including repairs, for V o = estimated average operating costs per period, including repairs, for V₁ D[34] = true depreciation rate or multiplier under the sinking fund method, for V d[35] = true depreciation rate or multiplier under the sinking fund method, for V₁ U = units of output for V during one period u = units of output for V₁ during one period r = rate of interest on the investment
[34] D and d may be expressed as the respective periodic amount-multipliers necessary to create sinking funds of one dollar each under the conditions as to time and rate for V and V₁. VD and V₁d become, therefore, the periodic amounts of true depreciation, i.e., decrement in value.
[35] D and d may be expressed as the respective periodic amount-multipliers necessary to create sinking funds of one dollar each under the conditions as to time and rate for V and V₁. VD and V₁d become, therefore, the periodic amounts of true depreciation, i.e., decrement in value.
Then:
O + DV + Vr ------------ = the cost per unit of output for V, U
o + dV₁ + V₁r -------------- = the cost per unit of output for V₁. u
Since, by hypothesis, these two costs are to be equal, we may form the equation
O + DV + Vr o + dV₁ + V₁r ------------- = -------------, U u
which solved for V₁, the price to be paid, gives
u ( ) --- ( O + DV + Vr ) - o U ( ) V₁ = ------------------------ . (d + r)
Evidently, V-V₁ is the amount of the depreciation charge. The values for D and d, as indicated in the footnote, may be substituted and the amount of V₁ determined. The process is somewhat complicated in its practical application and will not be carried further here.
4. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS
Other methods of calculating the depreciation charge are used, but they cannot be classified under any of the three groups discussed so far. They are a miscellaneous, mongrel breed, scarcely to be dignified in some instances as methods. Among these may be mentioned the following:
(a) Maintenance Method (b) Replacement Method (c) Fifty Per Cent Method (d) Appraisal Method (e) Insurance Method (f) Gross Earnings Method
(a) Maintenance Method
In this case a periodic charge for depreciation is made, equal in amount to the cost of maintenance of the asset for the period. It is thus a definite but variable amount, depending upon the maintenance policy.
(b) Replacement Method
This is hardly a method of calculating the depreciation charge, but rather of recognizing the fact of depreciation by charging all renewals and replacements to revenue. It is argued that in a large, widely extended plant after depreciation has reached the point where renewals are necessary, the charging of all renewals and replacements as expenses will take care of all accruing depreciation and secure a fairly uniform charge to product from period to period. Under this plan depreciation as such does not appear on the books but is taken care of under other titles.
(c) The Fifty Per Cent Method
This is somewhat similar to the replacement method in that it is applicable only after depreciation has reached the renewals stage. It is claimed for it that, in a property or class of asset consisting of many similar parts, as railroad ties, for example, after the stage of normal repairs has been reached so that the parts are in all degrees of repair from 0% to 100%, the normal maintenance and renewals policy will maintain the property or asset always in about 50% condition. Therefore the total depreciation for the asset or class is the other 50%, which never reaches a larger amount because of a constant renewal of parts. This 50% depreciation may or may not be carried on the books but it exists nevertheless. For the conditions under which it is applicable as above, the law of averages doubtless applies and makes the estimate a fairly good one.
(d) Appraisal Method
Here a physical appraisal of the asset or property is taken at the close of every fiscal period. The difference in value between the two appraisals for successive fiscal periods represents the depreciation for the period and would be brought on the books as such.
(e) Insurance Method
This is applicable only to large properties with assets widely distributed. Its operation “involves the actuarial principles of ordinary insurance. This means that the fund accumulated by depreciation charges should not be reserved as an accumulation until it can be spent for the purpose of replacing the identical property upon which the fund accumulated when such property is abandoned; and furthermore, that this fund should be expended, in whole or in part, during the year in which it is created, in the replacement of equipment.”
(f) Gross Earnings Method
Here the depreciation estimate is based on the gross earnings for the period. This does not necessarily mean that the depreciation estimate will be large when profits are large, and small or nothing when profits are small, although it may be made to apply in that way in individual cases. The policy of making ample reserves for depreciation in good years and scant reserves in poor years is not to be wholly condemned. Depreciation, however, has no relation to, or dependence upon, profits. Rather, profits depend on depreciation in the sense that they cannot exist until after charges for depreciation have been taken care of. Depreciation considered as a fixed per cent of gross earnings is almost the same in effect as the service output method, and has much to commend it.
Condition Per Cent
Before leaving the topic of method, it may be well to explain a term used in connection with the depreciation estimate, viz., condition per cent. The condition per cent of an asset is found by subtracting from 100%, the fraction which represents the ratio of the present accumulated depreciation to the total estimated depreciation. Thus, if an asset has depreciated in value one-quarter, its condition per cent is said to be 75 (100%-25%). Hence, condition per cent is easily calculated if depreciation has been estimated by any of the proportional methods. If, in addition to the standard notation used, we assume that:
Dₘ = total amount of depreciation for m periods Vₘ = value of the asset at end of m’th period
then, in general, condition per cent may be expressed by the formula:
Dₘ (6) 100% - ---- D
Evidently, therefore,
( Dₘ ) Vₘ = V(100% - ----). ( D )
Under the proportional methods Dₘ/D = nd. Therefore, condition per cent is 100%-nd.
Under the sinking fund method, the calculation is more complex. Dₘ, the total amount of depreciation accumulated to date, i.e., after m periods, is the amount of the annuity A for m periods. From formula (3), Chapter XV, page 272, the amount of an annuity A is seen to be
A(Rⁿ - 1) ---------- . r
A(Rᵐ - 1) Therefore, Dₘ = ---------, r
A(Rⁿ - 1) and D = ---------, r
from which the ratio
A(Rᵐ - 1) --------- Dₘ r Rᵐ - 1 --- = --------------- = -------- . D A(Rⁿ - 1) Rⁿ - 1 --------- r
Accordingly, condition per cent under the sinking fund method is:
Rᵐ - 1 (7) 100% - -------- . Rⁿ - 1
X. DEPRECIATION—APPRAISEMENT OF THE VARIOUS METHODS
General Considerations
No method of estimating depreciation will ever be devised which will be applicable under all conditions and to all kinds of property. Such a panacea for the ills of wasting assets can obviously never be found, for the very good reason that the same medicine will not suit all patients. What gives good results in one case may not be applicable or not equally so, in another case. In discussing the relative merits of the various methods, therefore, no dogmatic rules for their use can be laid down; furthermore, without a detailed knowledge of operating conditions, only their main points of strength and weakness can be pointed out, and this is all that will be attempted here.
In a critical discussion of methods and their effects, the fact of depreciation may be considered from either the viewpoint of time or service. Depreciation when viewed from the aspect of time may be said to be due to:
1. Decrepitude, which is merely the lapse of time.
2. Inadequacy, which is lack of capacity to do the work which increasing markets demand (a condition the essence of which is also time).
3. Obsolescence, which represents the inability to perform efficiently as compared with the service secured from more modern equipment, and which may be a condition brought about by lapse of time and the developments of an art or science.
When viewed from the aspect of service, depreciation may be due primarily to wear and tear, which is a condition directly dependent upon the service rendered.
It has been pointed out that these elements of depreciation, viz., wear and tear, inadequacy, obsolescence, etc., are single and isolated in their action and not cumulative. One of them, therefore, is the controlling element in any estimate of depreciation. Accordingly, in judging the merits of a method the kind of depreciation must be taken into account; i.e., depreciation must be viewed from a time and service standpoint.
Ideal Basis for Distribution of Depreciation Charge
Regardless of the actual progress of depreciation, the theoretically ideal method of distributing the charge, from the standpoint of a going concern, is so that each unit of output shall bear its just proportion of the burden. Any other attitude is inconsistent. Thus, assuming that actual depreciation does not progress uniformly, that, as some maintain, the rate of depreciation is heaviest towards the end of the service life of an asset, it would not be equitable to charge the product of those years with a much higher burden than that of the earlier years. Just as it is a misfortune to be born under some conditions, so here it would be a misfortune to a commodity to be produced during the latter years of the service life of an asset. The life-period of an asset must be viewed as a whole and its total depreciation should be distributed evenly over its output, if equity is to be secured—other conditions, of course, remaining the same. This principle does not apply alone to the depreciation charge but equally to all other charges in connection with the asset, such as repairs, maintenance, etc. The author does not believe that these other costs should include a charge for an assumed rate of interest on the money invested in the asset. For a full consideration of the question of interest on capital as an item of cost of production, the student is referred to Chapter XXVI. Any method of distributing the depreciation cost must take cognizance of the other costs as well.
1. PROPORTIONAL METHODS
(a) Straight Line Method
The straight line method is, first of all, simple in application and can easily be adapted to any asset under almost any conditions. Partly because of the ease of calculation and application, it has been designated as an official method by many regulatory boards. Its basis is a time basis and it spreads the charge evenly over the periods of the service life of the asset. Accordingly, where the time elements of depreciation, viz., decrepitude, inadequacy, or obsolescence, control and where the output does not fluctuate much from period to period, the straight line method should give satisfactory results for its intended purpose, i.e., for allocating the real depreciation charge.
