Part 28

(_b_) The true net earnings are added together and the mean taken; if, in the period from the beginning to the date of appraisement, any deficits are found, these are deducted from the total of the plus-earnings, the result is divided by the total number of years, and this gives the true average net earnings. This is then capitalized at the legal rate of interest of the State in which the property is located. The result is used as the value of the "Intangible Property."

12th.—The amount given by 11th is added to the result obtained by 9th, and this total is the "Tangible and Intangible Value" of the property, and the "Fair and Equitable Value" of the property at date of appraisement.

If it is found that grave mistakes in design or judgment have been made by not employing competent people, and money has been wasted in construction, the plant is re-designed, for the original plant, and its cost estimated. The same is done for each extension, using the prices paid at the different periods, and this result is used in place of 9th, as the cash cost at the date of appraisement.

In determining the intangible value, if it is found that the management has been careless in order to make large net earnings, at the expense of the physical property, estimates are made of what the property can be operated and cared for (here the practical knowledge of operation, etc., is necessary), and these results, plus taxes, etc., are subtracted from each year's collected earnings. The mean or average of these results is considered as the true net earnings, which are capitalized and added as set forth in 12th.

The writer holds that consumers or purchasers should not pay for avoidable error or ignorance, and the amount of the securities issued on the property is not considered as entering into the matter of "Fair and Equitable Value"; when they do, the method is somewhat different.

The mean true net earnings are used in determining the intangible value, because franchises have average values, as earnings and expenses fluctuate in corporations, and, when intangible values are to be considered, they must not be based on the last year's net earnings, for if they are, they may give a very large result in one year and a small one in the next; therefore, to be fair, the mean true net earnings should be the basis of the intangible value. If the company has been over-capitalized, and no sinking fund or depreciation has been set aside, it is the present owner's misfortune. If the company calls something a betterment, and it is found that the betterment has only replaced something, it is not allowed, but is classed as maintenance; on the other hand, if the replacement is larger, and capable of rendering greater results, such as a larger engine, pipe, cable, etc., the cost, less the cost of what it replaces, is allowed as a betterment, and if the old part is sold the proceeds are deducted from the betterment charge, for if it is credited to maintenance, it increases the true net earnings. This is often done, but is not the correct way to treat the matter, for it increases the intangible value.

13th.—When new rates are to be established for a period of future years, the manner of determining the "Fair and Equitable Value" is the same as has been heretofore set forth. The new rates are based on averages, and the first step necessary is to ascertain what gross revenue the company must have in order to pay all classes of operating expenses, maintenance, depreciation, taxes, interest on the "Fair and Equitable Value" of the property, and a reasonable profit.

To obtain this amount, the procedure is as follows:

(_a_) Find the percentage of increase of the operating expenses for each year over the prior one, for a period of generally five years preceding the date of examination (a longer time may be taken if, in the opinion of the examiner, it is necessary), and then ascertain the average annual increase of the percentages. The result thus obtained is taken as the increase percentage for the operating expenses for the new period of time.

(_b_) In order to determine what the operating expenses will average during the time the new contract is to run, take the amount of the last year's operating expenses as a basis and add to it the percentage found by (_a_). This total is the operating cost for the first year of the new contract. The amount for the second year is found by adding to the cost of the first year the percentage found by (_a_), and so on for each year of the new period. These results are added together and their average is then used as the mean cost of operation for each year during the full period.

(_c_) The same method is followed for maintenance and taxes, in order to find the average maintenance and taxes for the new contract's life.

(_d_) Depreciation on the plant begins from the date of appraisement, and is estimated on the physical property by using for each section the percentages used in determining the "Fair and Equitable Value."

(_e_) Interest at the rate of 6% is allowed on the "Fair and Equitable Value," and 6% profit.

The question of extensions and betterments to the original plant must now be taken into consideration.

(_f_) The amount of the betterments and extensions have already been found for each year of the property's existence, and an average of them is taken as the amount the company will spend on extensions, etc., during each year of the new contract. On this sum 6% interest and 6% profit is allowed, and, for depreciation, the same percentage as used in the original plant.

It will be seen that all the expenses of operation, etc., of these extensions have been allowed in (_b_), where the increase has been added for each year for these extensions and betterments, as they are assumed to increase the cost of operation, etc.

