Abstract
When two value estimates are about equally likely, conservatism dictates reporting the less optimistic one (e.g. Lower of Cost or Market). We use an analytical model to investigate informational implications of this dictum, and identify types of environments where the conservative accounting treatment is more informative than a predetermined choice. The bias induced by the conservative choice is found to be adequately moderate, never excessive. It benefits users of the financial statements that take the reported figures at face value whenever upside errors are more costly (possibly only slightly more costly) than similar downside errors. Sophisticated users, who know how to give the reports the best possible interpretation, benefit from the lower variability, not from the bias. These latter benefits are least ambiguous when upside errors and downside errors are about equally costly.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
