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.”
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.