Analysis of the LIFO inventory valuation method during the onset of IFRS

I propose that the Last in, First out (LIFO) inventory valuation method needs to be reevaluated. I will evaluate the impact of the LIFO method on earnings of publically traded companies with a LIFO reserve over the past 10 years. I will begin my proposal with the history of how the LIFO method became an acceptable valuation method and discuss the significance of LIFO within the accounting profession Next I will provide a description of LIFO, the First in, First out (FIFO), and the weighted average inventory valuation methods and explore the differences among each. More specifically, I will explore the arguments for and against the use of the LIFO method and the potential shift towards financial standards that do not allow LIFO (a standard adopted and influenced by the International Financial Accounting Standards Board). Data will be collected from Compustat for publicly traded companies (with a LIFO Reserve) for the past 10 years. I will document which firms use LIFO, analyze trends relating to LIFO usage and LIFO reserves (the difference in the cost of inventory between using LIFO and FIFO), and evaluate the effect on earnings. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the accuracy of LIFO in portraying earnings and to see how much tax has gone uncollected over the years because of the use of LIFO. Moreover, I will provide an opinion as to whether U.S. GAAP should adopt a standard similar to IFRS and ban the LIFO method.

Efficient Unit Root Tests of real Exchange Rates in the Post-Bretton Woods Era

We apply the efficient unit-roots tests of Elliott, Rothenberg, and Stock (1996), and Elliott (1998) to twenty-one real exchange rates using monthly data of the G-7 countries from the post-Bretton Woods floating exchange rate period. Our results indicate that, for eighteen out of the twenty-one real exchange rates, the null hypothesis of a unit root can be rejected at the 10% significance level or better using the Elliot et al (1996) DF-GLS test. The unit-root null hypothesis is also rejected for one additional real exchange rate when we allow for one endogenously determined break in the time series of the real exchange rate as in Perron (1997). In all, we find favorable evidence to support long-run purchasing power parity in nineteen out of twenty-one real exchange rates. Second, we find no strong evidence to suggest that the use of non-U.S. dollar-based real exchange rates tend to produce more favorable result for long-run PPP than the use of U.S. dollar-based real exchange rates as Lothian (1998) has concluded.

Non-Parametric Tests of Real Exchange rates in the Post-Bretton Woods Era

This paper examines the mean-reverting property of real exchange rates. Earlier studies have generally not been able to reject the null hypothesis of a unit-root in real exchange rates, especially for the post-Bretton Woods floating period. The results imply that long-run purchasing power parity does not hold. More recent studies, especially those using panel unit-root tests, have found more favorable results, however. But, Karlsson and Löthgren (2000) and others have recently pointed out several potential pitfalls of panel unit-root tests. Thus, the panel unit-root test results are suggestive, but they are far from conclusive. Moreover, consistent individual country time series evidence that supports long-run purchasing power parity continues to be scarce. In this paper, we test for long memory using Lo's (1991) modified rescaled range test, and the rescaled variance test of Giraitis, Kokoszka, Leipus, and Teyssière (2003). Our testing procedure provides a non-parametric alternative to the parametric tests commonly used in this literature. Our data set consists of monthly observations from April 1973 to April 2001 of the G-7 countries in the OECD. Our two tests find conflicting results when we use U.S. dollar real exchange rates. However, when non-U.S. dollar real exchange rates are used, we find only two cases out of fifteen where the null hypothesis of an unit-root with short-term dependence can be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of long-term dependence using the modified rescaled range test, and only one case when using the rescaled variance test. Our results therefore provide a contrast to the recent favorable panel unit-root test results.

Bank Performance: Market Power or Efficient Structure?

Regulatory change not seen since the Great Depression swept the U.S. banking industry beginning in the early 1980s, culminating with the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Significant consolidations have occurred in the banking industry. This paper considers the market-power versus the efficient-structure theories of the positive correlation between banking concentration and performance on a state-by-state basis. Temporal causality tests imply that bank concentration leads bank profitability, supporting the market-power, rather than the efficient-structure, theory of that positive correlation. Our finding suggests that bank regulators, by focusing on local banking markets, missed the initial stages of an important structural change at the state level.