From this it is seen that the redemption of a debt—a number (2) transaction—may be accompanied, and therefore accomplished, by any one of the three offsetting credits or by a combination of them. A debt may be settled (a) by the conversion of an asset; (b) by the creation of another liability; or (c) by an increase in net worth. Cash or other assets may be used for the purpose, resulting in a decrease of assets, as in (a) of the schedule. It should be noted that the borrowing of, say, $1,000 and its repayment in cash leaves the borrower in the same relative financial condition as before, except for the gain derived from the use of the money borrowed. Such loans, to be repaid in this way, are usually of a temporary nature, to tide over an emergency—such as the handling of the load of seasonal activity, or other similar situation. This method of settlement is, of course, not confined to payment of debts for money borrowed, but includes debts contracted for merchandise purchased on credit and other current liabilities.
Again, a debt of one kind may be settled by the creation of a debt of another kind, as in (b) of the above schedule. Thus, an open account payable may be converted into a note or acceptance payable. Here, the liability canceled and the new one created are usually of the same class, viz., current liabilities, and the need for a more or less permanent increase in working funds is not contemplated. So also, a current liability, or a group of them, may be converted into a funded debt. This may be deemed advisable when it is seen that there will be a permanent, or at least a long-term, need for funds which have up to this point been provided by short-term borrowings and credits. Again, a refunding operation would have the effect of a decrease of one liability offset by the increase of another.
Finally, a debt may be canceled through an increase of proprietorship, as in (c) of the schedule. By this means the redemption of the debt may be direct or indirect. Capital stock, either treasury or previously unissued stock, may be accepted by creditors in satisfaction of their claims. They thus change their status from creditors to proprietors and the result is an increase of the concern’s net worth. Indirectly a debt may be settled by the reservation of profits. Instead of distributing the profits as dividends, they may be retained in the business and so provide funds, i.e., assets, for the redemption of debts. In either case the settlement of the debt has been effected by means of increased net worth evidenced by new issues of stock or by reserved profits.
In these various ways, therefore, a debt may be settled. As pointed out above, the first method contemplates no permanent need for increased working funds and the extinguishment of the debt leaves the borrower in approximately the same position financially as before its incurrence. Under the second method, the relative positions before and after are the same excepting in the case of funding a floating debt. Here a permanent or long-term increase in working funds is secured. With the third method a permanent increase is secured in the capital funds available for use in the business. Financial policy, governed by the needs of the business and its markets, will always dictate the method to be used for extinguishing or contracting a debt.
Relation of Fund to Profits
The relation of the sinking fund to profits will next claim our attention. This point has been much debated, reaching the acrimonious stage at times. It is variously contended: (1) that there is a necessary relationship between profits and the payment of a debt; (2) that for final settlement only assets will suffice; and (3) that the policy of reserving profits to an amount equal to the sinking fund is a policy not dictated by any fundamental principle of relationship between profits and debt redemption.
With regard to the first claim, it is sufficient to call attention to the discussion above where the various ways of paying a debt were considered. As there pointed out, a reservation of profits may offer the only available means of providing assets with which to redeem debts. Accordingly, at least an indirect relationship between profits and debt redemption is established.
As regards the second point, that only assets can be used for the final payment of debts, this also is seen to be too broad a claim, for the issue of new stock may accomplish the same end—directly, as where issued to creditors, or indirectly, as where sold and the proceeds applied to liquidate the claims of creditors.
As to the third claim, it might be said with equal relevance that there is no basic relationship between debt redemption and any method of settlement. The assertion can be made with little fear of contradiction that so long as the claims of creditors are satisfied, the manner of doing it is of small importance. Of course, only the currency of the realm is a legal tender for debts but, if other forms of payment prove satisfactory and are accepted, the matter ends. It is therefore solely a question of financial policy, no principles of accounting are involved, and the only point in which accounting is concerned is in making the record so as truthfully to show what is taking place, i.e., to reflect accurately the financial policy adopted.
If the needs of the business require a permanent addition to the capital, as mentioned above, that can be secured in only two ways, viz.: (1) the sale of stock and (2) the reservation of profits. If, on the other hand, the debts to be repaid have provided funds for the emergency or purpose for which they were contracted and that emergency or purpose no longer exists, then the repayment of those funds to the creditors is the business policy dictated. Under these circumstances, to load the business with capital funds not needed in the enterprise might well be the height of business folly. According to the conditions to be faced, there may or may not be any necessary connection between debts and profits.