Chapter 10: Depreciation, Impairments, and Depletion

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture!

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement not replaced the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

You know that feeling, right?

You buy a brand new car,

drive it off the lot, and instantly,

well,

its value seems to plummet.

We call that depreciation.

But what does that universal experience actually mean when, say, a company like Costco buys a massive piece of machinery, or an oil company starts extracting resources?

How do they account for that value being used up over time?

That's a fantastic starting point for our deep dive today.

Our mission really is to demystify three absolutely critical accounting concepts that often feel a bit abstract.

Depreciation, impairments, and depletion.

We're pulling our insights directly from your source Intermediate Accounting 18th Edition by Kiso, Weigandt, and Warfield.

These aren't just academic terms.

They're the lenses through which companies account for their long -lived assets after they buy them.

This fundamentally impacts their financial statements or core business decisions.

We're here to extract the most important nuggets, explain them in plain language, and really reveal their real -world impacts so you walk away truly well -informed.

Great.

Let's get things off with depreciation.

Going back to our car example, we usually think of depreciation as like a drop in market value.

But in accounting,

it's not about market value at all, is it?

Not really, no.

It's about something much more foundational.

Cost allocation?

Cost allocation.

Think of it like this.

A company buys a million -dollar machine.

That's not just a one -time hit, a lump sum expense.

It's a tool that provides value over time.

Depreciation is simply the accounting way of spreading the original cost of that tool systematically across all the years it helps the company generate revenue.

It's about recognizing that a piece of equipment, even if its market price stays the same, is being consumed or used up or worn out in the process of doing business.

So it's matching the expense to the benefit over time.

Exactly.

And to figure out how to best allocate that cost, accountants consider three critical pieces of the puzzle.

First, there's the depreciable base.

Okay, the base.

What's that?

This is the original cost of the asset minus its estimated salvage value.

Salvage value is just what the company realistically expects to get back when it eventually sells or gets rid of the asset.

Right.

So for instance, if a company buys a high -tech machine for, say, $10 ,000 and thinks they can sell it for $1 ,000 at the end of its useful life,

the depreciable base is $9 ,000.

That's the amount they'll actually depreciate over time.

Makes sense.

And here's a little quirky insight from practice.

Many companies simply assign a zero salvage value to their assets.

Really?

Why is that?

Well, it simplifies things.

Estimating salvage value can be tricky, but it also lets them depreciate the entire original cost, even if the asset might realistically fetch something at the end.

Huh.

Okay.

What's the second piece of the puzzle, then?

The second factor is the estimated service life.

Now, this is often different from an asset's physical life.

A building might physically last for 100 years, but its economic life, its useful life to the company might be much shorter.

Think about wear and tear,

or maybe more commonly these days, obsolescence.

Like technology just moves too fast.

Exactly.

A computer system might work fine physically, but it's rendered obsolete by newer tech, or even just because the company's needs change.

It's an estimate, remember?

And a company isn't obligated to get rid of an asset when it's fully depreciated.

Oh, right.

It just means its original cost has been fully allocated on the books, and its book value drops to its salvage value, or zero, if that's what they used.

Got it.

And the third factor.

The third factor is the method of cost allocation.

Accounting standards require this to be systematic and rational.

There are several common ways companies do this.

Okay, so let's maybe use an example.

Imagine Gordon Dining Services just bought an autonomous food delivery robot for $500 ,000.

Big investment.

Okay.

It's expected to last five years, or maybe 30 ,000 hours of operation, and they estimate a $50 ,000 salvage value.

What are their options?

Right.

Well, first up, they could use the activity method, sometimes called units of production.

Activity method.

Sounds like what it is.

Yeah, it links depreciation directly to the asset's usage or productivity.

So the more it's used, the more depreciation you recognize.

Okay.

If Gordon Dining's robot operates for 4 ,000 hours in its first year, this method would calculate and recognize $60 ,000 of depreciation for that year.

