What Is Accumulated Depreciation?

Accumulated depreciation is the cumulative depreciation of an asset up to a single point in its life. Accumulated depreciation is a contra asset account, meaning its natural balance is a credit that reduces the overall asset value.

Understanding Accumulated Depreciation

The matching principle under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) dictates that expenses must be matched to the same accounting period in which the related revenue is generated. Through depreciation, a business will expense a portion of a capital asset’s value over each year of its useful life. This means that each year a capitalized asset is put to use and generates revenue, the cost associated with using up the asset is recorded.

Accumulated depreciation is the total amount an asset has been depreciated up until a single point. Each period, the depreciation expense recorded in that period is added to the beginning accumulated depreciation balance. An asset’s carrying value on the balance sheet is the difference between its historical cost and accumulated depreciation. At the end of an asset’s useful life, its carrying value on the balance sheet will match its salvage value.

When recording depreciation in the general ledger, a company debits depreciation expense and credits accumulated depreciation. Depreciation expense flows through to the income statement in the period it is recorded. Accumulated depreciation is presented on the balance sheet below the line for related capitalized assets. The accumulated depreciation balance increases over time, adding the amount of depreciation expense recorded in the current period.

How to Calculate Accumulated Depreciation

There are several acceptable methods for calculating depreciation. These methods are allowable under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). A company may select the depreciation method they wish to use.

Straight-Line Method

Under the straight-line method of accounting, a company deducts the asset’s salvage value from the purchase price to find a depreciable base. Then, this base is accumulated evenly over the anticipated useful life of the asset. The straight-line method formula is:

Annual Accumulated Depreciation = (Asset Value – Salvage Value) / Useful Life in Years

Imagine Company ABC buys a building for $250,000. The building is expected to be useful for 20 years with a value of $10,000 at the end of the 20th year. The depreciable base for the building is $240,000 ($250,000 – $10,000). Divided over 20 years, the company would recognized $20,000 of accumulated depreciation every year. 

Declining Balance Method

Under the declining balance method, depreciation is recorded as a percentage of the asset’s current book value. Because the same percentage is used in every year while the current book value decreases, the amount of depreciation decreases each year. Even though accumulated depreciation will still increase, the amount of accumulated depreciation will decrease each year.

Annual Accumulated Depreciation = Current Book Value * Depreciation Rate

For example, imagine Company ABC buys a company vehicle for $10,000 with no salvage value at the end of its life. The company decided it would depreciate 20% of the book value each year. In Year 1, Company ABC would recognize $2,000 ($10,000 * 20%) of depreciation and accumulated depreciation. In Year 2, Company ABC would recognize $1,600 (($10,000 – $2,000) * 20%).

Double-Declining Balance Method

Under the double-declining balance (also called accelerated depreciation), a company calculates what it’s depreciation would be under the straight-line method. Then, the company doubles the depreciation rate, keeps this rate the same across all years the asset is depreciated, and continues to accumulate depreciation until the salvage value is reached. The percentage can simply be calculated as twice of 100% divided by the number of years of useful life.

Double-Declining Balance Method Rate = (100% / Useful Life In Years) * 2

Double-Declining Balance Method = Depreciable Amount * Double-Declining Balance Method Rate

Let’s imagine Company ABC’s building they purchased for $250,000 with a $10,000 salvage value. Under the straight-line method, the company recognized 5% (100% depreciation / 20 years); therefore, it would use 10% as the depreciation base for the double-declining balance method. The company would recognize $24,000 ($240,000 depreciable base * 10%) in Year 1, and would recognize $21,600 (($240,000 depreciable base – $24,000) * 10%).

Sum-of-the-Years’ Digits Method

Under the sum-of-the-years’ digits method, a company strives to record more depreciation earlier in the life of an asset and less in the later years. This is done by adding up the digits of the useful years, then depreciating based on that number of year.

Annual Accumulated Depreciation = Depreciable Base * (Inverse Year Number / Sum of Year Digits)

Company ABC purchased a piece of equipment that has a useful life of 5 years. The asset has a depreciable base of $15,000. Since the asset has a useful life of 5 years, the sum of year digits is 15 (5+4+3+2+1). The depreciation rate is then the quotient of the inverse year number (Year 1 = 5, Year 2 = 4, Year 3 = 3, etc.) divided by 15. In Year 1, the company will recognize $5,000 ($15,000 * (5/15)) of depreciation and will recognize $4,000 ($15,000 * (4/15)) in Year 2.

