On Mar 9, 2:34*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Note that overdraft (at least in the US) is _not_ guaranteed; the bank
can refuse to honor any debit against insufficient funds at their
whim--but they generally will, since it allows them to charge the
customer massive fees on top of the debit itself.

FWIW, in the old days, banks would occassionally honor a slight
overdraft by good customers without charge or fee.

One common tactic is charging fees for anything and everything, but
willing to waive them if the customer calls up to request it. The
banks and other businesses know most people are too busy today to (a)
scruintize their statements carefully and (b) call up and go through
the phone mail jail to get a knowledgeable human.

But one bank pushed it too far and went out of business.


Technology products are typically amortized over 3-5 years. *20 years?
You're way, way behind the curve in both costs and capabilities, to the
point it's almost certainly costing your business more (in both lost
revenue and higher operating costs) than buying replacements would cost.

Amortization time is often based on tax issues rather than the actual
expected life of the equipment. Many companies seek to amortize as
fast as possible in order to get the biggest expense tax reduction
from the depreciation charge. Cash for replacement is a separate
issue and planned for separately.


OTOH, lots of folks didn't understand this until the 1980s or even
1990s; they had amortized tech on a 10 or 20 year cycle like they would
for heavy machinery--and then got burned when they needed to upgrade and
couldn't because they were still paying for equipment that was only fit
to be used as paperweights.

A normal company will replace equipment when it is economically
desirable to do so regardless of its past amortization. If they do so
early they 'write down' the asset as a special charge. A company with
weak fiances may 'make do' with old equipment if it is still viable,
but again, it depends on various factors on what work is actually
being performed.

Lifespan of "technology" units (or heavy machinery) varies greatly
depending on many factors.


Speaking as an employee of a tech products vendor, customers are now
demanding full ROI in 12-18 months, which gives them immediate cost
savings even on a 36-month depreciation schedule. *"Disruptive" new
technologies can have an ROI of 6-9 months. *Nobody sane wants to have
to wait 5+ years to adopt new technology--unless they're a monopoly and
therefore don't have to worry about competitors adopting it first.

Being the "first on the block" to adopt new technology is highly
risky. New technology needs time to get the physical, software, and
workplace bugs ironed out. New for "newness sake", so avidly pushed
by techies over recent years is not always a prudent approach.

Some company owners have an ego thing to show off how their business
has the latest and greatest. That might be good for the vendors, but
lousy for the business.

I remember in the early days when newcomers were producing PBX
switches how many customers suddenly found themselves without phone
service because certain functions--once taken from granted because Ma
Bell did them--no longer worked. Others had so many features that no
one needed or could understand how to use that using the phones became
a nightmare, not an improvement.

A big retailer cut over to price tag scanning too early. As a result,
checkout lines became horrid and people simply abandoned their
purchases and walked out. That business took a huge beating thanks to
"new technology".

Returning to railroads, the PRR once always prototyped new technology
in a small order to get the bugs out before a large order. That
research was a reason the GG-1 was such a huge success.
Unfortunately, when they ordered the Metroliner MUs, they rushed the
purchase before testing and it took years to debug the cars.

(In contrast, they carefully researched the Budd Silverliners, and the
production models lasted in service for 49 years.)