FIFO, average-cost, and LIFO methods are often used instead of specific identification for inventory valuation purposes. Compare these methods with the specific identification method, discussing the theoretical propriety of each method in the determination of income and asset valuation.
The first-in, first-out method approximates the specific identification method when the physical flow of goods is on a FIFO basis. When the goods are subject to spoilage or deterioration, FIFO is particularly appropriate. In comparison to the specific identification method, an attractive aspect of FIFO is the elimination of the danger of artificial determination of income by the selection of advantageously priced items to be sold. The basic assumption is that costs should be charged in the order in which they are incurred. As a result, the inventories are stated at the latest costs. Where the inventory is consumed and valued in the FIFO manner, there is no accounting recognition of unrealized gain or loss. A criticism of the FIFO method is that it maximizes the effects of price fluctuations upon reported income because current revenue is matched with the oldest costs which are probably least similar to current replacement costs. On the other hand, this method produces a balance sheet value for the asset close to current replacement costs. It is claimed that FIFO is deceptive when used in a period of rising prices because the reported income is not fully available since a part of it must be used to replace inventory at higher cost.
The results achieved by the average-cost method resemble those of the specific identification method where items are chosen at random or there is a rapid inventory turnover. Compared with the specific identification method, the average-cost method has the advantage that the goods need not be individually identified; therefore accounting is not so costly and the method can be applied to fungible goods. The average-cost method is also appropriate when there is no marked trend in price changes. In opposition, it is argued that the method is illogical. Since it assumes that all sales are made proportionally from all purchases and that inventories will always include units from the first purchases, it is argued that the method is illogical because it is contrary to the chronological flow of goods. In addition, in periods of price changes there is a lag between current costs and costs assigned to income or to the valuation of inventories.
If it is assumed that actual cost is the appropriate method of valuing inventories, last-in, first-out is not theoretically correct. In general, LIFO is directly adverse to the specific identification method because the goods are not valued in accordance with their usual physical flow. An exception is the application of LIFO to piled coal or ores which are more or less consumed in a LIFO manner. Proponents argue that LIFO provides a better matching of current costs and revenues.
During periods of sharp price movements, LIFO has a stabilizing effect upon reported income figures because it eliminates paper income and losses on inventory and smoothies the impact of income taxes. LIFO opponents object to the method principally because the inventory valuation reported in the balance sheet could be seriously misleading. The profit figures can be artificially influenced by management through contracting or expanding inventory quantities. Temporary involuntary depletion of LIFO inventories would distort current income by the previously unrecognized price gains or losses applicable to the inventory reduction
If the answers is incorrect or not given, you can answer the above question in the comment box. If the answers is incorrect or not given, you can answer the above question in the comment box.