Its effect, however, must be considered also in conjunction with the distribution of the other costs connected with the asset. Many engineers maintain that repairs are light during the early life of an asset and heavy during the later years. If this is true and these costs are charged to the period in which they are incurred, the combined depreciation and up-keep costs place an unjustly heavy burden on the output of the later years. Almost equally good authority maintains that the cost of repairs is in no sense uniformly graduated as implied above but can be counted upon in practice to be extremely irregular. If this is true and up-keep costs are charged as above, then many periods are apt to be underburdened and others loaded too heavily.
While, however, these considerations must be given weight when a single asset is under view, in a large plant after operation has continued to the point where a normal and fairly regular cost of up-keep has become established, the inequalities of the individual up-keep charges may merge into fairly equal charges for the up-keep of the plant as a whole. This the law of averages accomplishes to a greater or less degree. But in a small plant with few assets subject to depreciation, the equality of the whole might not result from the individual inequalities. After all, this magic rule of averages which is invoked to cover up many troublesome and embarrassing situations is obnoxious to scientific accounting; it is a makeshift which carries with it a shiftless trust in the happy outcome of things—a trust which has been so often betrayed as to carry little weight.
If depreciation costs can be predetermined with a satisfactory degree of accuracy—and an estimate of them is all that can ever be made—with equal accuracy and satisfaction can up-keep costs be predetermined. The one is no more difficult than the other and equal reason exists for predetermination in both cases, viz., the securing of an equitable distribution of costs. With both estimates made at the beginning of the service life of the asset, all costs in connection with the asset can thus be prorated over the years of its service life.
If, as stated above, the output is fairly regular as between periods, fair and equitable results will be obtained. If the output fluctuates violently, unsatisfactory costs and an inequitable burdening of product will be the result. The proper treatment of overtime and “beyond-capacity” work, i.e., abnormal operations, requires care. It is expected that such work will have a higher unit cost than normal output, and it is proper that a sliding scale of depreciation be applied in such a case.
(b) Working Hours Method
Most of the considerations taken into account for the straight line method are equally applicable to the working hours method. Here, with the service life expressed in terms of working hours instead of fiscal periods, a far step has been made towards securing an equitable distribution of depreciation costs over product. The rate per working hour can in this way be applied directly to the product. The machine-hour and sold-hour methods of costing distribute the depreciation along with all other costs on this basis of “rate per working hour.”
Where a machine or other asset is limited in its use to a few operations equally wearing in their effect, this method should give satisfactory results. Where, however, one asset can be used for many different processes, involving inequalities in wear and tear, if the service rendered is the controlling factor, an inequitable distribution will result. Similarly, beyond-capacity operation, i.e., operation beyond the normal speed at which depreciation cost has been predetermined, will not be taken care of automatically by this method. Adjustment is necessary and, though arbitrarily made, must be attempted. Thus, ten articles might be turned out in one working hour, whereas an estimated output of six formed the basis for determining the rate of depreciation per working hour. As with the straight line method, so here equal care must be exercised in securing an equitable distribution of up-keep costs.
(c) Composite Life Method
This is not a working method for estimating individual depreciation costs, but rather a method of proof or check, which proves very valuable in some cases. The method is discussed in detail on page 197 where the uses to which it may be turned are pointed out.
(d) Service Output Method
The service output method bases the depreciation cost not on years of life nor on life in terms of working hours of service. Here an attempt is made to predetermine the output of the asset in terms of units of product, and so burden every unit with its fair share of depreciation. To secure full equality of charges, up-keep costs must be reckoned on the same basis, rather than on a time basis of service hours or length of life. If conditions are uniform and normal, this method, where applicable, secures perhaps the most satisfactory of all allocations of depreciation costs. To an individual machine performing several different processes the method would scarcely be applicable. To a group or battery of machines, turning out a uniform product in finished form or in the same degree of partly finished condition, the method could be well applied. The estimated total output of the group would then be taken as the basis for calculating the service output of each machine in the group. When calculating service life in whatever units, that speed of operation which secures the highest efficiency is taken as the figure of normal operation.
From the foregoing it follows that the service output method of calculating the depreciation charge per unit of output is well adapted to an inherently wasting asset, such as a mine, a quarry, and timber lands, and is almost invariably applied in such cases.
2. VARIABLE PERCENTAGE METHODS
(a) Fixed Per Cent of Diminishing Value Method
The chief merit of the variable percentage methods, in the eyes of their advocates, is the way they are automatically adjusted to the up-keep charges. The reader should study the graphs of these various methods as a means of comparing results.
On the graph, page 158, it is shown that under the fixed per cent of diminishing value method the periodic depreciation charges are heavy in the beginning and decrease toward the end. It is argued that, inasmuch as up-keep costs increase as the depreciation charge decreases, this method automatically equalizes these two costs. This argument was examined in detail under the previous discussion of the straight line method. What was there set down applies equally here. The fixed per cent method is also based on service life by periods—a time basis rather than a service or output basis. Furthermore, it involves a complex calculation and is perhaps never applied with any degree of accuracy. Lawrence R. Dicksee prefers this method for handling depreciation on machinery.
(b) Sum of Expected Life-Periods Method
The objection of complexity of calculation to the method just discussed is overcome largely in the sum of expected life-periods method. Here the rate of decrease is more marked, but the method has the same general effect as the fixed per cent method. If the repair charges are handled, as suggested, by means, of pre-estimates, the results will not be equitable. If repairs increase with uniform regularity as the depreciation costs decrease, fair equality is secured. Otherwise the method has little to commend it.
(c, d) Arbitrary Methods
The two other methods under this main group, viz.: arbitrary with increasing amounts in the one case and decreasing amounts in the other, are not based on any orderly scheme of calculation and, having little logic behind them, are not to be relied upon. Ease of calculation is perhaps their only merit.
3. COMPOUND INTEREST METHODS
General Considerations
In a discussion of compound interest methods the basic feature, that of the compound interest principle, requires consideration. The thought of progression on a compound interest basis is fascinating to many. It is a powerful instrument of accumulation and its charm seems to lie in the fact that through its instrumentality small sums can be made to grow into large sums. Whether the principle is applied to the creation of a fund or simply as a method of calculating periodic amounts, the remarks of P. D. Leake,[36] an English authority, are equally appropriate. He says: “May I impress upon you that these devices are dangerous expedients in any but the most skillful hands.... It (the sinking fund) is apt to give a sense of false security, because its whole virtue depends upon its obligations being faithfully carried out over the whole period, and this condition is not always fulfilled.... It is probable that in many cases the use of a sinking fund is an altogether unwarrantable draft upon the future, because there is no reasonable certainty that the fund, whether it be state, municipal or commercial, will not be raided before it attains its object.”
[36] In “Depreciation and Wasting Assets.”
Over short periods the difference between the periodic amounts under this method and the straight line method is slight, as will be apparent from a comparison of the two charts on pages 153 and 162, giving graphic illustration of the two methods. There the period is for five years. When the period is extended to, say, twenty or fifty years, the difference in burden, due to interest accumulations, between the early years and the later years is very marked. “Thus, a 10-year unit having no salvage value, loses half its value in 5 years under the straight line theory, regardless of the rate of interest, and at 5% under the compound interest theory it loses nearly as much—about 44% of its value in the same time; ... but a 50-year unit, losing half its value in 25 years, under the straight line theory, loses only 22.8% of its value, at 5%, under the compound interest theory.”
(a) Sinking Fund Method
The sinking fund method as an orderly scheme for estimating the periodic depreciation charge will make the estimate, and, if adhered to faithfully, the entire depreciation will be written off by the end of the service life of the asset. In this respect it is to be preferred to any arbitrary or haphazard method. That it secures an equitable distribution of depreciation costs over the product of the various periods, or that it effects a correct valuation of the asset at intermediate periods of its life is open to serious questioning. The periodic charge under the sinking fund method perhaps bears no relation to the fact of depreciation. The method is, at the best, simply a mathematical device for an orderly calculation of periodic amounts. In the valuation work of public service companies or in regulation work where, as in California, actual funds must be set aside to accumulate at compound interest, there is no serious objection to the method. Although it rests on false or doubtful assumptions of fact and results in an inequitable burden on the product as viewed from the standpoint of individual assets, these are minor considerations; for the method does by the end of its service life take care of the loss in value. Judged from the standpoint of its relation to up-keep costs, the method lays an increasingly heavy burden on the later years of the life of the asset.
(b) Annuity Method
All that has been said with regard to the sinking fund method applies with equal point to the annuity method. As previously indicated, in the explanation of its essential features, this method automatically secures a charge for interest on the investment as a part of the depreciation charge. Not only is the charging of interest of doubtful propriety in itself, but certainly its inclusion under the title of depreciation is misleading and indefensible. The courage of one’s convictions with regard to interest as a part of cost should not allow interest to shelter itself under the cloak of “depreciation.” By referring to the appraisal schedule and chart, it is seen that the real depreciation charge is exactly the same under the annuity as under the sinking fund method.