Units of Production Method

Under the units of production method, a company estimates the total useful output of an asset. Then, the company evaluates how many of those units were consumed each year to recognize accumulated depreciation variably based on use. The formula for the units of production method is:

Annual Accumulated Deprecation = (Number of Units Consumed / Total Units To Be Consumed) * Depreciable Base

For example, a company buys a company vehicle and plans on driving the vehicle 80,000 miles. In the first year, the company drove the vehicle 8,000 miles. Therefore, it would recognize 10% (8,000 / 80,000) of the depreciable base. In the second year, if the company drives 20,000 miles, it would recognize 25% of depreciable base as an expense in the second year, with accumulated depreciation now equal to $28,000 ($8,000 in the first year + $20,000 in the second year).

Accumulated Depreciation vs. Accelerated Depreciation

Though similar sounding in name, accumulated depreciation and accelerated depreciation refer to very different accounting concepts. Accumulated depreciation refers to the life-to-date depreciation that has been recognized that reduces the book value of an asset. On the other hand, accelerated depreciation refers to a method of depreciation where a higher amount of depreciation is recognized earlier in an asset’s life.

Since accelerated depreciation is an accounting method for recognizing depreciation, the result of accelerated depreciation is to book accumulated depreciation. Under this method, the amount of accumulated depreciation accumulates faster during the early years of an asset’s life and accumulates slower later. The philosophy behind accelerated depreciation is assets that are newer (i.e. a new company vehicle) are often used more than older assets because they are in better condition and more efficient. 

Accumulated Depreciation vs. Depreciation Expense

When an asset is depreciated, two accounts are immediately impacted: accumulated depreciation and depreciation expense. The journal entry to record depreciation results in a debit to depreciation expense and a credit to accumulated depreciation. The dollar amount for each line is equal to the other.

There are two main differences between accumulated depreciation and depreciation expense. First, depreciation expense is reported on the income statement, while accumulated depreciation is reported on the balance sheet. 

Second, on a related note, the income statement does not carry from year-to-year. Activity is swept to retained earnings, and a company “resets” its income statement every year. Meanwhile, its balance sheet is a life-to-date running total that does not clear at year-end. Therefore, depreciation expense is recalculated every year, while accumulated depreciation is always a life-to-date running total.

Special Considerations

Accounting Adjustments/Changes in Estimate

Because the depreciation process is heavily rooted with estimates, it’s common for companies to need to revise their guess on the useful life of an asset’s life or the salvage value at the end of the asset’s life. This change is reflected as a change in accounting estimate, not a change in accounting principle. For example, say a company was depreciating a $10,000 asset over its five year useful life with no salvage value. Using the straight-line method, accumulated depreciation of $2,000 is recognized.

After two years, the company realizes the remaining useful life is not three years but instead six years. Under GAAP, the company does not need to retroactively adjust financial statements for changes in estimates. Instead, the company will change the amount of accumulated depreciation recognized each year. 

In this example, since the asset now has a $6,000 net book value ($10,000 purchase price less $4,000 of accumulated depreciation booked in the first two years), the company will now recognized $1,000 of accumulated depreciation for the next six years. 

Half-Year Recognition

A commonly practiced strategy for depreciating an asset is to recognize a half year of depreciation in the year an asset is acquired and a half year of depreciation in the last year of an asset’s useful life. This strategy is employed to more fairly allocate depreciation expense and accumulated depreciation in years when an asset may only be used part of a year. 

For example, Company A buys a company vehicle in Year 1 with a five year useful life. Regardless of the month, the company will recognize six months worth of depreciation in Year 1. The company will also recognize a full year of depreciation in Year 2 – 5. Then, the company will recognize the final half year of depreciation in Year 6. Although the asset only had a useful life of five years, it is argued that the asset wasn’t used for the entirety of Year 1 nor the entirety of Year 6.

Example of Accumulated Depreciation

Company A buys a piece of equipment with a useful life of 10 years for $110,000. The equipment is estimated to have a salvage value of $10,000. The equipment is going to provide the company with value for the next 10 years, so the company expenses the cost of the equipment over the next 10 years. Straight-line depreciation is calculated as (($110,000 – $10,000) / 10), or $10,000 a year. This means the company will depreciate $10,000 for the next 10 years until the book value of the asset is $10,000.