(_g_) The amounts found by (_b_), (_c_), (_d_), (_e_), and (_f_) are now added together, and to the sum 5% is added for interest, taxes, operation, etc., which may be caused by the necessary increase in capital expenditures, for a greater growth than could be foreseen at the time the new rates were established, for losses, etc. This total is used as the basis for establishing the new schedule of rates.

14th.—The next step is to determine what part of the amount found by (_g_) must be paid by the different classes of consumers.

(I) First ascertain the yearly percentage of increase in the output of the plant for the five years before the new contract is to go into effect (or longer if, in the opinion of the examiner, it is necessary); then find the average increase of percentage during the before-mentioned five years. Add to the last year's output the percentage found above, this result representing the output for the first year of the new contract. Continue this operation for each year in the same way as the operating expenses were found in 13th (_b_). The average of these results will be the average estimated output during the life of the new contract.

(II) Next find the amount of the total output each class of consumers used during each of the five years, and then find the average yearly use during this period. Put these into percentages of the amount of the average output for the five years, and then use the percentages as the amount each class of consumer will use of the average output found in (I) during the period of the new contract.

This gives the average amount of the output each class of consumers will use during the average life of the new contract.

(III) Next find the average percentage of the total revenue each class of customers paid during the five years. Take these percentages as the average percentage each class will pay of the average revenue necessary during the time the new contract is to run.

(IV) Having found the average amount of the required revenue that each class must pay, and the average amount of the total output each class will use, dividing the former by the latter for each case will give the rate each class is to pay during the new period.

It is often found in plants that large extensions have been made to supply a special contract for a long period of time, and these extensions are set aside for the exclusive use of this contract. In such cases exclude the cost, etc., of this part of the plant from the "Fair and Equitable Value" in the matter of adjustment of rates.

In determining the operating expenses, etc., in such a case, find the percentage of the total output this special output amounts to; then, using this percentage, find what part of the total power-house expenses of all kinds are caused by this special contract. This result is deducted from the total power-house expense, and the remainder is the power-house cost of furnishing the consumers with their share of the total output. If it is found that special employees are required to deliver this special output, their cost is deducted, and the same for the maintenance material used. Taxes and interest on the cost of this special equipment are found by ascertaining the percentage this cost of the special equipment bears to the whole plant.

The above results are deducted from the total operating, maintenance, taxes, and interest disbursements, and "Fair and Equitable Value," and the remainders are used as the cost of the last year's expenses for furnishing the consumers with their share of the product and the "Fair and Equitable Value."

The same method is used in determining the revenue paid by the consumer.

The above result, _i. e._, cost of operating, etc., is then used as the basis for estimating the expenses for the period of the new contract, as heretofore set forth.

If the charter comes under Class II or III, the city no doubt has incorporated a clause for the adjustment of rates, and the method used above is followed.

15th.—Where the franchise has expired and is going to be renewed, the same method holds.

16th.—Where the franchise has expired and the city has paid a certain amount for service, and is to buy the property, the same method is used, except in determining the intangible value. For determining the latter, the amount the city pays for service is deducted from the gross collected revenue. From expenses is deducted the same percentage as the amount of the city's payment is of the gross revenue; a net revenue is found from this, the taxes paid are deducted, the remainder is capitalized as heretofore set forth, and is the intangible value. Whatever the latter amounts to is added to (or deducted from, in case of deficit) the "Fair and Equitable Physical Value," and the result is the price the city should pay.

Cities generally claim, and so do their "experts," that they should only pay junk value, or the cost of a modern plant to give the same results. This is eminently unfair, because the city buys a property which is in full operation and it receives the full revenue, in addition to obtaining service for itself at a less cost than it heretofore paid. The difference between the cost to the city of furnishing the service itself, and what it paid the company, is profit, but there is a charge against this of loss in taxes. These two latter items, namely, profit and taxes, generally balance each other, although the writer has known of cases where the city was the gainer.

There are many points which can be advanced to establish the fairness of the methods outlined herein, but they would take some time to explain, and therefore the writer has only set out the plan he follows in his examinations, hoping that it may be of some aid in establishing a uniform method which will be upheld by the Courts.

It may be stated that recently this method was used in an examination, going back thirty-five years, and the results were accepted by both sides without question.