It makes a lot of sense for companies like, say, International Paper, the wear and tear on their machinery is directly tied to the paper they produce.

So you're matching the expense, the depreciation, with the actual output or revenue it helps generate.

Precisely.

That's the big advantage there.

Okay.

What else?

Next, probably the most common is the straight line method.

Ah, yes.

Straight line.

I've heard of that one.

It's by far the simplest.

It treats depreciation purely as a function of time, not usage.

For Gordon Dining's robot, you just take the That's the $500k cost minus $50k salvage, so $450 ,000.

Right.

And divide it by its useful life of five years.

That gives you a predictable $90 ,000 per year, every year.

Simple.

Consistent.

Exactly.

It assumes the asset provides a pretty consistent benefit over its life.

And it's very easy to apply.

That's why it's so popular.

Especially maybe when obsolescence, rather than just physical wear, is the main thing limiting an asset's life.

Okay.

Are there methods that aren't so linear?

Absolutely.

For a different approach entirely, we have the decreasing charge methods, also known as accelerated depreciation.

Accelerated.

So more depreciation up front.

That's right.

These methods front -load the depreciation expense.

You recognize more in the earlier years and less in the later years.

Why would a company want to do that?

Well, the justification is quite strategic, actually.

Assets are often most productive in their early years, right?

In this approach, it helps balance out total costs over the asset's life.

You have higher depreciation early on, which offsets potentially higher maintenance and repair costs later on as the asset ages.

Ah, okay.

That makes sense.

So what are these accelerated methods?

Two common ones are sum -of -the -years digits and declining balance.

The sum -of -the -years digits method uses a decreasing fraction applied to the depreciable base each year.

For our five -year robot example, this method would result in a pretty substantial $150 ,000 of depreciation in year one alone, much higher than straight line.

Wow.

Okay, wow.

And the other one.

The declining balance method, and specifically the double declining balance version, is even more aggressive.

It applies a constant percentage, usually double the straight line rate, to the asset's declining book value each year.

Declining book value, not the depreciable base.

That's right.

And crucially, you don't deduct salvage value initially when you calculate the annual depreciation with this method.

For Gordon Dining's robot, instead of the $90 ,000 a year with straight line, the double declining balance method would front load a massive $200 ,000 in depreciation in the very first year.

$200 ,000?

That's a huge difference compared to $90 ,000.

It is.

It significantly impacts reported income early in the asset's life.

Now, an important point.

Companies often switch from declining balance to straight line toward the end of the asset's life.

Why is that?

To make sure they don't depreciate the asset below its estimated salvage value.

The declining balance calculation could mathematically do that, so switching ensures you stop at the right point.

Okay.

So we've covered individual assets.

What about companies with just tons of assets, like a utility company?

Great question.

For those situations, companies often use group and composite methods.

Think of a utility like AT &T with countless poles, or an electric company with all the components of a generating station.

It's just impractical, maybe impossible, to track and depreciate each one separately.

Right.

With these methods, the company calculates an average depreciation rate and an average life for the entire collection, or group, of assets.

Alaskan Adventures, for example, with its mix of cars, trucks, campers, they might compute an average composite rate of 25 % and an average life of 3 .39 years for the whole fleet.

So it simplifies things dramatically.

Immensely.

And a key aspect here is how retirements are handled.

When an asset within the group is sold or retired, no separate gain or loss is recorded on that specific retirement.

Really?

How does that work?

The difference between the asset's original cost and any cash received is just plugged into the accumulated depreciation account for the group.

It simplifies record -keeping massively, as you can imagine.

Definitely.

Okay.

Any other depreciation wrinkles we should know about?

Yeah.

Couple practical points.

First, partial periods.

Companies don't always buy assets neatly on January 1st or dispose of them on December 31st.

True.

So they need a policy.

Some might calculate depreciation to the nearest month.

Others, to simplify,

use conventions like the half -year convention.

Basically, no matter when you buy or sell an asset during the year, you take half a year's depreciation.

It just smooths things out for calculation purposes.