(c) Unit Cost Method
The unit cost method represents an attempt to secure an equal burdening of each unit of product with interest, depreciation, and operating costs. In the language of its proponents, “this theory is probably the soundest theory of depreciation, and when applied with intelligence, probably furnishes the truest measure of accrued depreciation.” While the end sought by the unit cost method is commendable, it is a compound interest method and it mixes interest, up-keep, and depreciation under the one title “depreciation.”
4. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS
Criticisms of the miscellaneous theories can be brief.
(a) Maintenance Method
This method is irregular in its incidence, and under it the depreciation charge fluctuates violently between periods. Just as maintenance is subordinated to the requirements and demands of the trade, so also are depreciation costs made to depend on the same conditions. The charging of depreciation thus becomes a matter of business convenience instead of an inexorable fact of production. Just as repairs are postponed to a slack period during which maintenance charges are in consequence heavy, so does the depreciation charge increase even though actual wear and tear has decreased. Presumably the method makes charges light during the early years and heavy during the later years of the life of the asset. In a large plant with various kinds of assets, after a normal up-keep charge has been established, the maintenance method of estimating the periodic charge for depreciation for the plant as a whole may work out fairly well on the theory of averages or by accident; for maintenance is not a measure of depreciation.
(b) Replacement Method
This is not a method of measuring depreciation but rather of financing it, i.e., of making good the loss. It also is based on the law of averages, and in a large plant after the point of normal replacements has been reached it may prove a satisfactory method of accomplishing its purpose. It does not serve as a means whereby a periodic depreciation charge can be brought on the books. Furthermore, it disregards the depreciation accrued up to the point of normal replacements.
(c) Fifty Per Cent Method
This method is also based on the law of averages. Here the law is very apt to work out satisfactorily. When the point of normal replacement of the assets, to which the 50% method is applicable, has been reached, the amount of depreciation is approximately 50% of the original value of the group of assets. This amount may be booked at that time and will remain without change thereafter, for the assets are maintained constantly in that condition. As a means of valuation, the method may serve well; as a measure of periodic depreciation or as a means of distributing the depreciation cost over the product, it is inadequate.
(d) Appraisal Method
This method is also inadequate as a means of measuring the periodic cost of depreciation. The physical facts of depreciation are not usually discernible at such short intervals. A judgment of values must, therefore, almost invariably make use, consciously or unconsciously, of some of the other methods of estimating the amount of depreciation by periods. After all, all methods of measuring depreciation are appraisals. Under the appraisal method confusion between original cost and reproduction cost is almost certain to occur, for present market values usually control physical appraisals. A discussion of the relative merits of original cost and reproduction cost as a proper basis for estimating depreciation will be presented in Chapter XI.
(e) Insurance Method
This method of carrying the depreciation charge is analogous to the policy practiced by some concerns of taking care of their fire losses by carrying their own insurance. If physical conditions are such as to make such a policy advisable or prudent, it should work out satisfactorily. It should be noted, however, that the insurance method is a means of providing funds for financing replacements and renewals rather than a method of insuring an equitable distribution of the depreciation cost over the product. The method of providing funds does not need to be the same as the method of measuring the periodic cost of depreciation. The insurance method serves the former purpose but is not well adapted to the latter. Much of the criticism of the sinking fund method is here applicable.
(f) Percentage of Gross Earnings Method
Measuring periodic depreciation as a percentage of the period’s gross earnings is a convenient and fairly satisfactory method under some conditions. If the principal element is wear and tear—a service factor rather than a time factor—output may have a very direct relation to gross earnings. If the commodity dealt in is a standardized product and its price does not fluctuate to any extent or, better still, is fixed, gross earnings will be a very fair measure of output. It is true that the estimate is based on a sales valuation of output rather than its cost of manufacture, but under some conditions this is a good measure of relative output as between periods. A depreciation charge based on gross earnings may thus give an equitable distribution of the depreciation burden. In the case of public utilities, when the price of the commodity or service dealt in is fixed, an estimate based on gross earnings usually gives satisfactory results where used. In applying the method, the expected earnings during the composite life-period of the plant are estimated and depreciation costs are then prorated over periods on the basis of earnings for the period as compared with total earnings for the composite life-period; or more simply, a fixed percentage based on past experience can be applied to the earnings of each period. Some objections to the method, arising in some cases from a misunderstanding of its operation, were pointed out when an explanation of its working was given.
In some cases gross earnings bear no relation, or only the remotest, to the quantity of output or the units of service rendered. A depreciation estimate based on earnings would not in that case be logical and could not give satisfactory results.
From the above discussion of some of the merits and shortcomings of the various methods, the cogency of the introductory remarks, to the effect that no method of measuring depreciation can serve as a panacea, should be appreciated. Every depreciation problem is more or less an individual problem; sweeping generalities will not serve.
Effect on Return on Investment
Many interesting studies have been made of the effect of some of the above methods on stability of income as between periods and their effect on the return of the investment, using hypothetical data as to the earnings of the depreciating asset. Except for the purpose of fixing rates in the case of public service corporations, where the public has an interest because of the monopoly granted, stability of income should be subordinated to the fact of depreciation and not serve as a test of the merit or demerit of a method.
XI. RECORDING DEPRECIATION ON THE BOOKS
Methods Commonly Employed
Two methods of booking depreciation in the ledger are commonly employed. The periodic adjusting entry on account of depreciation has as its basic purpose the separation of the mixed account under asset title into its two elements—the one to show the expense element, the other to set up the true valuation of the asset. The expense element is set up under the one title “Depreciation” for all the assets. The deduction from the values as shown in the unadjusted asset account may be made either by credit entry direct to the asset account or by entry to a separate “Depreciation Reserve” account, each one of these reserves distinguished by the name of the asset to which it applies.
The latter method is preferred because thus the asset account at any time shows the original cost of the property—information of value for many purposes and worth the effort needed to maintain it distinct from other items. Under this method every wasting asset account is immediately followed by its particular depreciation reserve account, called its “valuation” account. The depreciation reserve is as much a part of the record of the asset as is the asset account itself. The two accounts are complementary, neither giving reliable information without the other. The reserve account is thus always and only a balance sheet account.
The above statement indicates the most satisfactory method of handling the various depreciation reserve accounts on the balance sheet. Although appearing on the credit side of the ledger, they are in no sense liability accounts, being interpreted always as credits to the asset account, held in suspense, as it were, in the reserve account, pending full determination of their accuracy, which governs their ultimate disposition. Thus, on the balance sheet, either only the net present value of the asset should be shown, or preferably its original cost with its value extended short, its depreciation reserve deducted, and the present value, thus determined, full-extended. Further information of some value is given if besides the amount of the reserve the rate of depreciation is shown, though this is not often done. Occasionally an entirely incorrect showing, from the viewpoint of strict form, is seen when not only are the depreciation reserves—usually in one item—shown on the right side of the balance sheet but are set up in the Net Worth section, seemingly as a part of the surplus or other true profit reserves. This practice cannot be justified on any ground except that the sheet is kept in balance—a consideration which is far removed from real essentials.
Renewals and Replacements
First Method. As to the handling of the reserve at the time of renewal of parts and replacement of the entire asset, here also two methods are met. Under the one, the original cost of the part (or whole) retired is transferred from the asset account, its salvage value as defined above being carried to a Salvage account, and the cost less salvage portion being charged to the reserve account of the asset. This clears the asset account of all capital charges on account of the part (or whole) retired. The new part (or whole) replacing it is now charged to the asset account which then represents true cost of the new asset. If it is a whole which is replaced, theoretically the charging of it against the reserve should just clear that account of all values. Practically the preliminary estimate or forecast of the amount and time of depreciation never coincides exactly with the fact of depreciation. A credit balance in the reserve indicates an overallowance for depreciation and is an item of true reserved profits, i.e., surplus; whereas a debit balance indicates an insufficient allowance and is an expense item chargeable against surplus and not current profits. This matter is treated at greater length on page 205. When the whole asset is replaced, the depreciation reserve should always be cleared of any remaining balance, as indicated above, so that the new asset and its depreciation allowance may be handled and watched unobscured by the record of any inherited sins or virtues from the past.
Second Method. The other method of handling the reserve at the time of replacement requires a comparison of the cost of the displaced asset and the cost of the new asset. The old asset account is allowed to stand untouched, but any betterment, i.e., excess of reproduction cost over original cost, is charged to it so that the asset account may show cost of the new asset. This cost, except for its betterment portion, if any, is now charged against the reserve. Both methods thus accomplish the same purpose, but the first is more direct and simpler of operation. It may be interesting to note that, in early instructions to railway accounting officers, the Interstate Commerce Commission prescribed the second method, which emphasizes the betterment feature. The present regulation is in accord with the first method.
Occasionally one finds a practice which, though based on the second method, differs in that no determination of betterment values is made, the original asset values remaining undisturbed and the entire reproduction cost being charged against the reserve account. This practice, of course, is due to a lack of understanding of the nature and purpose of the depreciation charge and its offsetting reserve, and is counter to correct principles. There is, however, seeming judicial support for it in cases of the valuation of utility properties for rate purposes. The problem is discussed in full on page 202. The entries on the general books thus present no difficulties.
