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