Okay, that makes sense for simplifying.

And then there's the issue of revision of depreciation rates.

Remember, useful lives and salvage values are estimates.

Right, and estimates can change.

Exactly.

Maybe better maintenance makes an asset last longer, or some new technology makes it obsolete faster than expected.

The crucial accounting point here is that these changes are handled prospectively.

Perspectively.

Meaning?

Meaning, you don't go back and restate prior year's financial statements.

You simply recalculate the depreciation expense from that point forward, using the asset's current book value, any revised salvage value estimate, and the revised estimate of its remaining useful life.

So if GM decides a machine will last two years longer than they first thought...

That change only impacts the depreciation expense in the current year and future years.

Not the past.

Got it.

Now, you mentioned a common misconception earlier.

Let's circle back to that.

Does depreciation actually provide the cash to replace assets?

It feels like it should, because it's an expense without a cash outflow.

Yeah, yes.

The funding question's a very common misunderstanding, but the answer is unequivocally no.

Depreciation does not provide funds for replacement.

Okay, explain that.

Why not?

Depreciation is simply an accounting entry, an allocation of a past cost.

It reduces net income, yes, but it doesn't generate cash.

The actual cash needed to buy new assets must come from the company's operations, primarily from revenues generated by selling goods or services, or possibly from financing activities.

So even if Feli Floris records a lot of depreciation on their greenhouses...

If they aren't bringing in enough cash from selling flowers, they won't have the money to build a new greenhouse when the old one wears out.

The cash comes from revenue, not from the depreciation entry itself.

That's a really vital distinction.

Okay, clear on depreciation.

Let's shift gears.

What about impairments?

Sounds bad.

It often is, from a business perspective.

An impairment happens when an asset's value takes a significant, unexpected hit, and its carrying amount, its value on the company's books, can no longer be recovered through its future use or sale.

Like your Macy's example earlier, physical stores losing value because everyone's shopping online.

Exactly like that.

It's a situation where circumstances have changed so much that the asset isn't expected to generate the economic benefits originally anticipated, and its book value is likely overstated.

So what kind of events trigger this, besides shifts in consumer habits?

Well, several things can be red flags.

A significant decrease in the asset's fair market value, obviously.

A major change in how the asset is being used, or if it's going to be disposed of sooner than expected.

An adverse shift in the legal environment, or the general business climate affecting the asset.

Even construction costs blowing way past the initial budget, or if an asset consistently generates operating losses.

Lots of potential triggers.

If one of those happens, what does GAF require?

For assets, the company intends to keep using.

GAF, that's our generally accepted accounting principles in the US, requires a two -step process.

Okay, step one.

Step one is the recoverability test.

This is like a quick initial screening.

You compare the undiscounted expected future net cash flows the asset is projected to generate over its remaining life to its current carrying amount, its book value.

Undiscounted.

So not worrying about the time value or money yet.

Not for this first test.

No, it's a simple comparison.

Are the raw future cash inflows expected to be at least as much as the asset's current book value?

If yes, say $650 ,000 in expected cash flows versus a $600 ,000 book value, then no impairment is deemed to have occurred.

Even if the fair value might be lower, you stop there.

And if the undiscounted cash flows are less than the book value?

Then an impairment might exist.

You proceed to step two.

So if those expected cash flows were only $580 ,000 compared to the $600 ,000 book value, you'd move on.

Okay, step two.

Measurement of loss.

Right.

If the recoverability test indicates a potential impairment, now you need to measure the actual loss.

The impairment loss is the amount by which the asset's carrying amount exceeds its fair value.

Ah, so now fair value comes into play.

How do they figure that out?

Fair value is ideally based on an active market price for the asset if one exists.

If not, companies often have to estimate it, typically by calculating the present value of those expected future cash flows.

So now we do incorporate the time value of money.

Okay.

So if our asset has a carrying amount of $600 ,000, failed the recoverability test and its fair value is determined to be, say, $525 ,000.

The impairment loss is the difference.