Each year the contra asset account referred to as accumulated depreciation increases by $10,000. For example, at the end of five years, the annual depreciation expense is still $10,000, but accumulated depreciation has grown to $50,000. That is, accumulated depreciation is a cumulative account. It is credited each year as the value of the asset is written off and remains on the books, reducing the net value of the asset, until the asset is disposed of or sold. It is important to note that accumulated depreciation cannot be more than the asset’s historical cost even if the asset is still in use after its estimated useful life.

The Bottom Line

Many companies rely on capital assets such as buildings, vehicles, equipment, and machinery as part of their operations. In accordance with accounting rules, companies must depreciate these assets over their useful lives. As a result, companies must recognize accumulated depreciation, the sum of depreciation expense recognized over the life of an asset. Accumulated depreciation is reported on the balance sheet as a contra asset that reduces the net book value of the capital asset section. 

What Was the Asian Financial Crisis?

The Asian financial crisis, also called the “Asian Contagion,” was a sequence of currency devaluations and other events that began in July 1997 and spread across Asia. The crisis started in Thailand when the government ended the local currency’s de facto peg to the U.S. dollar after depleting much of the country’s foreign exchange reserves trying to defend it against months of speculative pressure.

Just weeks after Thailand stopped defending its currency, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia were also compelled to let their currencies fall as speculative market pressure built. By October, the crisis spread to South Korea, where a balance-of-payments crisis brought the government to the brink of default.

Other economies also came under pressure, but those with solid economic fundamentals and hefty foreign exchange reserves fared much better. Hong Kong fended off several major but unsuccessful speculative attacks on its currency, which is pegged to the U.S. dollar via a currency board system and backed by massive U.S. dollar reserves. 

Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis

As the Thai baht fell, other Asian currencies fell—some precipitously. Across Asia, inflows of capital slowed or reversed.

The Thai baht had been trading at about 26 to the U.S. dollar before the crisis but lost half its value by the end of 1997, falling to 53 to the dollar by January 1998. The South Korean won fell from about 900 to the dollar to 1,695 by the end of 1997. The Indonesian rupiah, which had been trading at around 2,400 to the dollar in June 1997, plummeted to 14,900 by June 1998, less than one-sixth its precrisis level.

Some of the more heavily affected countries fell into severe recession. Indonesia’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth fell from 4.7% in 1997 to -13.1% in 1998. In the Philippines, it slid from 5.2% to -0.5% over the same period. Malaysia’s GDP growth similarly slid from 7.3% in 1997 to -7.4% in 1998, while South Korea’s contracted from 6.2% to -5.1%.

In Indonesia, the ensuing economic crisis led to the collapse of the three-decade-old dictatorship of President Suharto.

The crisis was alleviated by intervention from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank, among others, which poured some $118 billion into Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea to bail out their economies.

As a result of the the crisis, affected countries restructured their economies, generally because the IMF required reform as a condition of help. The specific policy changes were different in each country but generally involved strengthening weak financial systems, lowering debt levels, raising interest rates to stabilize currencies, and cutting government spending.

The crisis also serves as a valuable case study for economists to understand how interwoven markets affect one another, especially as it relates to currency trading and national accounts management.

Causes of the Asian Financial Crisis

The crisis was rooted in several threads of industrial, financial, and monetary government policies and the investment trends that they created. Once the crisis began, markets reacted strongly, and one currency after another came under pressure. Some of the macroeconomic problems included current account deficits, high levels of foreign debt, climbing budget deficits, excessive bank lending, poor debt-service ratios, and imbalanced capital inflows and outflows.

Many of these problems were the result of policies to promote export-led economic growth in the years leading up to the crisis. Governments worked closely with manufacturers to support exports, including providing subsidies to favored businesses, more favorable financing, and a currency peg to the U.S. dollar to ensure an exchange rate favorable to exporters.

While this did support exports, it also created risk. Explicit and implicit government guarantees to bail out domestic industries and banks meant investors often did not assess the profitability of an investment but instead looked to its political support. Investment policies also created cozy relationships among local conglomerates, financial institutions, and the regulators who oversaw their industries. Large volumes of foreign money flowed in, often with little attention to potential risks. These factors all contributed to a massive moral hazard in Asian economies, encouraging major investment in marginal and potentially unsound projects.

