Investing General Discussion

Furry

Email Loading Please Wait
<Gold Donor>
26,232
37,667
Depreciation doesn't work like that. Assets being depreciated use a schedule based on the category of the asset based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
I just figured it would be normal to adjust your books based on observable reality rather than accountants being told how fast things depreciate at accounting school and not allowed to adapt from that.
 

Sanrith Descartes

I was forced to self-deport from the /pol thread
<Gold Donor>
49,122
132,778
But how is it cooking the books when the books tell you the depreciation schedule? You have all the data needed, if you disagree with useful life then make adjustments just divide by a smaller number and make your investment choice.
If you change the depreciation schedule for an item that has a generally accepted schedule then its cooking the books. A vehicle has an accepted schedule of 5 years. A residential rental property has a 27.5 year schedule. You "shouldn't" deviate from the schedule under GAAP.

In the weeds: There are accepted variations. In the residential rental example above, technically you can depreciated the various components are their individual accepted depreciation schedule. So if the house is 200k, but the appliances are 20k, technically its ok to depreciate the building for 180k at 27.5 years and the appliances at 20k over 10 years.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Sanrith Descartes

I was forced to self-deport from the /pol thread
<Gold Donor>
49,122
132,778
I just figured it would be normal to adjust your books based on observable reality rather than accountants being told how fast things depreciate at accounting school and not allowed to adapt from that.
Except, if you tell your investors, creditors (and the IRS) you are following GAAP, then you really should be following GAAP.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kithani

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,775
2,495
I just figured it would be normal to adjust your books based on observable reality rather than accountants being told how fast things depreciate at accounting school and not allowed to adapt from that.
I think you would be wrong on that. I see why you think it would make sense but if you think about it giving accountants a grey area / subjective control over the numbers could lead to a very ugly situation
 

Furry

Email Loading Please Wait
<Gold Donor>
26,232
37,667
Except, if you tell your investors, creditors (and the IRS) you are following GAAP, then you really should be following GAAP.
I decided to research this subject because I like to be informed when I speak. The GAAP method allows the accountant to make a determination on depreciation that is informed by past experience, industry norms, and manufacturers claims among other things. The biggest thing is that such a determination must be reasonable and documented. So the accounting records should include reasoning for the depreciation schedule changing.

Considering all these companies hire third party accountants to come up with these schedules and there’s a consensus move between all of them, cooking the books as an explanation seems extremely unlikely.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Khane

Got something right about marriage
21,326
15,246
Manufacturers claims you say? Well then. Burry is right, burn it all down!

With everything else going on we should be outraged about depreciation schedules. That guy really is outrageously autistic
 

Sanrith Descartes

I was forced to self-deport from the /pol thread
<Gold Donor>
49,122
132,778
I decided to research this subject because I like to be informed when I speak. The GAAP method allows the accountant to make a determination on depreciation that is informed by past experience, industry norms, and manufacturers claims among other things. The biggest thing is that such a determination must be reasonable and documented. So the accounting records should include reasoning for the depreciation schedule changing.

Considering all these companies hire third party accountants to come up with these schedules and there’s a consensus move between all of them, cooking the books as an explanation seems extremely unlikely.
Tell that to Arthur Anderson.