$75 ,000.

And how does that get recorded?

Is it just like writing it off?

Pretty much.

You record a journal entry, you debit an account called loss on impairment for $75 ,000, and you credit accumulated depreciation for the same amount.

This effectively reduces the asset's net book value down to its fair value.

And where does that loss show up for investors?

It hits the income statement, usually reported in the other expenses and losses section.

It's a non -operating item.

And companies, like Macy's in their notes, have to disclose quite a bit about it.

Which assets were impaired, the reason is why, the amount of the loss, and how they determine that fair value figure.

You mentioned GAAP versus IFRS earlier.

Is there a difference here with impairments?

Yes, a significant one.

IFRS, the International Financial Reporting Standards used by many countries outside the U .S., does not use that initial recoverability test.

Step one.

Oh, so they go straight to comparing book value and fair value?

Essentially, yes.

Though their measure is slightly different, they compare carrying value to the cell and the asset's value in use, which is based on discounted cash flows.

This often makes the IFRS impairment test stricter, potentially leading to earlier recognition of impairment losses compared to GAAP.

Interesting.

And what about recovery if the asset's value bounces back later?

Ah, another key difference.

Under GAAP, for assets that are still held for use, you cannot restore a previously recognized impairment loss.

Never.

Even if the market completely recovers.

Nope.

Once that asset is written down under GAAP, its reduced carrying amount becomes its new cost basis going forward.

So if Kodak impaired equipment down to $400 ,000 and later its fair value jumps to $480 ,000, they cannot write it back up under GAAP.

Why not?

The rationale is basically to prevent potential earnings manipulation.

It keeps impaired assets on a consistent basis with unimpaired ones.

You don't want companies writing assets down one year and then conveniently writing them back up the next to boost profits.

However, and this is important, the rules are different if a company decides it's going to dispose of the impaired asset rather than keep using it.

Okay, like your Kroger example, closing stores, what's different?

If an asset is classified as held for disposal, it's reported on the balance sheet at the lower of its cost, carrying amount, or its net realizable value, fair value minus cost to sell.

Crucially, no depreciation is taken on assets held for disposal.

No depreciation at all.

Correct, and here's the big contrast.

For these assets held for disposal, restoration of a previously recognized impairment loss is permitted under GAAP.

Ah, so you can write them back up.

Yes, but only up to the asset's original carrying amount before the initial impairment was recognized.

You can reverse prior losses if the fair value less cost to sell increases, but you can't write it up higher than it was before it was ever impaired.

Okay,

that's a subtle but really important distinction between held for use and held for disposal.

For investors, understanding impairment seems critical.

Absolutely.

Gives you real clues about a company's future cash flow prospects and how management views the value of its assets.

And its complex territory, often involving sophisticated estimates and data analytics, like Marriott using detailed models where, as you noted, even a tiny tweak to a discount rate can swing the fair value by billions.

Right.

Okay, let's pivot one more time.

Let's talk about depletion.

This applies to natural resources.

Exactly.

Depletion is the term we use for allocating the cost of natural resources.

Think oil, gas, minerals, timber assets that are physically consumed or wasted in the process of extraction and are typically only replaced by nature, if at all.

So, similar concept to depreciation, but for things coming out of the ground.

How do they figure out the cost basis for depletion?

For extractive industries like Exxon

establishing the depletion base involves four key types of costs.

First, acquisition costs.

The price paid to get the property rights, maybe for land or for rights to resources already discovered.

Okay.

Second,

exploration costs.

The costs incurred to actually find the resource.

Now, this area, particularly in oil and gas, is quite controversial.

How so?

There are two main approaches.

The full cost approach argues you should capitalize all exploration costs, even for dry holes, because they're all part of the cost of finding the successful wells.

The successful efforts approach says you only capitalize costs directly related to finding successful wells and expense the costs of the failures immediately.

Huge debate, big impact on earnings.

Wow.

Okay.

We'll sidestep the duck controversy for now, but good to know it exists.