As the crisis spread, it became clear that the impressive economic growth rates in these countries were concealing serious vulnerabilities. In particular, domestic credit had expanded rapidly for years, often poorly supervised, creating significant leverage along with loans extended to dubious projects. Rapidly rising real estate values (often fueled by easy access to credit) contributed to the problem, along with rising current account deficits and a buildup in external debt. Heavy foreign borrowing, often at short maturities, also exposed corporations and banks to significant exchange rate and funding risks—risks that had been masked by long-standing currency pegs. When the pegs fell apart, companies that owed money in foreign currencies suddenly owed a lot more in local currency terms, forcing many into insolvency.

Many Asian economies had also slid into current account deficits. If a country has a current account surplus, that means it is essentially a net lender to the rest of the world. If the current account balance is negative, then the country is a net borrower from the rest of the world. Current account deficits had grown on the back of heavy government spending (much of it directed to supporting continued export growth).

Response to the Asian Financial Crisis

The IMF intervened to stem the crisis with loans to stabilize the affected economies. The IMF and others lent roughly $118 billion in short-term loans to Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea. The bailouts came with conditions, though: Governments had to raise taxes, cut spending, and eliminate many subsidies. By 1999, many of the affected countries began to show signs of recovery.

Other financial institutions also intervened. For example, in December 1997, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank brokered a deal under which U.S. banks owed money by South Korean companies on short-term loans voluntarily agreed to roll them over into medium-term loans.

Lessons from the Asian Financial Crisis

Many of the lessons of the Asian financial crisis remain relevant today. First, beware of asset bubbles, as they have a habit of bursting. Another is that governments need to control spending and pursue prudent economic development policies.

The Bottom Line

In 1997, decades of economic policy planning that featured close relationships among government policy planners, regulators, the industries they regulated, and financial institutions came to a head when markets began putting downward pressure on Asian currencies. The most vulnerable were those countries with high levels of debt and insufficient financing to pay it.

The IMF stepped in to bail out the most affected economies, but it imposed strict conditions in exchange for the help. Some measures included requiring governments to cut spending, raise taxes, eliminate subsidies, and restructure their financial systems.

The crisis also serves as a case study in asset bubbles and how quickly panic selling can trigger contagion that central bankers cannot control.

What Is a 12B-1 Plan?

A 12B-1 plan is a plan structured by mutual fund companies for the distribution of funds through intermediaries. 12B-1 plans provide mapping for the partnerships between distributors and intermediaries who help to ensure the sale of a fund. Sales commission schedules and 12B-1 distribution expenses are the primary components driving a 12B-1 plan.

Understanding the 12B-1 Plan

12B-1 plans facilitate the partnerships between distributors and intermediaries offering mutual fund shares. 12B-1 plans are primarily focused on open-end mutual funds, which have multiple class structures for sales charges and distribution expenses. Mutual fund companies consider two types of 12B-1 charges in their 12B-1 plans, sales commissions, and 12B-1 expenses.

Sales Commissions

Sales commission schedules are structured to provide compensation to intermediaries for transacting mutual funds. These partnerships can help to increase demand for funds by being marketed from a full-service broker-dealer who facilitates the transaction for a sales load fee. These fees are paid to the broker and are not associated with annual fund operating expenses.

Sales loads are structured to vary across share classes. Share classes can include front-end, back-end, and level-load sales charges. These sales charges are associated with individual retail share classes which typically include Class A, B, and C shares.

12B-1 Expenses

12B-1 expenses paid from the mutual fund to distributors and intermediaries are also a key part of a 12B-1 plan. To market and distribute open-end mutual fund shares, mutual fund companies work with distributors to get their funds listed with discount brokerages and financial advisor platforms. Distributors help fund companies partner with the full-service brokers that transact their funds at the agreed-upon sales load schedule.

Mutual fund companies will pay 12B-1 fees from a mutual fund to compensate distributors. In some cases, funds may also be structured with a low-level load that is paid to financial advisors annually during the course of an investor’s holding period.

