Quarterly Journal of Economics193954(1 Part 1), 28-50
I. The meaning of “failure” and “reorganization,” 29. — II. The economics of reorganization. Liquidation value of the assets: specialization, 32; separability, 33; costs of liquidation, 34. — Value in reorganization, 35. — Uncertainty of computations, 37. — Readjustment of claims: the “absolute priority rule,” 38. — Difficulties: conflicting valuations, 40; inducing new investment, 41. — III. Comparison of procedures. The major problems to be solved: deciding upon reorganization or liquidation, 44; procuring new capital, 46; dealing with dissenting minorities, 47; ensuring independent and disinterested review, 48; keeping costs down, 49.
Journal Article A Note on the Effects of a Changing Deficit Get access Walter S. Salant Walter S. Salant Harvard University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 53, Issue 2, February 1939, Pages 298–304, https://doi.org/10.2307/1882891 Published: 01 February 1939
Abstract Over two hundred million dollars a year is lost to industry through employee frauds. This, however, is only the amount that is ferreted out and made public. There is no telling how much additional is lost either in undetected frauds or those that for one reason or another are hushed. That the record should contain fraud in such prolific measure is not the exciting feature. The part about these frauds that does cause blush, at least to the cheek of an auditor, is that when the frauds do "pop," it is found that so many of them had been started and blithely going on for long periods of time untouched by auditing pursuit. Even more damaging is the fact that frequently some of these frauds come to light not as a result of internal control or auditing technique, but wholly out of accidental or adventitious circumstances. Chance, rather than auditing, prevails. In the hope that laboratory dissection and analysis of frauds might, through the development of some new or modified auditing technique, narrow if not eliminate the fortuitous aspects of detection, a case study was undertaken. The study was confined to employee frauds and did not consider skullduggery by employers themselves. For case material, accountants, surety companies, banks, stock brokerage concerns and industrial and commercial organizations were invited to submit details of frauds that were unearthed by "happenstance" rather than by the normal workings of accounting controls.
Abstract This article focuses on the relation between depreciation and rate base. Depreciation of capital assets and depreciation accounting in public utilities have long been the source of much controversy between the utilities and the state. The problem has been complicated by the unwillingness of some to recognize depreciation at all and by the insistence on the part of others that reproduction cost should be the fundamental element in the rate base determination, and in the decision made relative to the amount of the depreciation charge. It has been still further complicated by using one amount of depreciation for total charges to operating expenses and another, a smaller amount, or none at all, for deductions in calculating the rate base. A generalized statement of sound procedure has been hard to formulate, because the application to specific companies is so varied. One approach to the problem of understanding the relationship between depreciation and the rate base, consists of presenting thirteen examples which may be looked upon as thirteen cases handed down by a commission and which call for adjudication. Some of these examples represent undepreciated rate bases, some depreciated rate bases and some bases for which no names are given. Some follow the retirement method, some the depreciation method and some both the retirement and the depreciation methods. By no means are all of these examples equally satisfactory or typical. In fact some are quite the reverse.