Accounting theory and practice, Volume 2 (of 3) : a textbook for colleges and…
3. COMPOUND INTEREST METHODS
814 words | Chapter 64
General Considerations
In a discussion of compound interest methods the basic feature, that
of the compound interest principle, requires consideration. The
thought of progression on a compound interest basis is fascinating to
many. It is a powerful instrument of accumulation and its charm seems
to lie in the fact that through its instrumentality small sums can be
made to grow into large sums. Whether the principle is applied to the
creation of a fund or simply as a method of _calculating_ periodic
amounts, the remarks of P. D. Leake,[36] an English authority, are
equally appropriate. He says: “May I impress upon you that these
devices are dangerous expedients in any but the most skillful hands....
It (the sinking fund) is apt to give a sense of false security,
because its whole virtue depends upon its obligations being faithfully
carried out over the whole period, and this condition is not always
fulfilled.... It is probable that in many cases the use of a sinking
fund is an altogether unwarrantable draft upon the future, because
there is no reasonable certainty that the fund, whether it be state,
municipal or commercial, will not be raided before it attains its
object.”
[36] In “Depreciation and Wasting Assets.”
Over short periods the difference between the periodic amounts under
this method and the straight line method is slight, as will be apparent
from a comparison of the two charts on pages 153 and 162, giving
graphic illustration of the two methods. There the period is for five
years. When the period is extended to, say, twenty or fifty years, the
difference in burden, due to interest accumulations, between the early
years and the later years is very marked. “Thus, a 10-year unit having
no salvage value, loses half its value in 5 years under the straight
line theory, regardless of the rate of interest, and at 5% under the
compound interest theory it loses nearly as much—about 44% of its value
in the same time; ... but a 50-year unit, losing half its value in 25
years, under the straight line theory, loses only 22.8% of its value,
at 5%, under the compound interest theory.”
(a) Sinking Fund Method
The sinking fund method as an orderly scheme for estimating the
periodic depreciation charge _will_ make the estimate, and, if adhered
to faithfully, the entire depreciation will be written off by the
end of the service life of the asset. In this respect it is to be
preferred to any arbitrary or haphazard method. That it secures an
equitable distribution of depreciation costs over the product of the
various periods, or that it effects a correct valuation of the asset at
intermediate periods of its life is open to serious questioning. The
periodic charge under the sinking fund method perhaps bears no relation
to the fact of depreciation. The method is, at the best, simply a
mathematical device for an orderly calculation of periodic amounts. In
the valuation work of public service companies or in regulation work
where, as in California, actual funds must be set aside to accumulate
at compound interest, there is no serious objection to the method.
Although it rests on false or doubtful assumptions of fact and results
in an inequitable burden on the product as viewed from the standpoint
of individual assets, these are minor considerations; for the method
does by the end of its service life take care of the loss in value.
Judged from the standpoint of its relation to up-keep costs, the method
lays an increasingly heavy burden on the later years of the life of the
asset.
(b) Annuity Method
All that has been said with regard to the sinking fund method applies
with equal point to the annuity method. As previously indicated, in
the explanation of its essential features, this method automatically
secures a charge for interest on the investment as a part of the
depreciation charge. Not only is the charging of interest of doubtful
propriety in itself, but certainly its inclusion under the title of
depreciation is misleading and indefensible. The courage of one’s
convictions with regard to interest as a part of cost should not allow
interest to shelter itself under the cloak of “depreciation.” By
referring to the appraisal schedule and chart, it is seen that the real
depreciation charge is exactly the same under the annuity as under the
sinking fund method.
(c) Unit Cost Method
The unit cost method represents an attempt to secure an equal burdening
of each unit of product with interest, depreciation, and operating
costs. In the language of its proponents, “this theory is probably the
soundest theory of depreciation, and when applied with intelligence,
probably furnishes the truest measure of accrued depreciation.” While
the end sought by the unit cost method is commendable, it is a compound
interest method and it mixes interest, up-keep, and depreciation under
the one title “depreciation.”
Reading Tips
Use arrow keys to navigate
Press 'N' for next chapter
Press 'P' for previous chapter