What else goes into the base?

Third are development costs.

These are costs to get the resource ready for production after discovery.

They're often split into tangible costs like heavy equipment, which might be movable and depreciated separately, and intangible costs like drilling wells, digging mine shafts, tunnels, things specific to accessing that resource deposit.

Got it.

And fourth.

Fourth, and increasingly significant, are restoration costs.

These are the estimated costs the company will have to incur at the end of extraction to return the property to its natural state or something close to it.

Think site cleanup, reclamation.

These future costs are estimated and included in the depletion base at their fair value.

Okay.

So you gather all those costs, acquisition, exploration, development, restoration.

That's your depletion base.

How do you allocate it?

Depletion is typically calculated using the units of production method, very similar to the activity method we discussed for depreciation.

Ah, okay.

Based on how much you extract.

Exactly.

You calculate a cost per unit.

You take the total depletion base, total costs minus any salvage value, though often negligible for the resource itself, and divide it by the estimated total number of units available, like barrels of oil, tons of coal, or ounces of silver.

So if Evershine Co.

has a silver mine with a total depletable cost calculated at, say, $1 million, and they estimate there are 100 ,000 recoverable ounces.

Their depletion cost per unit is $10 per ounce.

$1 million, 100 ,000 ounces.

If they mine and extract 25 ,000 ounces in the first year, the depletion for that is $250 ,000.

$25 ,000 ounces, 10 ounces.

And the journal entry, where does that $250 ,000 go?

It typically gets debited to inventory, reflecting that the cost of the extracted resource is now part of the inventory cost.

The credit goes directly to the natural resource asset account itself, or sometimes to an accumulated depletion contra -asset account, reducing the carrying value of the mine or oil field on the balance sheet.

So the cost sits in inventory until the silver is actually sold.

Precisely.

Then it flows through cost of goods sold, matching the expense with the revenue.

What if their estimate of 100 ,000 ounces turns out to be wrong?

Good question.

Estimates of recoverable reserves definitely can change as more information becomes available.

Just like with revisions to depreciation estimates,

changes in depletion estimates are handled prospectively.

Meaning?

No going back.

Right.

You take the remaining book value of the resource, divide it by the new estimate of remaining recoverable units, and use that new depletion per unit going forward.

Okay.

Now you mentioned something unique earlier, liquidating dividends.

Yes.

This is pretty specific to companies, often in mining, whose primary business revolves around a single wasting asset.

And maybe they don't intend to reinvest in finding more.

So they're essentially winding down.

Potentially.

Or just returning the investment as the resource is depleted.

A liquidating dividend is a dividend paid to shareholders that exceeds the company's balance of retained earnings.

Exceeds profits.

So where does the extra cash come from?

It's effectively a return of the shareholders' original investment, a return of capital, rather than a distribution of profits.

If Callahan Mining pays a $3 dividend per share, but only $1 .65 represents accumulated profits, retained earnings, the other $1 .35 is considered a liquidating dividend, reducing the shareholders' invested capital, like paid -in capital accounts.

And they tell shareholders that's what's happened.

Oh, absolutely.

They need to clearly communicate what portion is income distribution and what portion is a return of capital, as it has different implications for the shareholders, including tax implications.

Fascinating.

And just to touch back on that full cost versus successful efforts controversy in oil and gas, it sounds like more than just an accounting choice.

Oh, it's huge.

It fundamentally changes how profitable an oil and gas company appears on its income statement and balance sheet.

Full cost makes earnings look smoother, capitalizing all exploration costs, while successful efforts leads to more volatile earnings, expensing failures immediately.

So it could affect stock prices, borrowing ability.

Definitely.

Imagine two companies, like Chevron, using one method and another company using the other.

Their reported results for the same exploration activities could look vastly different.

It really highlights the pressure that economic consequences can put on accounting setters like the FASB.

Everyone wants rules that make their company look good.

It underlines why having a strong, neutral, conceptual framework for accounting is so important to resist undue influence and focus on faithful representation.