Subsidiary Records
Subsidiary records should usually be kept to show the detail of the group asset accounts carried on the general ledger. Not only is this necessary to maintain an adequate check on the inventory of the group asset and control over it, but without a detailed record of items it is impossible to keep careful watch over the operation of the forces of decay and depreciation and, therefore, equally impossible to build up reliable experience data concerning each group of assets. The amount of detail necessary in the record of the plant assets is dependent upon the information desired and capable of being obtained within a limit of cost low enough to make it worth the cost. This is a matter of policy which the management must determine. It may be desirable to carry the records in much greater detail for a period than would be justifiable as a permanent policy. It may be worth while to make more or less frequent studies of particular groups of assets in order to check up the effect of the depreciation rates.
As is pointed out elsewhere, while the preliminary estimate of expected life, and determination therefrom of the depreciation rate, are of great importance and the utmost skill and judgment possible should be employed, only a policy of everlasting vigilance and readjustment, in the light of new data available with the increasing age of the asset, will bring satisfactory results. To predetermine a rate and then to expect it without supervision to work out to a successful conclusion is, to say the least, foolish. Only by means of a complete record of life histories can a mass of reliable data be built up which can be made to serve as a guide for the future. The depreciation problem is an individual problem and must, from the nature of things, remain so to a marked degree. Until conditions under which the lives of assets are to be lived become more or less standardized, or so long as each concern must carry its own depreciation insurance, standard rates of depreciation will not have a controlling significance.
Grouping and Classification of Plant Assets
From what has been said it is evident that the assets of a plant must be divided into groups for the sake of simplicity and convenience in keeping record of them. The basis of grouping should be physical similarity, process, or product. Thus, all tram cars might be carried in a group, as also all machines doing the same work or process. Groups of machines performing different processes on the same product could well be treated as a depreciation unit, and likewise all buildings used for the same purpose, if of a similar type of construction. If the latter are of different types it might be desirable to keep separate records. As stated above, the information desired must govern the groups under which record of behavior and performance are kept.
A numerical or an alphabetic numeric system of classification and identification is advantageous. Each machine, piece of equipment, or other asset should be marked or tagged when installed so that any particular piece of equipment can be identified at any time. The tag should carry date of installation and the name of the maker or vendor, as well as its own identification number. By the use of a combined alphabetical and decimal numerical system, almost any possible grouping can be made according to main and auxiliary groups, processes, or products.
Form of Plant Ledger
The form of the plant register or ledger need not be elaborate. Its main subdivisions should correspond with the subdivisions of plant and equipment carried on the general ledger. Thus, if we find therein accounts with buildings (factory, store, office, etc.), machinery, furniture and fixtures for factory, store, and office, delivery equipment, etc., subsidiary records should show corresponding subdivisions. It should be a matter of fixed policy to require a periodic proof of these subsidiary records against their respective controlling accounts on the general ledger. Only thus can the inclusion of all items in both records be made certain. The control established must cover both the items of the assets record—the original cost as shown by the asset account—and the accumulated depreciation as shown by the reserve account.
Asset Record
Aside from the title and classification and identification number, the plant register should provide a record of the asset under the heads of:
1. Date of installation or adjustment. 2. Estimate of life in periods, working hours, service output, etc. 3. Original value, including installation costs. 4. Periodic depreciation burden. 5. Periodic appraisal value.
On the form shown below, provision is made for adjustment of the original estimate of depreciation. Where there is a realizable scrap value, additional columns to show scrap value and total depreciation to be written off should be provided. The form shown would have to be adapted to the method of depreciation decided upon as applicable to a particular asset. Thus, if working hours or service output are the basis, provision should be made to show the basis of calculation of each period’s depreciation burden. The following form is well adapted to make record of the asset under the straight line method of depreciation.
Periodic Revision of Rates
In Chapter VIII where the problems in connection with depreciation rates were discussed, a periodic testing of the effects of the particular rate employed was laid down as an essential for the application of any rate. The determination of the rate in the first place is a problem requiring expert knowledge and the most careful consideration of many factors. Hardly less important, however, for the successful operation of any depreciation scheme is the attention given to the manner of its operation and a modification and readjustment of rates to bring the theoretical expectation of the wasting of the asset into accord with its actual wasting to date.
At the beginning, when the asset is first installed the depreciation rate must be based, so far as this particular asset is concerned, entirely on contingencies. None of its life has been lived; none of its actions and behavior have yet become a matter of record. What it is apt to do can be forecast only by a study of its ancestors—heredity as modified by a reasonable expectation of change due to different environment. However, at the end of five years, say, there is available a record of service and behavior in the light of which not only can the accuracy of the forecast be judged, but also a more reliable forecast for the remainder of its service life can be made.
Frequency of Revision of Rates
Because of the conditions stated above, a periodic testing of rates should be made. How frequently this should be done depends largely on local conditions. Certainly sufficient time should be allowed to pass to secure a really worthwhile test. What constitutes a sufficient time depends largely on the expected length of life. Long-lived assets obviously need not be tested so frequently as short-lived assets; and the periods should be shortened when the asset has been serving under supernormal conditions; the intensity of its life would be a controlling factor. It is usually stated that this testing of rates and conditions should be made at least every five years in the form of an appraisal. In the physical appraisal care should be used not to allow present market prices to enter into it, else the element of fluctuation may easily be brought in to nullify or exaggerate the real results of depreciation.
Test of Condition Per Cent
At the time of reappraisal the estimated condition per cent or the expectancy as to remaining service life are the points most to be considered. C. E. Grunsky has made an interesting contribution to the study of expectancy—theoretical, it is true, in the sense that it is based on assumed hypotheses, but nevertheless of value as calling attention to a phase of the subject that presents large possibilities. He takes 10,000 similar articles, all of probable life-terms of 10 years, and all simultaneously installed. Assuming that of these 10,000, 100 will fail or go out of service at the end of the first year, 200 at the end of the second year, that the largest numbers will fail in the years just before and just after the expected life-term of 10 years, and from then on, that there will be a gradual decrease in the number of failures until the 20th year, beyond which time (double the estimated life-period) none will remain in service—the following table is shown, which gives in the last column at the right the life expectancy of all remaining articles as at the beginning of a given year.
It will thus be seen that an article which has survived its 5th year, has at the beginning of its 6th an expectancy, not of 5 years but of 6.12 years; an article which has lived its allotted 10 years has an expectancy of 3.67 years; and so on. Certainly Mr. Grunsky’s study, if it serves no other purpose, at least draws attention to possible lines of development and, read in connection with facts as to the known length of life of many assets which have outlived their expected terms, it draws strong attention to the need of very careful use of any so-called mortality tables. These life history tables for assets are similar to the mortality tables used by life insurance companies.
TABLE OF EXPECTANCY[37]
The probable life of each article is 10 years or periods. For terms other than 10 years, each year in the table may be regarded as a period equal to one-tenth of the probable life-term.
(Based on the special hypothesis of failures as explained in the text)
========+==========================================+=============== | FOR 10,000 ARTICLES | SINGLE ARTICLE +----------+------------------+------------+--------------- Year or | | Remaining Number | Remaining | Period | Number | of Articles at | Service at | Expectancy at | of | Beginning of | Beginning | Beginning of | Failures | Year | of Year | Year or Period --------+----------+------------------+------------+--------------- 1 | 100 | 10,000 | 100,000 | 10.00 2 | 200 | 9,900 | 90,000 | 9.00 3 | 300 | 9,700 | 80,100 | 8.27 4 | 400 | 9,400 | 70,400 | 7.46 5 | 500 | 9,000 | 61,000 | 6.77 6 | 600 | 8,500 | 52,000 | 6.12 7 | 700 | 7,900 | 43,500 | 5.51 8 | 800 | 7,200 | 35,600 | 4.95 9 | 900 | 6,400 | 28,400 | 4.44 10 | 1,000 | 5,500 | 22,000 | 4.00 11 | 900 | 4,500 | 16,500 | 3.67 12 | 800 | 3,600 | 12,000 | 3.33 13 | 700 | 2,800 | 8,400 | 3.00 14 | 600 | 2,100 | 5,600 | 2.67 15 | 500 | 1,500 | 3,500 | 2.33 16 | 400 | 1,000 | 2,000 | 2.00 17 | 300 | 600 | 1,000 | 1.67 18 | 200 | 300 | 400 | 1.33 19 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 1.00 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 --------+----------+------------------+------------+---------------
[37] From “Valuation, Depreciation and the Rate-Base,” by C. E. Grunsky.
Composite and Group Rates
In the practical application of the depreciation rate in a large plant, every separate piece of property is not, of course, considered by itself. The plant is divided into groups of similar assets, determined roughly on the basis of life expectancy, conditions of service, etc. Using these groups it is possible to find the rate of composite depreciation—a figure which serves as a check over the group depreciation. This is also sometimes called the “mean life” of the plant. It is determined by two methods—one called the direct, the other the dollar-year method. Assuming groups of assets of varying life lengths and costs, the following examples show the manner of estimating the amount of depreciation for the whole plant and also composite life; that is, the mean average life of the individual assets when viewed not as units but as a composite whole:
MEAN LIFE DIRECT METHOD
======+=========+================+==============+============= Group | Life | Value | Rate | Amount of | in | to be | of | Periodic | Periods | Depreciated[38]| Depreciation | Depreciation ------+---------+----------------+--------------+------------- A | 5 | $100,000 | 20 | $20,000 B | 10 | 75,000 | 10 | 7,500 C | 15 | 60,000 | 6⅔ | 4,000 D | 20 | 120,000 | 5 | 6,000 | | -------- | | -------- | | $355,000 | | $37,500 ------+---------+----------------+--------------+-------------
[38] That is, cost less salvage.