Financial industry legislation typically restricts 12B-1 fees to 1% of the current value of the investment on an annual basis, but fees generally fall somewhere between 0.25% and 1%. In most cases, fund companies will have higher 12B-1 fees on share classes paying a lower sales charge, and lower 12B-1 fees on share classes with higher sales charges. This helps to balance out the compensation paid to intermediary brokers while also providing for payment to distribution partners.

Disclosure

Mutual fund companies are required to provide full disclosure on their sales load schedules and 12B-1 annual fund expenses in the fund’s prospectus. The prospectus is one aspect of documentation required for the mutual fund’s registration and is also the key offering document providing information on the fund for investors. 12B-1 plans and any changes to their expense structuring must be approved by the fund’s board of directors and amended in its prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

What Are Accounting Principles?

Accounting principles are the rules and guidelines that companies and other bodies must follow when reporting financial data. These rules make it easier to examine financial data by standardizing the terms and methods that accountants must use.

The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is the most widely used set of accounting principles, with adoption in 167 jurisdictions. The United States uses a separate set of accounting principles, known as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

The Purpose of Accounting Principles

The ultimate goal of any set of accounting principles is to ensure that a company’s financial statements are complete, consistent, and comparable.

This makes it easier for investors to analyze and extract useful information from the company’s financial statements, including trend data over a period of time. It also facilitates the comparison of financial information across different companies. Accounting principles also help mitigate accounting fraud by increasing transparency and allowing red flags to be identified.

Comparability

Comparability is the ability for financial statement users to review multiple companies’ financials side by side with the guarantee that accounting principles have been followed to the same set of standards.

Accounting information is not absolute or concrete, and standards are developed to minimize the negative effects of inconsistent data. Without these rules, comparing financial statements among companies would be extremely difficult, even within the same industry. Inconsistencies and errors also would be harder to spot.

What Are the Basic Accounting Principles?

Some of the most fundamental accounting principles include the following:

• Accrual principle
• Conservatism principle
• Consistency principle
• Cost principle
• Economic entity principle
• Full disclosure principle
• Going concern principle
• Matching principle
• Materiality principle
• Monetary unit principle
• Reliability principle
• Revenue recognition principle
• Time period principle

The most notable principles include the revenue recognition principle, matching principle, materiality principle, and consistency principle. Completeness is ensured by the materiality principle, as all material transactions should be accounted for in the financial statements. Consistency refers to a company’s use of accounting principles over time.

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) are uniform accounting principles for private companies and nonprofits in the U.S. These principles are largely set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), an independent nonprofit organization whose members are chosen by the Financial Accounting Foundation.

A similar organization, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), is responsible for setting the GAAP standards for local and state governments. And a third body, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), publishes the accounting principles for federal agencies.

Although privately held companies are not required to abide by GAAP, publicly traded companies must file GAAP-compliant financial statements to be listed on a stock exchange. Chief officers of publicly traded companies and their independent auditors must certify that the financial statements and related notes were prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Privately held companies and nonprofit organizations also may be required by lenders or investors to file GAAP-compliant financial statements. For example, annual audited GAAP financial statements are a common loan covenant required by most banking institutions. Therefore, most companies and organizations in the U.S. comply with GAAP, even though it is not a legal requirement.

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issues International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). These standards are used in more than 120 countries, including those in the European Union (EU).

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. government agency responsible for protecting investors and maintaining order in the securities markets, has expressed interest in transitioning to IFRS. However, because of the differences between the two standards, the U.S. is unlikely to switch in the foreseeable future.

However, the FASB and the IASB continue to work together to issue similar regulations on certain topics as accounting issues arise. For example, in 2014, the FASB and the IASB jointly announced new revenue recognition standards.

Since accounting principles differ around the world, investors should take caution when comparing the financial statements of companies from different countries. The issue of differing accounting principles is less of a concern in more mature markets. Still, caution should be used, as there is still leeway for number distortion under many sets of accounting principles.

The Bottom Line

Accounting principles are rules and guidelines that companies must abide by when reporting financial data. Whether it’s GAAP in the U.S. or IFRS elsewhere, the overarching goal of these principles is to boost transparency and basically make it easier for investors to compare the financial statements of different companies.

Without these rules and standards, publicly traded companies would likely present their financial information in a way that inflates their numbers and makes their trading performance look better than it actually was. If companies were able to pick and choose what information to disclose and how, it would be a nightmare for investors.