Talk:FIFO and LIFO accounting/Archives/2014

Weighted average should also be added
There is another method called weighted average. It should be added to the article and the articles name should reflect it. Killer Swath 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been added under "See also". It is called Average costing Killer Swath 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

References to computer science at the top of article
The reference to computer science at the top is neither complete nor necessary for this article. I see two solutions.

The simple solution is that the message at the top could just be removed. This is a reasonable course of action, IMO, simply because the article includes the word "accounting" in its name.

The other solution is to add a link to LIFO. If this option is chosen, it may be prudent to add a link to stack and queue data structures as well.--WarrenTurkal 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Case Example
This article would benefit from some sort of case example showing the difference between these methods in action.--Skarsa72 (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The example should state that this is the first year of operations. Therefore there is no beginning inventory. The example has the LIFO and FIFO methods reversed. The FIFO inventory would be $11.33 and LIFO would be $10.71. Also the $10.71 LIFO value is computed using the earliest acquisitions method of determining current year cost. The other current year cost methods are the average cost of acquisitions and the latest cost of acquisitions. I assume the objective is to keep the example simple. To do this I would add a note that the earliest method is used noting there are two other methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifoman (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect and/or confusing
Although showing the purchase price is correct for the receipting transactions, the amounts should no longer be referred to as price once the stock has been received and is in inventory. It would be more correct to use the terms "value" or "cost".

Calculting the FIFO and LIFO prices are meaningless, as the stock is issued at the actual value it was received at.

Calculating the stock values, however, are in the reverse to the example supplied.

FIFO Value for 120 units is (13*10 + 55*11 + 52*12) / 120 = 1356

LIFO Value for 120 units is (13*10 + 55*11 + 15*12) / 120 = 1285

Just blue peter (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is confusing. Also, this is an example of specific goods LIFO, which is seldom used in practice. "Dollar value" LIFO needs to be described.

G789 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the example is wrong or confusing. It in no way resembles what I am learning in accounting. There is no mention of the idea that the cost is applied at the time inventory is used, IE, lifo vs fifo amounts are used in cost of goods sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.185.60 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Standard Cost
Agreed with the suggestion that weighted average is added to show more stock valuation methods. Another methodology should also be added, vis, Standard Costing, which is usually used in manufacturing environments.

Just blue peter (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Telecom Carryover
In the following shouldn't FIFO and LIFO be reversed:

In telecom terms FIFO is good for the customers while LIFO is good for the telecom operator. With small amount of carry over duration, call credit is to be lost sooner with LIFO than with FIFO as a customer first uses his old call credit( that he had left from previous month) rather than first needing to use all the new credit before using the old call credit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.206.169 (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)