Comment Dumb journalism (Score 1) 36
While one can reasonably argue if depreciation should be 3 or 6 years, the article is utterly dumb, quote:
> "However, some types of assets fall in value more sharply early on, then stabilize and decline more gradually on a predictable curve. A case in point: According to Silicon Data, which tracks pricing for Nvidia chips, the average resale value for an H100 system in its third year of use recently was around 45% of the price for a new H100."
1) Depreciation is unrelated to market value. Real estate is depreciated over 30 years, whether or not the value is increased or decreased.
Useful life is however long the item is actually used and contributes to company P&L -- unless otherwise declared so by accounting guidelines. There are no binding guidelines here.
2) Annual depreciation _could_ be taken (but usually isn't) as "book value - salvage value" / useful life. Using the numbers in article, if 2.5 years in, value of asset is 45% of purchase price, annual depreciation is ~55%/2.5 = 22% -- resulting in exactly the same depreciation as a 5 year accounting schedule.