A constant balancing act, it seems.

Okay, so we've covered depreciation, impairment, depletion.

How does all this get presented and how do people use this information?

Right.

Presentation and analysis.

On the financial statements, companies have to disclose the basis they use to value property, plant, and equipment, usually a historical cost.

They need to show the balances of major classes of depreciable assets, like buildings, machinery, et cetera, and the related accumulated depreciation, often in the notes.

You can see a good example in International Papers annual report.

And they need to say which depreciation methods they're using.

Yes, a general description of the methods used,

like straight line declining balance.

And oil and gas companies have specific disclosures too about their accounting method, full cost, or successful efforts, and how they handle those capitalized costs.

Okay, so the information is there.

How do analysts use it?

Analysts use this data, combined with other parts of the financials, to calculate key ratios that help evaluate how efficiently and profitably a company is using its assets.

Let's use Kellogg's data as an example.

Okay.

One key ratio is asset turnover.

That's calculated as net sales divided by average total assets.

It basically measures how sales bang the company gets for its asset buck.

How efficiently assets generate sales.

Exactly.

For Kellogg, maybe it's around 0 .77, meaning they generate about 77 cents of sales for every dollar of assets they hold.

Now, this ratio varies wildly by industry.

A grocery chain like Kroger, with high volume and lower margins, will have a much higher asset turnover.

And then maybe a bank like JP Morgan Chase, with massive assets, but a different business model.

Precisely.

So, comparing across industries is key.

Another ratio is profit margin on sales, which is simply net income divided by net sales.

For Kellogg, maybe that's around 9 .18%.

It tells you how much profit they squeeze out of each sales dollar.

Okay.

But perhaps the most encompassing ratio here is return on assets, ROA.

That's net income divided by average total assets.

It shows the overall return generated from the company's asset base.

And how do the first two relate to ROA?

You can calculate ROA by multiplying the profit margin on sales by the asset turnover.

So, ROA equals profit margin as asset turnover.

For Kellogg, maybe that 9 .18 % profit margin times the 0 .77 asset turnover gives an ROA of around 7 .11%.

So, it combines profitability and asset utilization efficiency.

Exactly.

A higher ROA generally indicates the company is doing a better job using its assets to generate profit.

Analysts track these ratios over time and against competitors to

Make sense.

Any bonus insights before we wrap up?

Well, just a quick mention, particularly relevant in the U .S., about income tax depreciation.

For tax purposes, companies don't use gapped depreciation methods.

They use a system called MACRS, the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System.

Ah, tax rules are different.

Shocker.

Chuckles.

Indeed.

MACRS is mandated by tax law.

It generally requires companies to use shorter asset lives, more accelerated depreciation methods, and assume zero salvage value, all designed to allow companies to deduct costs faster for tax purposes.

So, the depreciation expense on the tax return is different from the one on the financial statements sent to investors?

Almost always, yes.

Financial accounting aims to reflect economic reality and match expenses with revenues.

Tax accounting is driven by government objectives and economic stimulus policies.

This difference creates what accountants call temporary differences, leading to deferred tax assets or liabilities.

But that, as you said.

The topic for another deep dive.

Got it.

Okay.

Well, this has been incredibly insightful.

A huge thank you from the deep dive team for exploring these intricate but really vital accounting concepts with us today.

We've really peeled back the layers on depreciation, impairment, and depletion.

My pleasure.

And hopefully, for you listening, understanding these concepts helps you look at financial statements with a bit more insight, see the real impact of management decisions about long -term assets, and get a better grasp of a company's underlying financial health.

It really is about understanding the story behind the numbers.

Absolutely.

And with that, here's a final thought for you to ponder.

Knowing that so many of these crucial accounting figures, from estimating how long a machine will last, to forecasting future cash flows for an impairment test, to guessing how much oil is left in the ground, rely so heavily on careful estimates and significant management judgment.

How might that change the way you evaluate a company's financial story the next time you pick up a balance sheet or income statement?