Skip to main content

Accounting Basics: Part Two


 
Continuing down the list of assets on a balance sheet (beyond those described in our last discussion of such a sheet), we come to a line for prepaid expenses. If our business has paid $1,800 for a year of insurance coverage, it will own something, a claim against the insurance company. This may not sound like an “asset” in a rough commonsensical sense of the world but … hey … the common sense cookie often crumbles. We have to recognize this as an asset in order to convey fairly the economic realities our books are designed to describe.

We’ll move now to tools & equipment. Perhaps our business involves a conveyer belt, which we use to move a product from the back room to the front, where it is shown to the customers and, with luck, purchased. The conveyor belt is a fixed asset or, in less formal parlance, it’s part of our “overhead.”  When we bought the conveyor belt and had it installed (for, we will say, $500) we might have paid $100 cash, charging the other $400 to our credit account with that seller (our accounts payable, a liability). If so, then this transaction has consequences for three items on our balance sheet. We have increased our liabilities by $400, decreased one asset (cash) by $100, and increased the value of another (equipment) by $500.

Again, if we went into this transaction in obedience to the fundamental equation, we remain in obedience. The total value of assets and the total value of liabilities have each increased by $400, and the value of equity hasn’t changed at all.

Insert ILLUSTRATION:  Widget Retailer’s Balance Sheet, Equity Unchanged

You see already, from these very simple examples, how the fundamental equation means that our various accounts serve as a check on one another. If we make a mistaken, then the left side of the balance sheet will get out of line with the right side, and we’ll know enough to check again.

Introducing Depreciation

One key and tricky point about a conveyor belt though (and about many fixed costs) is that its value decreases over time. Eventually, it will just be a piece of scrap that needs to be replaced.

Ideally, the process of physical deterioration over time would have balance-sheet consequences. If we knew that the conveyor belt would have to be replaced after five years, it would seem sensible to write off one-fifth of its value at the end of each year of its life. This would be a loss of the asset value under Tools and Equipment, and a loss also on the equity side of the sheet of the same amount (again, preserving balance.)

But we don’t have a crystal ball handy.  Some items of equipment last longer than we expect: others not so long. This suffices to explain why depreciation can’t simply record the fact of physical deterioration.

[Notice that tool and equipment are different in this respect from the sort of prepaid expense we mentioned above. We can be very precise about how much of our fire insurance we’ve used up. We paid for a full year’s coverage a month ago. There has been no fire in the intervening month. Presumably we’re happy about that. But the simple passage of time means that we’ve used up one-twelfth of that asset. No crystal ball needed.] 

Another complicating factor with the physical deterioration of a conveyor belt: our used-up equipment will probably still have some salvage value at the end of its life. This is the age of recycling: we’ll be able to get something for it in a scrap market. If we do, though, and if over the preceding five years we have been consistently subtracting a full one-fifth of its value, then we will have talked ourselves into the inference that the money obtained from the scrap value consisted of pennies from heaven.

It isn’t coming from heaven of course. If the conveyor belt is worth $20 as a recyclable at the end of its use for us, and if it was worth $500 when brand new, then presumably the right number for its physical deterioration in each of the five intervening year was $96, not $100. 

Some standard rules-of-thumb have been adopted in connection with depreciation by accounting as an industry and by the legislators and regulators who concern themselves with tax issues. Remember what we said above about how the tax and financial accounting biases offset? A company might want to understate depreciation in order to show a high asset value to potential investors and creditors. But at the same time it will want to fix a high number for depreciation in order to offset its income tax.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak