Submariner
New member
- Mar 4, 2014
- 0
- 0
I have a quick question about cash flow from investing and how to derive it.
I’m given a balance sheet and income statement. I’ll only provide info on the few line items relevant to CF from investing
assets:
PP&E: $920 (2007) $900 (2006)
Accumulated depreciation: $290 (2007) $250 (2006)
liabilities:
Bank note: $100 (2007) $0 (2006)
Income statement:
Depreciation: $100
Gain on sale of old machine: $10
Notes:
Fixed assets were sold for $30. Original cost of these assets was $80 and $60 of accumulated depreciation has been charged to original cost
Firm borrowed $100 on a 10 year note. The proceeds paid for new equipment
Depreciation for the year was $100 (accumulated depreciation was up $40 and depreciation on sold assets was $60)
The book says CFI: sale of fixed assets - new fixed assets = 30 - 100 = -$70. But the bits about PP&E and depreciation throw me off a bit.
I don’t understand why PP&E goes up by $20. They purchased new assets for $100, they sold assets for $30. If the original cost of the sold assets was $80, then wouldn’t depreciation on sold assets be $60 (i.e. why isn’t it $50, the difference between purchase price and selling price), or is it independent of the purchase price and the sale price of the asset?
Why does it say in the first note that $60 of accumulated depreciation was charged to the assets original cost, then subsequently say that accumulated depreciation increased by $40?
If the assets sold were worth 80, why isn’t PP&E for 2006 $980? Why wouldn’t the increase in equipment ($100) increase it further still? I guess my problem is, I have zero idea how PP&E and depreciation work with each other and the book does a pretty poor job of explaining it.
Thanls for any and all help.
I’m given a balance sheet and income statement. I’ll only provide info on the few line items relevant to CF from investing
assets:
PP&E: $920 (2007) $900 (2006)
Accumulated depreciation: $290 (2007) $250 (2006)
liabilities:
Bank note: $100 (2007) $0 (2006)
Income statement:
Depreciation: $100
Gain on sale of old machine: $10
Notes:
Fixed assets were sold for $30. Original cost of these assets was $80 and $60 of accumulated depreciation has been charged to original cost
Firm borrowed $100 on a 10 year note. The proceeds paid for new equipment
Depreciation for the year was $100 (accumulated depreciation was up $40 and depreciation on sold assets was $60)
The book says CFI: sale of fixed assets - new fixed assets = 30 - 100 = -$70. But the bits about PP&E and depreciation throw me off a bit.
I don’t understand why PP&E goes up by $20. They purchased new assets for $100, they sold assets for $30. If the original cost of the sold assets was $80, then wouldn’t depreciation on sold assets be $60 (i.e. why isn’t it $50, the difference between purchase price and selling price), or is it independent of the purchase price and the sale price of the asset?
Why does it say in the first note that $60 of accumulated depreciation was charged to the assets original cost, then subsequently say that accumulated depreciation increased by $40?
If the assets sold were worth 80, why isn’t PP&E for 2006 $980? Why wouldn’t the increase in equipment ($100) increase it further still? I guess my problem is, I have zero idea how PP&E and depreciation work with each other and the book does a pretty poor job of explaining it.
Thanls for any and all help.