Mean life is $355,000 ÷ $37,500, or 9⁷/₁₅ periods.
Under the dollar-year method, the invested values are weighted by the length of their investment term and thus all investments are reduced to the common basis of one dollar for one year:
MEAN LIFE DOLLAR-YEAR (OR WEIGHTED RATIO) METHOD
=====+====+===========+=============+================+============ | | Values |Turnover Rate|Total Investment| Group|Life| to be | in Longest | During Longest |Dollar-Years | |Depreciated| Life-Period | Life-Period | (a) |(b) | (c) | (d)[39] | (e) | (f)[40] -----+----+-----------+-------------+----------------+------------ A | 5 | $100,000 | 4 | $400,000 | $2,000,000 B | 10 | 75,000 | 2 | 150,000 | 1,500,000 C | 15 | 60,000 | 1⅓ | 80,000 | 1,200,000 D | 20 | 120,000 | 1 | 120,000 | 2,400,000 | | -------- | | -------- | ---------- | | $355,000 | | $750,000 | $7,100,000 -----+----+-----------+-------------+----------------+-------------
[39] That is, the number of times renewal of the asset will be required during the longest life-period of any of the assets.
[40] Dollar-years, column (f), is the product of the total invested values as shown in column (e), and the life of each group as shown by column (b). Thus, $400,000 invested for 5 years is the equivalent of $2,000,000 invested for 1 year.
Column (f) ÷ column (e), (7,100,000 ÷ 750,000 = 9⁷/₁₅) gives the mean life.
Column (e) ÷ the longest life-period, 20 years, (750,000 ÷ 20 = 37,500) gives an annual charge for the whole plant.
What is known as “mean” age or plant expectancy as to remaining life may be found similarly. Assume a physical appraisal made after 12 years’ life of the above assets:
MEAN AGE (LIFE EXPECTANCY) DIRECT METHOD =====+====+==============+=========+============+=============== | | Unexpired or |Condition|Values to be| Values Already Group|Life|Remainder Life| % |Depreciated | Depreciated (a) |(b) | (c) | (d)[41] | (e) | (f) -----+----+--------------+---------+------------+--------------- A | 5 | 3 | 60 | $100,000 | $40,000 B | 10 | 8 | 80 | 75,000 | 15,000 C | 15 | 3 | 20 | 60,000 | 48,000 D | 20 | 8 | 40 | 120,000 | 72,000 | | | | -------- | -------- | | | | $355,000 | $175,000 -----+----+--------------+---------+------------+---------------
[41] (d) = (c) ÷ (b).
Group A assets, having been twice renewed, would be in 60% condition; Group B, 80%; Group C, 20%; and Group D, 40%.
Column (f) ÷ column (e), (175,000 ÷ 355,000 = 49²¹/₇₁%) gives the per cent of composite depreciation already taken effect.
The mean life, as determined above, multiplied by per cent of composite depreciation gives the mean age or portion of the mean life already lived (9⁷/₁₅ × 49²¹/₇₁% = 4⅔).
The figure of mean or composite life may serve two purposes. First, it forms the basis for comparison with other similar plants and is about the only fair basis for comparison. Second, it gives the basis for estimating the amount of annual depreciation of the plant as a whole. This statement does not mean that individual depreciation reserves are not to be carried for each group of assets and those charged with the value of the asset as soon as it is discarded and renewed. But the use of the estimated mean or composite life figure does give a control over the amounts which should always be found in the individual group reserve accounts, i.e., at any given time the sum of the individual reserve account balances should be approximately equal to the amount as shown by the reserve when calculated on the mean life basis.
The Reserve as an Index of Financial Condition
The statement is often made that a balance sheet showing depreciation reserves points to a conservative policy in the treatment of plant properties. Usually such a balance sheet affords little or no basis for expressing a judgment as to conservatism or the lack of it. All that it does show is that recognition is made of the fact of depreciation. As to its adequacy or inadequacy, a knowledge of other factors is necessary.
Fluctuating Reserve. According to successive balance sheets a reserve may vary little from year to year, or it may show considerable increase or decrease, and any of these conditions may be entirely normal and express adequacy of reserve requirements. In the first case, stability of the reserve may result because the asset is short-lived and hence is more or less frequently replaced; or different units of the property may have been installed at somewhat regular intervals so that retirements from service are also somewhat regular. Under either supposition, the charges against the reserve for the units displaced would just about keep pace with the regular credits to reserve for replacement purposes. In other words, that condition of the reserve for that class of asset is the normal condition—except perhaps in the case of a rapidly expanding plant, or other conditions not counted as normal when the reserve requirements were put into operation—and any other condition should lead to inquiry and investigation.
Increasing Reserve. In the second case where the reserve is showing a considerable increase from year to year, that also may be a normal condition. Long-lived assets are seldom replaced with any degree of regularity in the annual charge against the reserve, except in the case of very large plants where the number of such assets is correspondingly large in proportion to their size. Here more or less regular installations may take place as a result of an expanding business, covering a period of approximately the same length as that of the life of the asset. So here, too, any other than a regularly increasing reserve must incite inquiry.
Decreasing Reserve. As to the third case, that of a somewhat regularly decreasing reserve, the condition is not usually normal but may occasionally be met in a plant where one type of equipment is being retired and not replaced, due perhaps to a changing line of activity; as when, for instance, a stock furniture manufacturer works gradually into the exclusive manufacture of automobile and carriage bodies. Some types of equipment will thus be gradually retired and their reserves will constantly diminish, their place being taken by other reserves covering the new type of equipment. However, this condition of decreasing reserves, while entirely normal under certain circumstances, being unusual, should always receive careful investigation. It is here that mean life and mean age or composite plant depreciation are of assistance in forming a judgment as to the general adequacy of reserves.
The Reserve in Relation to Expanding Plant
In the case of a plant the development of which is stationary, the problem of judging the adequacy of the reserves is simple in comparison with a plant which is expanding, resulting not only in the installation of more of the same kind of equipment but also of equipment of other kinds. A disturbing element is thus introduced and careful oversight of the depreciation policy must be exercised. In all cases, intelligent reading of the reserve and its sufficiency are internal problems based on intimate knowledge of conditions. Lacking this knowledge no true judgment can be made. The character of the asset, number of units in use, dates of installation, a comparison of the assumed conditions at date of installation with the actual conditions of the present—all are factors to be taken into account.
Reserve as Related to Efficiency
The general relation of efficiency to depreciation has already been discussed. As to whether the condition of the reserve is any index of the efficiency of the service rendered by the plant unit, attention is briefly directed to a misinterpretation of individual reserves. Experts state that many types of equipment cannot deteriorate actually more than a fixed per cent of their cost and continue to give efficient service. If, say, 30% is the limit in the case of one type, this does not, of course, indicate that, as soon as the depreciation reserve shows an amount equal to 30% of the cost, the approach of inefficient operation and the time of discard are at hand. It must be borne in mind that the reserve is a device based on financial considerations and, if properly calculated and handled, no asset should be ready for retirement until its reserve approaches in amount the value at which the asset is carried in its account. Nor is the point of approaching inefficiency shown until that condition of the reserve is found.
Reserve not Based on Cost of Replacement
The question is sometimes raised as to whether reserve requirements should be based on original cost or cost of replacement new. The question usually reveals a lack of understanding both of the purpose of the depreciation charge and the means of financing depreciation. It is usually said that the reserves carried on the books are for the purpose of providing the means of financing the replacement. It is not the purpose here to go into the question of original cost versus cost of reproduction new, either as a basis for valuation of public utility properties or from the viewpoint as to where the incidence of the burden of replacement properly should rest—whether on the users of the service given by the asset to be replaced or on those using the new asset. In the private enterprise where the rights of the public are not so apparent, under present-day tenets of political and economic philosophy, only internal policies and purposes to be accomplished need be considered.
As stated above, the basic purpose of the creation of the reserve is to burden the product with depreciation charge as a real part of the cost of production. If we are concerned with real and actual costs of production, by no stretch of the imagination can replacement cost—what it might cost to replace the asset at some more or less distant time—enter into the question. It might, with equal obscurity of logic, be said that, because the labor cost is bound to be higher 10 years from now than at present, in order to get the true present cost of the product the estimated future labor cost should be taken in place of the actual present cost.
