| You cannot determine a thing about who can afford to do what just based on their accumulated depreciation. The fact that depreciated is deducted from profits means nothing, because it's not related to cash flow. It's just an expense put onto the income statement, but no cash is paid for depreciation.
One of them can be higher than the other for numerous reasons. One, if the equipment is exactly the same cost on their books, one may have purchased the equipment more years ago and has therefore accumulated more depreciation at this point in time. Two, one of the pieces of equipment could have been a much higher cost to begin with, and therefore more is getting depreciated. And three, the equipment could be the same cost and have been depreciated for the same number of years, but they are using two different depreciation methods. Maybe one company already has more equipment to depreciate than the other company. I could go on....
The company in the best position to buy new equipment is the one who can actually afford to buy it and make the payments on it, which involves cash flow, and an accumulated depreciation account for another piece of equipment is completely irrelevant to that. And that's not even taking into consideration whether or not the company needs the equipment or whether or not it makes any sense to buy it. (Although the question didn't actual ask that.)
One company could be a lot bigger than the other, and their financial position could be entirely different, regardless of the accumulated depreciation on their books.
Unless there is much more information available that you haven't posted, there is no information here to actually answer the question and it's a nonsense question. If some instructor is trying to just "get you to think," they're trying to make you think about things that are not realistic and are making you think about things in an entirely wrong manner. | 
Linear Mode
