I totally agree with that, and would go further: there's no need to. Despite Shane thinking that depreciation gets used to "turn profits into capital gains" (poppycock; when you sell an asset, the accumulated depreciation is recaptured as ordinary income; how could it be otherwise?), depreciation is just a systematized approach to predicting the future. If everyone does it the same way, it's a useful tool; but watch out for those who don't.
Which brings me back to: it doesn't matter how you calculate it, the only thing that matters in these kinds of comparisons is whether you're doing it the same way each time. You can't shift things like "profitability" by the addition of depreciation to the formula. If you add it to the one side, you have to take it out on the other.
The most common abuse of this kind of zero-sum shenanigans is to shift a profit from one period to another where there's a psychological advantage because those who are watching are poor at math. To wit:
> The expected profit was based on a five-year life expectancy,
> which turned out to be three. In effect, profits in the second
> year still would be calculated in terms of the five-year lifecycle.
Yes, and once you know that it is 3 and not 5, you *must restate* for years 1 and 2 to take this into account (or of course take the hit all in year 3, but that removes the point of doing depreciation at all). You can't just say "wow, year 2 was fantastically profitable!" and go on with your life.
/jordan