It will also be recalled that， as a matter of routine， each successive consolidation of ownership involved a recapitalization of the concerns so brought together under a common head， and that commonly if not invariably the resulting recapitalisation would be larger than the aggregate earlier capital of the underlying corporations. Even where， as sometimes has happened， there was no increase made in the nominal capitalisation， there would still result an effectual increase； in that the market value of the securities outstanding would be larger after the operation than the value of the aggregate capital of the underlying corporations had been before. There has commonly been some gain in aggregate capitalisation， and the resulting increased capitalisation has also commonly proved to be valid. The market value of the larger and more stable capitalisation has presently proved to be larger and more stable than the capitalisation of the same properties under the earlier r間ime of divided ownership and control. What has so been added to the aggregate capitalisation has in the main been the relative absence of work at cross purposes， which has resulted from the consolidation of ownership； and it is to be accounted a typical instance of intangible assets. The new and larger capitalisation has commonly made good； and this is particularly true for those later， larger and more conclusive recombinations of corporate ownership with which the so-called era of trust-making in the steel business came to a provisional conclusion. The U.S. Steel Corporation has vindicated the wisdom of an unreserved advance on lines of consolidation and recapitalisation in the financing of the large and technical industries.
For reasons well understood by those who are acquainted with these things， no one can offer a confident estimate， or even a particularly intelligent opinion， as to the aggregate amount of overhead burden and intangible assets which has been written into the corporate capital of the steel business in the course of a few years of consolidation. For reasons of depreciation， disuse， replacement， extension， renewal， changes in market conditions and in technical requirements， the case is too intricate to admit anything like a clear-cut identification of the immaterial items included in the capitalisation. But there is no chance to doubt that in the aggregate these immaterial items foot up to a very formidable proportion of the total capital.
And what is true for the steel business in this respect will doubtless apply even more unreservedly in transportation， or in such a case as the oil business. The latter may be taken as a typical case， differing from steel in some of the circumstances which condition its business organisation， but comparable with steel in respect of the necessity for a centralised control. In the oil business a rough classification of assets would take some such shape as this： (a) Monopolisation of natural resources， (b)
Control of markets by limitation of the supply， (c) Plant. Of these three， the last named， the material equipment， would unquestionably be found to be altogether the slightest and least valuable. What is not doubtful， in the steel business or in any of the other industrial enterprises that run on a similar scale and a similar level of technology， is that the owners of the corporate capital have come in for a very substantial body of intangible assets of this kind， and that these assets of capitalised free income will foot up to several times the total value of the material assets which underlie them.