The Financing of Replacements
If one purpose of the depreciation reserve is that of financing depreciation, this can mean only that the reserve must insure provision being made so that the capital invested will not be lessened or encroached upon by the wasting of the assets in which it is invested. It is no necessary or proper purpose of the reserve to provide for increasing the invested capital. Financing the replacement of the retired asset is a separate financial problem and only concerns accountancy, so far as the records may reflect that policy. The reserve, in itself, does not furnish the means of financing any part of replacement, as was fully shown above. If the new asset is expected to cost more than the old, certainly business prudence would dictate provision for the added cost as well as ready funds of an amount equal to the original cost. The actual capital provided originally need be sufficient only for the time being; to provide more than that, if remaining idle, would be folly. If there is evidence of expansion, or if it is recognized that more will be needed—due to change in markets—for replacement purposes than was originally needed at the inception of the enterprise, provision must be made therefor.
Methods of Financing Replacements. In the financing of replacements, three courses are open:
1. Capital stock may be increased. 2. Funds may be borrowed. 3. Profits of the past may be reserved in the business and the actual value of the holdings of the owners thus be enhanced.
In the third case present dividends may be sacrificed for the sake of the future. Such reserve profits must be kept and used for the intended purpose, the purpose dictating their form as liquid or fixed. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that these are reserves of profits—not valuation or offset accounts under the title of reserves. Depreciation reserves, except they become secret reserves in the sense referred to below, have no right to serve any other purpose than that intended, viz., to provide insurance that none of the originally invested capital shall be dissipated and that the current product shall be burdened with its just share of all the materials and costs of production.
Secret Reserve
A great deal has been said about inaccuracies in the depreciation charge; the need of periodic readjustments has been emphasized. Now it is purposed to look into the effects of inaccurate charges remaining unadjusted on the books. In a desire to be on the safe side, some concerns, notably financial institutions, make very liberal provision for depreciation. Such a policy is not entirely to be condemned and is decidedly refreshing in comparison with the parsimonious allowances, begrudgingly made in some quarters. The effect of such a policy, if operated without check, is to create what is known as a “secret reserve.” The value of the asset is charged more rapidly against operation than the asset actually wastes. Hence the books show a reserve sufficient to cover the cost of asset while there are still values remaining in the asset. In other words, the business possesses an asset of value which is carried on the books as of no value. Were the real present value of the asset brought on the books, the contra credit would appear in some surplus or profits reserved account. Such would constitute a true record of the item, openly stated. So long as the asset remains concealed, i.e., without record on the books, its contra credit is also latent and constitutes a secret reserve of profits.
A too liberal depreciation policy, if recognized and adjusted at the time of a reappraisal, will require a separation from the depreciation reserve of the portion brought about by the overallowance, and its showing as a part of the surplus. When so handled, an overcharge for depreciation has no permanently bad effect except as it may show, for purposes of comparison, too high costs of production for the period overburdened. However it may be and sometimes is, used for purposes of fraud and therefore, as a fixed policy, the practice of the secret reserve is to be condemned.
Insufficient Charge
On the other side is the parsimonious policy of too low a charge or none at all. This results, whether consciously or not, in a charge against capital instead of revenue. At the close of the fiscal period the books are supposed to be brought into accord with the facts of true condition as then existing. Therefore, if the full portion of the accrued expenses is not separated from the wasting asset accounts, but is allowed to stand on the books under the title of assets, then these true expense items will still be carried hidden under the cloak of asset titles. The depreciation is thus carried as a charge against capital. The depreciation of a going concern should never be so treated; it is an operating charge, and no flight of fancy or shuffling of figures can make anything else of it.
In the case of a property, showing inflated values because of too low depreciation charges in the past, which is taken over and rehabilitated, the sums spent on the property previous to operation to put it in condition are properly capital charges. This is allowed on the theory—unfortunately, not always a fact—that the difference between the book value of the property and what was paid for it represents the estimated expenditures necessary to bring the property up to its book value. If such is not the case and full book value was given for the property, the charge is still allowed, being looked upon as in the nature of an organization expense, representing in an instance of this sort the measure of the bad bargain made. This will, of course, result in a penalty in the form of an added depreciation burden on all product from the property taken over and rehabilitated.
Appreciation as an Offset to Depreciation
If depreciation is so inevitable and the necessity of its charge so absolute, can anything be said in support of the proposal to offset depreciation against appreciation? By appreciation is meant an increase in value due to the passing of time. Judicial authority can be found in support of it in cases of valuation for rate purposes.[42] There is no question but that a realized increment in land or any other asset offsets a depreciation or any other expense charge in just the same way that any other item of income offsets an expense. There is, however, this marked difference between depreciation and appreciation: the former is an inexorable reality advancing day by day entirely independent of market fluctuations, whereas the latter is dependent on the market and usually cannot be realized until the asset is sold.
[42] See Consolidated Gas Co. v. City of New York, 157 Fed. Rep. 855, and 20 I. C. C. Rep. 344.
When, however, as is too often the case, the proposal to offset depreciation by appreciation is meant to justify a policy which takes no cognizance of depreciation on the books because it is offset by appreciation, no support can be found for that view. In itself it reveals an entire lack of knowledge of the purpose of the depreciation charge or a disregard of the fundamental and obvious requirements of prudence. Depreciation is one of the costs of production and without it true cost cannot be shown. Failure to show depreciation on the books would justify also the omission of a cash income item because the cash was to be spent immediately in payment of salaries—a cancellation outside the business records of income against expense which can under no circumstances be justified.
Appreciation Due to Physical Changes
There is a kind of appreciation which is not dependent on fluctuations of the market and which as surely accrues, up to a certain point, day by day as does depreciation. Properties the value of which has been enhanced by earth construction work done on them are susceptible of this kind of appreciation. “Appreciation is generally restricted to physical items, and measures their gain in value due to age, use, and properly directed labor.... It results from work not specifically charged to capital account ... and covers items not represented ... in connection with a valuation.”[43] It is found in connection with such items as roadbeds, solidification and grassing of slopes, drainage, dams, embankments, etc.
[43] Valuation Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Its two forms are called solidification and seasoning, and adaptation. By the first is meant a settling and compacting of loose earth and its protection from wasting and washing away, as by the grassing of slopes, and the planting of trees and shrubs to hold the snows. When a roadbed is turned over to the operating division, it frequently is far from complete in the sense of being in a high state of efficiency, and the cost of its maintenance and up-keep during the early years of its life is much higher than during later years. This appreciation due to seasoning is difficult of valuation, but perhaps the difference in up-keep between early and later years is the best measure of it.
Appreciation Due to Adaptation to Use
“Adaptation” is a term used to cover that class of expenditures needed for the better adaptation of the property to its use. In the early stages of the development of a property many things cannot be foreseen nor can a proper basis be settled upon for a determination of the charges as between capital and revenue. The proper handling of such expenditures as those incurred for drainage requirements, better adaptation of the roadway to the surrounding topography of the country, etc., are difficult. If these costs have not originally been charged against capital, the properties may truly be said to have appreciated in value by reason of them. Items of this kind require a wise discrimination between costs of operation and capital charges. The effect of such changes is almost always lost sight of so far as physical appearance shows, and the appreciation due to them is difficult of valuation at a later time. In the case of railroads, perhaps the difference in maintenance cost as between the early and later years of the roadbed is the best index.
In the case of industrial concerns, the cost of a rearrangement of machinery and working facilities for the better and more economical handling of the product frequently results in an appreciation in value due to adaptation to use. This has already been discussed in Chapter V.
As stated above, appreciation has judicial sanction and its valuation, although fraught with many difficulties and uncertainties, has been made and the results accepted. The generally haphazard method of roughly estimating the value of an appreciation when its determination becomes necessary suggests that it were better, by far, to attempt the proper segregation of the charge between capital and revenue at the time of its incurrence, rather than to take cognizance of an appreciation in value at a later time. There are undoubtedly circumstances in which appreciation in value can be properly recognized and should be taken into the accounts not only of public utility properties but also of industrial concerns.
Unearned Increment
Appreciation in value due to so-called unearned increment is entirely a matter of market value. By this is not meant that the monetary value of this kind of appreciation fluctuates with the market; it accrues from day to day and is just as real as depreciation. Although very real, it does not become realized until the property is disposed of, a thing which is determined by business policy and does not rest on any principles of accountancy. It is not good practice to bring such unrealized values on the books. For a fuller consideration of this phase of the subject, see Chapter XVII where the problem is treated in connection with land and real estate.
Depreciation Policy and Stockholders
A final consideration concerns the relation of the depreciation policy to the stockholder. As stated above, a too liberal depreciation policy results in the creation of secret reserves which may be used to the prejudice of the stockholder by an unscrupulous managing clique desirous of buying minority holdings at a depreciated value or of manipulating the stock for speculative purposes. An insufficient depreciation allowance results in a false optimism, a payment of dividends out of capital, and perhaps finally in a wrecking of the property. Except for the transient, speculative shareholder, a fixed depreciation policy based on a conservatively accurate allowance is always for the best interest of the property and its owners.