The writer has refused a number of examinations when told in advance what result must be found, as well as in "expert" work, where the examiner is expected to help make a case, regardless of his honest judgment, for, by accepting such work, the engineer hurts his reputation and lays the Profession open to such remarks as Judge Lacombe recently made in the case of the Peoria Water-Works Company _vs._ Central Railway Company.

The writer is fast coming to the conclusion that a great deal of legal trouble is caused by the decisions of commissions, the members of which have not had experience in these matters. If a commission consisted of an able lawyer, a financial man, and an engineer who has had a broad operating experience, its decisions would carry weight, and the Courts would not be burdened with so many appeals.

WILLIAM G. RAYMOND, M. AM. SOC. C. E. (by letter).—This is, perhaps, the best paper on the valuation of public service property that has yet appeared. The author's analysis is very clear, and his arguments are convincing. Three points the writer would like to consider; two of them briefly.

The item, "going value," even if it is determined on logical reasoning, as suggested by Professor Mead, would seem to be a dangerous item, and one which might result in absurdities when estimated by an unscrupulous, ignorant person. Moreover, the term has been differently defined, and there is no certainty as to just what it means. The writer sees no reason for the existence of such a term, or of such a separate quantity as this term is supposed to represent.

The term, "franchise value," or, "value of the franchise," is used to represent the difference between the capitalized net earnings and the value of the physical property. Of course, there is such a difference, either positive or negative, but there seems to be some objection by the Courts to calling this "franchise value." The writer, therefore, would suggest that, since franchise value is a very elusive item, depending on the life of the franchise, the attitude of the community toward the corporation, the activity of competing corporations, and numerous indeterminate items, the term, "business value," or, "going concern value," be used instead of "franchise value." "Going concern value" is not as good a term as "business value" or "value of the business," because it may be assumed to include both the value of the business and the value of the property. "Value of the business" would presumably include the value of the franchise, and perhaps would not always be represented exactly by the difference between the capitalized net earnings and the value of the physical property, but would be this difference affected by some judgment percentage resulting from a consideration of the probable continuance of the franchise.

Mr. Riggs has truly said that the value of the physical property must not be made to depend on the purpose for which the valuation is made; that, for the business for which it is used, the value of the physical property is the same, regardless of the purpose for which a valuation is desired; but valuations are made for different purposes, and, while there is room for argument as to the proper valuation to be used for capitalization, taxation, or sale, there are perfectly definite methods suggested for valuing property for these purposes. The writer has never seen a statement—that appealed to him as at all rational—of a proper method of valuing property for rate-making. Indeed, the writer has said[32] that "proper traffic rates have no relation to valuation except that the minimum net income should be at least sufficient to pay interest on the physical valuation." The writer is not absolutely certain of the correctness of this position, for a study of the public right to regulate a corporation which is performing a semi-public function seems to indicate that the public has a right to say, not only that rates shall be non-discriminatory, but also that they shall be reasonable.

Now, the writer is familiar with three bases for the determination of what constitutes reasonableness of rates. One, which applies to rates as a whole, is this: That the net income should produce not more than a reasonable interest rate on the actually invested capital. Another is the rate that the traffic will bear, and the third is a rate that represents what the service is worth to the purchaser. Of course, a difficulty arises in determining reasonable rates on any one of these three bases.

The only difficulty with the first one is in determining what is a reasonable interest rate on invested capital, and, as far as the writer has read, no Court has yet determined what this is, although some Courts have held that 5% is a not unreasonable return, that 8% is a not unreasonable return, and, if the writer's memory serves him right, that even 15% is a not unreasonable return.

There is great difficulty in the determination of what the traffic will bear. It is a matter of the exercise of judgment and of experiment, and must be applied to a considerable extent to particular rates, for particular commodities, for particular places.

