"More of a cost than asset"?

Skabr

Inspire.Motivate. If nothing, drag!
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
46
Reaction score
2
Hi,

Is it correct to write: His friendship is more of a cost than an asset.

Can it be used in an informal piece of writing?

Thanks,

Skabr
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
More of a cost than an asset doesn't ring true at all.

asset/liability or cost/benefit or burden/benefit ... any of these fit better together.
 

Captcha

Banned
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
637
I'd be okay with the cost-asset matchup, but for me it would read better as either:

More a cost than an asset;

or

More cost than asset.

I want the article for both or neither, not just one.
 

Skabr

Inspire.Motivate. If nothing, drag!
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
46
Reaction score
2
Hi,

Thank you all for replying!!!

And, Angryguy, I really liked your examples.

Thanks,

Skabr
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
Well, yes and no. In the UK at least there is an accounting definition of capital versus revenue expenditure.

Capital expenditure is defined as the acquisition or substantial enhancement of an asset. Revenue expenditure refers to ongoing maintenance and running costs. For example, buying a car is a capital expense, but putting fuel into it is a revenue cost.

More info here:

http://accounting-simplified.com/financial/fixed-assets/capital-and-revenue-expenditure.html

This means that the opposite of an asset isn't always a liability. It can be a cost - eg a running cost (which is not necessarily a liability).

I'd be fine with either cost/asset or liability/asset. They mean slightly different things, but either is technically correct. It depends what you are trying to say.