Fixed Assets

I’m looking for the factor for fixed assets, otherwise known as non-current assets. In the factor / function reference I see an AstCur, AstCurOther, and an AstNonCurOther.

Should there be a AstNonCur?

Or is AstNonCurOther fixed assets? The factory’s Full Description is missing and I can’t tell.

One other question. When I see (N, TTM) where N is 0-10 or 0-20, does N in this case refer to the count of TTM’s back? 0 for the most recent TTM, 1 for the TTM 12 months ago, etc.

Thanks.

UPDATE: I see I can use the ItemQ/A/TTM() functions to query plant, property, and equipment total, which is fixed assets. Is this the prefered way?

2 years and no reply… sheesh.

I do the following for all non-Goodwill, non-current assets:
NetPlantQ + InvstEqQ + InvstAdvOtherQ + (AstIntanQ + AstNonCurOtherQ - GoodwillQ)

I think the following will get you closer to your goal, though:
eval(GrossPlantQ = NA , NetPlantQ + isNA(AccumDepQ,0), GrossPlantQ)

  • Primus

I never found a factor for fixed assets, so I created my own:
Fixed Assets =
AstTot - (CashEquiv + Recvbl + Inventory + AstCurOther)

Primus, I tried an equation that was similar to yours, but I never had much confidence in the value that is reported for AstNonCurOther. When I compared AstNonCurOther to the SEC filing for ESI about a year ago, the numbers didn’t match. I convinced myself that AstNonCurOther was not very reliable and gave up on it.

Umm…

If all you guys want is non-current assets, may I ask why you’re not just using

AstTotQ-AstCurQ

(Modified as necessary, of course.)

BTW, I’ve found that it’s sometimes difficult to reconcile SEC documents with CompuStat data. We have had to ask them to show us how to do it on occasion. We are paying them for analytic opinions and they are normalizing the data to their standards.

Mr. Martino,
Your top-down solution is elegant. There are two ways to value assets: bottom-up or top-down. The bottom-up method sums up “relevant” assets. The top-down methods starts with the sum of asset values and then subtracts “irrelevant” assets. Both approaches work.

rnwilkinson,
I agree that AstNonCurOther is too vague. While you can’t rely on it, you also cannot dismiss it in the case of many financial companies since it includes things like insurance assets or long-term deposits/receivables. Depending on the goal, these certainly could be considered “fixed”. Since AstNonCurOther also includes Intangibles and Goodwill, my idea for “normalizing the data” was to just remove Intangible Assets and Goodwill from the equation. So, an estimate for “fixed” assets might be:
“PP&E” + “Long term investments” + “Other long term assets Ex Goodwill and Ex Intangibles”
Your approach includes Goodwill and Intangibles which, as long as you consider them fixed assets, would also be accurate.

ALCON,
Also, I’ve never stumbled upon a single document which I can use to reference the Compustat data definitions and schemas. For example, I only have a partial idea of how are Banks and Insurance financials are standardized. Also, how is a resource company’s probable and proven natural reserves treated by Compustat analyst? I don’t know, but I would like to. Right now, I rely on multiple incomplete and outdated documents that have helped form my patchwork understanding. Does anyone have any good references?

Mr Martino,
If companies with NA’s are ignored, then your formula is exactly equal to my formula for all companies that I tested.
AstTotQ-AstCurQ
same as:
AstTot - (CashEquiv + Recvbl + Inventory + AstCurOther)

However, there are some companies that report NA for AstCurQ, even though there are valid values reported for (CashEquiv + Recvbl + Inventory + AstCurOther). For example, see NLY and PGR in the attached screenshot. I don’t understand why that happens. My workaround is to simply avoid using AstCurQ.


rnwilkinson,

It’s because Compustat standardizes the data. According to how the data is standardized, financial firms won’t have current assets in the way that other firms would. I.e., Compustat makes loans into ‘receivables’ and deposits into ‘payables’. You simply cannot call those things ‘current’ in the way that normal trade accounts are.

If you want a deep dive explanation of this, I would be happy to oblige.

  • Primus