The third basis would seem to be the most difficult to use, although it is one which has recently been established in important Court decisions, and is mentioned by Mr. Riggs. What is a monopoly-provided service worth to the user or purchaser? Suppose that a gas company charges $1.60 per 1,000 cu. ft. for gas, and a very considerable part of the populace living in the city served purchases gas at this price. Presumably the purchasers pay what the service is worth to them, and what they are willing to pay rather than suffer the inconvenience of tallow candles, oil lamps, or to pay a high price for electric lights. Suppose that through a period of five years, by a series of reductions voluntarily made, the price of gas finally reaches $1.15 per 1,000 cu. ft. Is this gas worth any less to the consumer at the end of the five-year period than it was at the beginning? So far as the writer can see, it is, for only one reason, namely, that it can be had for less; but this has been a voluntary reduction on the part of the supply corporation, and who shall say that the service is not worth less than $1.15 to the consumer, or who shall say that it was not worth less than $1.60 at the beginning of the period suggested? The figures here given represent an actual case which has occurred during the last five years, within the writer's knowledge. There seems to be a growing feeling among the people that rates as a whole must be fixed so as to yield only a reasonable return to the corporation, and, apparently only for want of the suggestion of a better method, a reasonable return has been held to mean a reasonable return on the capital invested. Believing that there may be some ground for the claim that rates as a whole should be thus fixed, and that the return should not be unreasonable, let us consider how what is reasonable may be determined.

In the first place, it appeals to the writer that the invested capital is not the proper basis for estimating reasonable rates. If it shall be finally established that a corporation is entitled to realize only a reasonable interest rate on the capital invested, there will be no more public service corporations organized; but, if the reasonableness of the return may be based on the capital invested and the business done, there will still be good inducement to capable men to engage in public service business.

It would seem that the rate of return that is reasonable differs for the capital invested and for the business done—that is to say, if the capital invested is $1,000,000, an ordinary investment return of from 4 to 5% may be sufficient; and if the business done with this million-dollar plant amounts to $10,000,000 a year, a reasonable return may be 10% or even 15% of the whole.

Now, as has been suggested by Mr. Riggs, it is manifestly impossible to capitalize the net earnings as a basis for determining reasonable rates, because these net earnings are the result of certain rates already established, the reasonableness of which may be in question; and if, instead of speaking separately of interest rate on capital actually invested and profit rate on business done, it is desired to obtain a value on which to base reasonable rates, the following is suggested as a method: Determine the physical value and the annual interest on this physical value at an assumed reasonable rate, say 5%; determine the annual expense of conducting the business, and assume a business man's profit rate, say 15%, and find the profit that should be earned on the business done. This, added to the total interest charge, should give the net income, over and above operating expenses, that may be considered reasonable, and this sum, capitalized at any given assumed reasonable interest rate, would give a value which might with reason be used as a basis for rate-making, rates being deemed to be reasonable as a whole which furnish from year to year a simple reasonable interest rate on this established value. Of course, there is no necessity for establishing such a value, as the reasonableness of the rates will be determined when it is learned that they produce not more than a fair interest rate on the actual physical value of the property plus a fair profit rate on the business done.

This method is not free from the objection that what is a reasonable interest rate and what is a reasonable profit rate have never yet been fixed, but it is much easier to fix these separately than to fix what is a reasonable return on the capital actually invested or the physical valuation of the property.

W. H. WILLIAMS, ESQ. (by letter).—Before entering upon the discussion of the more essential elements of the problem presented by this paper, it seems worth while to correct one or two misapprehensions under which Mr. Riggs seems to labor, and to call attention to the rather extraordinary temper in which he approaches the grave questions with which he deals.

Mr. Riggs' first serious misapprehension is that railway officers, as a class, are, with substantial unanimity, opposed to any official valuation of railway properties, and that this opposition was voiced through the writer's discussion of Professor Henry C. Adams' paper in favor of valuation, at the last annual (December, 1909) meeting of the American Economic Association. Of course, on that occasion, the writer spoke, as he now speaks, only for himself, but, more than that, he then expressly disclaimed any such opposition, undertook to make suggestions as to the manner in which a proper valuation could be obtained, and directed his criticisms plainly at a proposal which contemplated, as he then observed:

"An incomplete and misleading valuation bearing the stamp and carrying the weight of governmental sanction, which can be of no practical advantage to the Government, the public, or the railways; but may easily injure the public and the railways by disturbing the confidence of the former and hampering the activities of the latter."

The writer then added:

"It seems very clear that such a valuation as is proposed would be wholly useless to the Government for any practical purpose, because it would omit so many factors essential to any fair appraisement of the worth of the enterprises as going concerns."