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.”

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:

“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:

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.”

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.”

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.