Introduction
In Chapter V an effort was made to establish the general principles of valuation as applicable to the main classes of assets found on the average balance sheet. In doing so, the fundamental distinctions between capital and revenue charges were set forth. In the six chapters on depreciation the general principles of depreciation and their application to problems in accounting have been developed, with particular emphasis on the problems of valuation and true costs. It is purposed now to consider in detail the various problems met in the valuation of the individual items found on the commercial balance sheet. It will be necessary also to consider the method of showing these items so as to indicate the basis of valuation and something of the financial policy employed. The various assets will be considered in the order of their appearance on the balance sheet, the arrangement being based on degree of liquidity, beginning with the most liquid.
What Cash Includes
There is little to be said about the valuation of an asset of such evident and definite value as cash. The problem here is rather one of showing the nature of the asset, although certain principles of valuation under given conditions need also to be considered.
The term cash as an item in the balance sheet usually includes all money and whatever serves as money. Thus, all legal tender of the realm, bank notes, checks, bankers’ drafts, postal and express money orders, and occasionally postage stamps and even “IOU’s” are classed as cash. Not all items, however, that may be carried on the books as cash should appear under this caption on the balance sheet. There only the current asset cash should be listed in the group of current assets. All other cash, including that held for specific purposes under deed of trust or otherwise, should, unless it is readily applicable for the cancellation of current liabilities, be shown in some other group.
Where the petty cash or working funds of all sorts are operated on the imprest system, the funds should be replenished before the books are closed and should thus be truly valued at their ledger figures. The bank account should be reconciled with the cash book, and the figure should represent the amount at which the item is to be taken into the balance sheet. This means, of course, that all properly authorized claims against cash in bank are to be treated as cash disbursed if they have been regularly issued, whether presented for redemption at the bank or not. Checks written but not yet mailed are not usually treated as cash disbursed because they are still under control. Similarly, items left at the bank for collection and deposit may be counted as cash on hand. If, however, as might happen in exceptional cases, a comparatively large amount represented dishonored items and a second attempt was being made to collect these dishonored items, the better procedure would be to omit them from the cash total and include them with the receivable items. In this connection attention should be called to the practice occasionally met with of holding the cash open for a few days after the closing date for the purpose of making a better showing as to balance on hand by means of new collections. This, of course, is a practice which cannot be countenanced under any circumstances as it is simply an effort to mislead, even though the effect may not always be bad. A balance sheet is a statement of financial condition purporting to be true as on a certain named date. The values shown therein are therefore to be those applicable to, and true on, that date and no other.
Stamps Remitted as Cash
Some concerns dealing in commodities of small value sold through the mails allow, and even encourage, payment by means of postage stamps, these in turn being used for their own correspondence and parcels post expense. The proper place to record the value of this item at the close of the fiscal period is in the inventory of office supplies or other similar heading instead of treating it as a part of the cash. This necessitates a transfer from cash to office supplies. The transfer can be accomplished in either of two ways without interfering with the usual handling of the cash whereby it is checked against the bank’s record of deposits and checks as explained in Volume I, Chapter XXXV. The customary method is to use the cash book as the place of record for the receipt of stamps and then transfer them to the stamp drawer for office use. All other “cash” being deposited in the bank, the record of cash receipts as shown by the cash book does not thus check against the record of deposits as shown by the bank. To secure this agreement, a check may be made out payable to “Cash,” “Ourselves,” or “Postage,” and passed through the bank periodically as a deposit and so secure the proper agreement between the bank’s record and the concern’s. The record of the check among the cash disbursements thus secures the proper charge to Postage or Office Supplies and also effects the proper agreement between the bank’s record and the concern’s. The use of a “postage” journal, operated on the same lines as the cash book and recording all receipts and disbursements of postage, would accomplish the same purpose and in some circumstances would be advisable.
Temporary Cash Disbursements
The practice of allowing proprietor, cashier, or others to take cash from the cash drawer and leave a memo of some sort to show responsibility or purpose is to be deprecated. Only where the principle is strictly adhered to of depositing all cash and disbursing only by check and by means of a petty cash fund handled under the imprest method, can adequate control over cash even be approximated. Where, however, such is not the practice, the problem is not that of the valuation of cash, for the memos are not cash, but of the valuation of claims receivable—a subject to be treated later in this chapter.
Disposition of Cash Funds
In the showing of cash for purposes of management, it is essential to indicate the present disposition made of the various cash funds or to show the immediacy of the control over them. Thus cash should be listed as:
1. Safe or drawer 2. Various working funds 3. Petty cash fund 4. Bank
Under “Bank” should be indicated how much is held on “current” account and how much is restricted to special purposes. Of the current balance it is desirable to show the portion subject to check for immediate needs and the portion representing surplus funds not immediately needed and therefore held to earn interest. These amounts subject to interest are almost always available on short notice, but usually only with the sacrifice of interest earnings to date.
Cash from the sale of capital stock or bond issues, or from the sale of old plant or any portion of it, under authorization from the stockholders that it be held for purchase or construction of new plant, or for other capital purposes, comprises that held for specific purposes. Sometimes even cash in the sinking funds might be included in the list. As it is usually of importance to keep the management informed as to the amounts of cash available for the various purposes stated above, an effort should be made to give this information, without too much detail, in the balance sheet if it is drawn up for internal use.
Cash Held Abroad
There remains to consider moneys held in a foreign branch and thus subject to fluctuations of exchange. In Chapter XXXI, where the subject of the foreign branch is treated, a full discussion of the problem of exchange in its relation to the accounting records will be given. Here it is sufficient to say that as between countries where exchange rates vary little, the general practice is to use an arbitrary conversion figure for incorporating the results of the foreign branch with those of the head office. This conversion figure applies to cash as well as to all other items. The use of such an arbitrary basis will give substantially correct results under the conditions named.
The assets of the foreign branch are the properties, usually and for the most part, of proprietors and stockholders residing in the country of the home office, who are concerned merely with the distribution of the earnings of the foreign branch. Profits are made in one currency to be distributed as dividends in another currency. Hence, the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of closing the books would usually give the most accurate results and should, of course, be used when exchange is not fairly stable between the two countries. It may even be conservative and advisable to set up a reserve for fluctuations in exchange, with the object of absorbing what might otherwise be too great a charge or credit to the current period’s profit and loss if a particularly unfavorable or favorable rate were prevailing on the date of conversion.
Accounts and Notes Receivable
In the valuation of accounts and notes receivable the problem is largely one of appraising the uncollectible items. The book account and note are intermediate stages in the conversion of merchandise into cash. Were they always worth their face value there would usually be no problem in their valuation except for the element of theoretical interest which is not commonly taken into account by commercial enterprises. In considering this problem of valuation, the question of the correct use of terms arises. For the sake of clearness, when showing the items on the balance sheet, attention will be first directed to this latter phase of the subject.
Objection to the Title, Accounts Receivable
The governing principle here is that only current items can be included in this group of assets when shown on the balance sheet. In accounting, as in economics, there is no distinctive scientific terminology. The economist makes use, for the most part, of every-day words and phrases. These are often open to misunderstanding and are sometimes capable of being used even for wilful misrepresentation. Recognition of this fact has made necessary a more careful definition of some terms. In the language of the street, almost any claim against outsiders may be spoken of as an “account receivable.” The term is thus so broad as not only to include current claims against customers in regular course of trade, and accrued income, such as rents, commissions, interest, dividends, etc., earned but not yet received, but also to serve as a cloak covering many other kinds of claims and deposits. Among these may be enumerated:
1. Cash deposited to cover breakage or damage to equipment in use, to guarantee the payment of prospective expense, or to guarantee good faith in the performance of a contract. 2. Moneys advanced to subsidiaries, salesmen, and other employees on account of expenses and salaries. 3. Claims against creditors for returned or damaged goods, against railroads for lost or damaged goods, and against governments for rebates, drawbacks, and the like. 4. Prepayments on purchase or expense contracts, as payments made to bind a bargain or before delivery of goods; and expenses paid in advance, such as royalties, rents, interest, etc. 5. Unpaid calls or instalments on stock subscription contracts. 6. Claims against absconding officers for property appropriated or trusts violated.
It is necessary, therefore, to employ a term of more definite meaning which cannot be misused. The word “Customer” is sometimes used and is not objectionable. However, the term “Trade Debtors” is more generally employed and will be so used here as denoting all claims against customers, clients, etc., in regular course of business. Its appearance in a balance sheet is usually evidence of a careful discrimination among the various classes of claims and is not therefore a misleading term.
Risk from Credit Losses
As stated above, the chief problem in valuing accounts and notes receivable is that of estimating bad debts. It is a matter of general experience that some of those to whom credit is extended do not pay their bills. Hence, at the close of the fiscal period it is necessary, so as not to overstate the asset, to estimate the amount which probably cannot be collected. The necessity for this is recognized in a decision of the United States Supreme Court in Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788, and has the sanction of conservative business policy.
The effect of such an estimate is that the period in which the sale is effected is made to stand the loss, and not the one in which failure to secure collection is experienced. There is a close relationship between the actual loss from bad debts and the credit policy of a concern. Where the sales force is allowed to grant credit, the loss from bad debts is almost invariably large. Where the extension of credit is controlled by a credit department, the loss is less than in the other case but depends on thoroughness of information and investigation of the risk. However much care may be exercised, there will be nevertheless some loss, but a live credit supervision should keep the loss at a minimum.
