标题: EOC FSA pg 112, capitalizing interest, operating vs. capital lease [打印本页] 作者: malbec 时间: 2011-7-11 19:25 标题: EOC FSA pg 112, capitalizing interest, operating vs. capital lease
#8, the way I'm interpreting this is since we are capitalizing the interest, it's now part of the "capital" asset, so fixed assets go up, OK i get that. But if you look at the answer to #8, it is saying to use interest PAYMENTS rather than interest EXPENSE. I don't know the difference between these. Then it goes on to say how you should use the ENTIRE amount of interest expenditure, which I think it's trying to say use interest PAYMENT which represents the entire amount (both capitalized and expense portions).
#9, I get it, but if you look at the answer, I have seen this before but never fully understood why exactly the lease expense of an operating lease is LESS than the sum of the interest & depreciation expense (which exists in a capital lease?), and then that reverses later on?
Thanks,
Andrew作者: spreads 时间: 2011-7-11 19:25
seems like i've been throwing this example around a lot, but here it is again:
o Ex. Lease PMT $200, r = 5%, lease term = 10 years, PV = 1544.35
o In the first year of the lease, you would have:
?X Lease payment of $200
?X Interest expense of $77.22 (operating CF)
?X Principal Payment of $122.78 (Financing CF)
?X End of year lease PV of 1421.57 (1544.35 ?V 122.78)
?X Depreciation expense of whatever; (management would choose depreciation method)
we'll assume straight line depreciation with $100 salvage value over 10 years.
also, we'll assume the book value of the asset $1550
depreciation = (1500-100)/10 = 140
then your interest expense = 77.22
so the two combined come to 227.22, ie greater than your $200 lease payment. the difference is more pronounced if you go with a double declining depreciation, which I don't feel like doing right now...
anyway, depreciation would keep being 140, but interest expense will be lower than 77.22 every year, and at some point $140 + int expense < $200.
this should spell out pretty clearly why net income would be lower initially under a capital lease than under an operating lease, but I haven't got a text in front of me and don't know what #9 asks, but I kicked that reading's @ss so I feel like this is probably helpful.
if not, sorry bout that.作者: Uranus08 时间: 2011-7-11 19:25
lol oo ya, right. obviously i did't pay too much attention; tbh it doesn't matter whether you call it 1500 or 1550, end result is the same, and i think there's a little discretion around what the company calls the book value of it, but it should at least approximate the pv of the lease payments.作者: 5566 时间: 2011-7-11 19:25
for number 8, i just did this Q today. and I got it wrong.
Book says interest coverage should be unchanged.
Interest coverage ratio= EBIT/Int expense
Because EBIT is found on the income statement the line before interest, EBIT does not change.
But I have hard time trying to figure out why interest expense would also stay the same.
can someone explain?作者: RMontgomery 时间: 2011-7-11 19:25
Ok I reread the book again and I am going to try to answer my own question.
Regardless of how the company treats interest expense, Interest coverage should always be calculated as if the interest expense has been expensed...therefore, EBIT does not need to be adjusted, because it is already calculated including all interest expenses...
make sense?作者: tianxin 时间: 2011-7-11 19:25
yes, you just include the (denominator) as WHOLE INTEREST PAYMENT, AKA the whole check I write for interest, doesn't matter what part is capitalized or expensed作者: KungFuPanda 时间: 2011-7-11 19:25
Just use both capitalised interest and interest expense as per the IS in the denominator, do not think EBIT needs to be touched
