Capital expenditure, capital formation and investment are the same; it is a matter of translation from one form to another.

Once the expenditure is made, we acquire investment which can be increased (accumulated ) with time. My opinion!

I agree with Ebele (answer above) that the three terms in question all denote the acquisition of new capital goods: "Capital expenditure" is spending on such items; "capital formation" refers to an addition to the stock of capital goods; and "investment" means "spending on new capital goods with the intention of creating an addition to the capital stock ", or, in other words, "the act of engaging in capital formation".

Would put it into the following sequence of events: c---b---a; can also be seen as a production circuit/cycle, with c being the decisive variable (wave) of reinforcement. The financial tendency of the global gambling house weakens c, i.e. results in a loss of the real economic momentum.

In a strict sense, capital expenditure, capital formation and investment seem to have a little bit difference.

Capital formation is an investment in a newly produced asset. This word may be matched with numbers at the national level.

Capital expenditure is an investment in a newly produced asset as well as exising asset. This word may be more matched with numbers at the sectoral level under the nation. If the analysis is done for households or businesses, capital expenditure will be more relevant.

Investment is a kind of acquisition of assets. The asset can be financial or non-financial. Capital formation and capital expenditure are more relevant to non-financial produced assets.

Therefore depending on the analytical scope, data should be carefully selected, in my opinion.

The question reflects the fundamental confusion over the term "capital" that has plagued economists since the late nineteenth century, well illustrated by Eugen Bohm-Bawerk's (1890, 1891) criticism of the classical "capital" supply and demand theory of interest. H.R. Hartfield (QJE, 1934, pp. 162-3) notes this fact with his observation that economists took over the term "capital" from accountants and have persisted in misusing it.

In the businessman's language (language of the marketplace), "capital" means funds. The funds derive from savings. Thus, as Cho notes above, "investment" applies to the acquisition of financial assets also. In classical economics, "investment" by households is the acquisition of interest- and/or dividend-earning assets. That is why people legitimately say they "invest" in bank deposits, mutual funds, bonds, and stocks: Alfred Marshall (1923, p. 46) and John Stuart Mill (Works, 2, p. 70) use the same language. Their usage reflects such meaning of "saving" by Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, 1: 358-60). The saved or borrowed funds are then employed or invested in acquiring "fixed" and "circulating" capitals (including funds for hiring labor), some held in cash.

The Keynesian language (Keynes 1930, 1936) of limiting the word investment to only the acquisition of capital or producer's goods turns out to be analytically unhelpful. Alas, the development of national income accounts (Simon Kuznets) was heavily influenced by Keynes's economics. It is up to modern analysts to undue to damage such limitation has created in macroeconomics.