Risk and Length of Credit Period
The amount of loss, or rather the percentage of loss, is not the same for different lines of business nor even for different concerns in the same line. The normal credit period for a particular business has some relation to the loss. Thus if credit supervision and collection effort are the same for two concerns, the one with the shorter credit period will usually have the smaller loss. In a business, for example, where the credit term is 60 days, we would expect fewer uncollectible accounts than in one whose credit period extends for a year or more. As between two concerns in the same line of business, where conditions are fairly uniform, however, there should be little variation in the loss from bad debts. As pointed out in Volume I, Chapter XXXVI, the sales discount policy is for the most part a device for overcoming the element of risk in the extension of credit.
Analysis of Customers’ Accounts as the Basis for Estimate of Bad Debts
In estimating the amount of bad debts, experience within the particular business is the only safe guide. Oftentimes, however, the manager or proprietor is not the most competent person for the task. The auditor, in consultation with the manager, may often arrive at a better estimate than could someone closely connected with the business. In making the estimate, it is an aid to analyze the accounts according to the length of time they are past due. Thus, there would be, after analysis, the amount of those overdue not more than 30 days, the amount of those overdue not more than 60 days, the amount of the 60 to 90 days overdue items, those 90 days to six months, those six months to a year, and all those more than a year overdue. The total amount outstanding minus the sum of these overdue classes represents the portion not yet due. Some part of the not-yet-due portion is, of course, still subject to discount if paid within the discount term. With the claims against customers thus analyzed, a much better basis is afforded for testing the adequacy of the provision for bad debts. The various methods of estimating this provision are discussed on page 219.
It may here be noted that when making up the estimate of bad debts it is by no means always necessary to analyze the outstanding items as suggested above. Such an analysis is of value in three cases:
1. In the case of a new concern where there is no past experience on which to base the estimate. 2. In the case of an outsider—a professional auditor or other party—being called upon to make the estimate. 3. Periodically, in any business, as a check on the work of the collection department.
The value of the analysis in cases (1) and (2) is based on the principle that the longer an item is overdue, the greater is its likelihood of proving uncollectible. The need of an increasing rate for the different classes as analyzed above is apparent. In case (3) its value lies in the fact that it reveals the general effect of the collection policy and incidentally points out any change in policy. Any additional factors which may have wrought a change in the general financial situation must, of course, be taken into account.
Basis of Estimate of Bad Debts
Three methods of making an estimate of bad debts are found, in all of which a percentage of some given base is used. The various bases are respectively:
1. The amount of outstanding trade debt at the time of the balance sheet. 2. The amount of sales on credit made during the present fiscal period. 3. The total sales, both cash and credit, for the present period.
Trade Debtors as the Basis. The use of trade debtors as a base is obvious because it represents the uncollected charges from which alone can any loss from bad debts arise. The use of such a base seems correct in principle. This is so in cases where a balance sheet is made up only once a year, so that conditions as to the periodicity of the sales are practically the same from year to year. The amount of loss from uncollectible items is then somewhat nearly proportional to the amount of claims outstanding at the close of the fiscal year. But where it is necessary to make the estimate monthly, or oftener than once a year, it is very probable that at some of the intermediate periods the amount of outstanding claims will bear no logical relation to the loss from bad debts. Thus, in the garment industry the sales for practically the whole year are made within a few months, and during the other months the processes of manufacture and collection are carried on. For these reasons the amount of bad debts is not proportional to the outstanding claims at the end of each month, nor does such a base properly allocate the losses to the periods in which the sales are made. Accordingly one of the two other methods previously mentioned is used.
Sales as the Basis. Inasmuch as there cannot be any loss from bad debts in the cash sales, theoretically the credit sales provide the proper base for making the estimate. Practically, total sales, either gross or net, furnish the base most frequently employed because the total is always available without the necessity for analysis. So long as the ratio of the two kinds of sales remains fairly constant, the loss from bad debts does bear a direct relation to total sales.
Summary. It may be said with respect to the use of trade debtors as a base, that it gives satisfactory results where conditions are uniform from period to period. In its use, however, cognizance must be taken of any change in the credit policy of the business whereby the term of credit is shortened or lengthened as that in itself would tend to change the ratio of the base to the estimated loss from uncollectible items. As between credit and total sales, theory favors the former but practical considerations the latter. If for any reason the ratio of cash to credit sales should change, the change would have to be taken into consideration when making a comparison between periods of the loss from bad debts. No justification can be found for a fourth method sometimes met with, which makes the provision for bad debts bear some relation to the net profits—large if profits are large, and small or none if profits are small.
In handling the estimate of bad debts on the books, the same considerations are to be observed as in booking depreciation. Care must be exercised not to allow the reserve to grow beyond liberally estimated requirements and so create a secret reserve, nor to fall below such requirements. This must be watched closely and, if need be, the rate changed to accomplish the desired result.
Discounts and Collection Costs
In connection with the valuation of trade debtors, the problem of collection costs and cash discounts must be considered. Some authorities connect these costs directly with sales and make provision for them in the valuation of the current trade debtors; i.e., an estimate of the cost of collecting the outstanding claims and of the probable amount of loss from discounts on the amounts outstanding is deducted by means of reserves from trade debtors and so shown on the balance sheet. Where such a practice is followed, strict consistency would require that a similar credit provision be made for discounts on purchases—a practice not often advocated. The weight of opinion is in favor of taking all such costs and credits into account only when they are actually met. This accords with the treatment of these items as financial management items (explained in Volume I, Chapter XXXVI) and as therefore bearing no direct relation to sales. If, however, unusual costs of this or any other kind are anticipated, prudence demands that provision, by means of reserves, be made for them. Usually the costs average up pretty well from period to period.
Valuation of Other Receivable Items on Open Account
The problem of valuing the other classes of receivable items previously mentioned on page 215, does not differ in the main from that of trade debtors just discussed. If they are worth their face value they should be so shown. If worth less, the necessary valuation reserves should be set up. With these items the chief problem, however, is their proper showing on the balance sheet; i.e., their correct classification and a suitable nomenclature. Most of the items are not strictly current, but even their inclusion under this head is not misleading if they are carefully earmarked to show their true nature. Some of them are decidedly fixed, some are in no sense assets. In some cases even trade debtor balances as carried on the books are not strictly current. In concerns where sales are made on an instalment basis, usually the payments extend over several months and oftentimes years. The customer is charged with the whole amount and credited with the regular instalment payments as made. The portion of the outstanding balance covered by the more remote payments is thus not current. In concerns where both regular and instalment sales take place, a separation of the customers’ balances on the basis of the sales contract gives the necessary information for balance sheet purposes. The accounts of instalment trade debtors normally require a much more liberal valuation reserve than those of regular credit customers.
Loss on Notes Receivable
In some cases the expected loss because of uncollectible notes may be less than that from open accounts, due to the greater formality of the note as an instrument of credit and the probably greater loss of credit to the maker in case of dishonor. However, in making provision for bad debts, the practice is almost universal to class the two receivable items together. Such practice is undoubtedly sound. In the case of notes, the request for payment is more forceable because of the definitely stated due date and the loss of standing if unpaid after such date. In some cases the payment of notes is not pressed, nor is any extraordinary provision made for past-due items—as in industries allied with farming when an unusually bad season makes impossible the payment of notes given by farmers. Again, the practice is sometimes made of taking notes for a long overdue, open account. These have usually no better value than the accounts and must be treated accordingly.
The usual method of handling overdue notes receivable is given in Volume I, Chapter XXXVIII. As there stated, where payment is allowed to lapse, it is generally advisable to insist on the giving of new notes in place of the old. There may be circumstances in which this is not advisable, but the proper method will usually be apparent in each case.
Interest on Notes Receivable
The valuation of notes receivable—using the term to include all written promises to pay, i.e., promissory notes, accepted drafts, and the like, requires a consideration of interest. By far the larger number of notes given in trade are non-interest bearing and are not therefore worth their face value until they become due. The interest problem in the valuation of notes is thus whether the notes should be shown at their face value or present, i.e., discounted, value. Notes which are interest bearing from their date of issue are, of course, worth their face, on the assumption that the interest takes care of the discount. Where non-interest bearing notes form a very considerable item it is well to value them on a discounted basis; if their amount is small, theoretical principles of valuation give place to practical considerations and they may be valued at their face. Where notes bearing interest are valued on a discounted basis, care must be exercised not to include the interest accrued both in their face valuation and also under the head of accrued income.
Balance Sheet Titles for Notes Receivable
The problem of terminology is also met in handling notes receivable. Under the balance sheet caption “Notes Receivable” should usually be included only notes received from trade debtors, and certainly it should never represent any but current asset items. Notes received from officers and employees, of indefinite term and the payment of which will not be pressed, should be recorded under some such title as “Notes Receivable Special.” Long-term notes and those representing loans or advances of any sort should be properly earmarked, as should also loans carried on open account, salary overdrafts, and the like. The latter should be shown under Deferred Charges. These nicer points of valuation cannot be presented on a condensed balance sheet, but care should at all times be taken to make such a showing as will not be misleading and will serve the purpose for which the statement is to be used.