Effects of Inflation and Deflation on Inventory Methods (CFA Level 1): Basic Dynamics of Price Movements, How Cost Flow Assumptions Operate, and FIFO (First-In, First-Out). Key definitions, formulas, and exam tips.
Inventory accounting can be surprisingly tricky—like trying to find your way out of a maze when prices keep changing. I still remember, during my early days as an analyst, inadvertently mixing up FIFO and LIFO assumptions (yes, I’m confessing!), which led me to significantly overstate a client’s profit margins. That experience taught me how the chosen cost flow assumption can dramatically alter reported financials—especially when inflation or deflation enters the picture. In this section, we explore how inflation and deflation each affect key inventory methods (FIFO, LIFO, Weighted Average) and why analysts must carefully interpret reported results to gain a meaningful understanding of performance.
Below, we’ll walk through the specific mechanics of how FIFO, LIFO, and Weighted Average Cost (WAC) respond to changes in price levels. We’ll consider the implications for reported costs of goods sold (COGS), net income, taxes, and—crucially—comparability. We’ll also introduce the concept of hyperinflation as tackled by IAS 29 (Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies), and how such extreme conditions complicate inventory valuation further.
Before diving into each inventory method, let’s clarify two broad categories of economic conditions:
Small fluctuations in prices might not drastically change your analysis, but in extended or volatile periods of inflation or deflation, the method a firm uses to track and value inventory can dramatically shift the numbers you see on the financial statements.
Perhaps the best way to understand how different cost flow assumptions interact with inflation or deflation is to recall that these methods (FIFO, LIFO, Weighted Average) are purely accounting conventions. They do not necessarily match the actual physical movement of items. It’s like if you ran a bakery: You might physically use each day’s fresh ingredients first, but for accounting purposes, you might choose to value your oldest flour sacks first or last—it’s purely a book decision, with real financial statement consequences.
FIFO assumes the first items you purchase or produce are the first items you sell. Consequently, during inflationary periods, your older (cheaper) inventory costs flow to COGS first, leaving newer (more expensive) purchases in ending inventory. This typically yields:
In a deflationary environment, that dynamic flips. Because your first purchases were more expensive than your later purchases (prices keep dropping), FIFO means:
LIFO assumes the last items purchased or produced are the first units sold. Under inflation, you expense the higher, more recent costs before the older, cheaper costs. This often yields:
But in deflation, LIFO reverses its effect. If the most recent purchases cost less than earlier ones:
Weighted Average Cost, often said to be the middle-of-the-road approach, calculates COGS and ending inventory using an average cost of all units available for sale over a period. WAC can be implemented with either periodic or perpetual systems, but the principle is the same: each unit of inventory, whether sold or still on hand, carries the same average cost. Typically:
This method can be simpler to implement if you’re not dealing with thousands of diverse inventory items acquired at wildly different times. But in a dynamic, fast-moving price environment, weighted average still smooths out the cost fluctuations to some degree.
When inflation rises quickly, the difference between FIFO, LIFO, and WAC can be stark. Investors and analysts who compare a FIFO-reporting company directly to a LIFO-reporting competitor might mistake the lower net income under LIFO as an indicator of weaker performance. Conversely, a LIFO firm in a deflationary environment might look suspiciously profitable at first glance. This is why IFRS does not permit LIFO: it can significantly distort comparability in a global context or at least create more complexity when regulators, analysts, or investors want to compare cross-border financial statements.
Also, in hyperinflationary environments (think double or triple-digit annual inflation), it may not be enough to simply choose a cost flow assumption. Under IFRS, IAS 29 requires restating the financial statements based on a general price index to reflect current purchasing power. In such cases, the basic LIFO vs. FIFO vs. WAC question often becomes secondary to broader hyperinflation adjustments. You adjust not just inventories but also monetary items, nonmonetary items, equity, and more.
Below is a diagram summarizing the typical relationships between cost flow assumptions and reported outcomes in an inflationary environment:
flowchart LR
A["Rising Prices <br/>(Inflation)"] --> B["Cost Flow Assumption <br/>FIFO, LIFO, WAC"]
B --> C["Reported COGS"]
C --> D["Impact on Net Income <br/>and Taxes"]
B --> E["Ending Inventory <br/>Valuation"]
style A fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
style B fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
style C fill:#cfc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
style D fill:#ffc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
style E fill:#ffc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
Gross margin = (Sales – COGS) / Sales
Since your cost flow assumption directly affects COGS, it follows that gross margin is also heavily influenced by the choice of FIFO, LIFO, or WAC. Over time, in an inflationary environment:
In a prolonged deflationary environment—less common historically but important to consider—these relationships reverse. FIFO would generally yield higher COGS and lower gross margin, while LIFO would do the opposite. Keep in mind that changes in gross margin due to accounting methods do not necessarily indicate real changes in operating efficiency. That’s one reason many analysts try to restate statements to a common method when comparing companies.
When inflation reaches extreme levels, IFRS requires applying the guidance of IAS 29 (Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies). Let’s face it, a 100% annual inflation rate (or more) makes normal financial reporting sound a bit surreal. IAS 29 instructs that all nonmonetary items—inventory included—be restated based on a recognized general price index. Essentially, you inflate historical costs to reflect current purchasing power. This restatement ensures that your statements remain, at least theoretically, relevant to users.
In practice, working in a hyperinflationary environment is a logistical headache, involving constant updates to general price indexes, frequent revaluation of monetary and nonmonetary items, as well as additional disclosures in the notes. Under U.S. GAAP, there isn’t an explicit standard for hyperinflation on par with IAS 29, but U.S. GAAP does address certain remeasurement and restatement principles (particularly when consolidating foreign subsidiaries operating in hyperinflationary economies).
Now, at some point you’ll likely want to compare two or more companies that do business in different inflationary contexts or use different inventory methods. For instance, you might compare a U.S.-based retailer using LIFO to a European competitor that, under IFRS, must use FIFO or Weighted Average. In such a scenario, it’s often useful to adjust both sets of statements so that they both reflect, say, FIFO inventory balances and COGS. You might see references to a “LIFO reserve,” which is the difference between LIFO inventory reported on the balance sheet and what that inventory would have been if using FIFO.
Adjusting the company’s reported figures by the LIFO reserve can help you approximate what reported margins, net income, and inventory values would be under FIFO. This is typically straightforward if the firm regularly discloses the LIFO reserve in the footnotes. Keep in mind that repeated inflation year over year can push the LIFO reserve to accumulate. However, if a company starts liquidating older LIFO layers—meaning they sell inventory from older periods priced drastically lower—watch out for potential one-time gains in net income that do not reflect normal operating performance.
Let’s run a short numerical example. Suppose your company has rising purchase costs for the same item over three transactions:
Under FIFO:
Under LIFO:
Under Weighted Average (periodic):
Notice the differences:
This difference in COGS cascades to gross margin, taxes, and net income. In a deflationary scenario, the ranking reverses (LIFO would produce lower COGS, FIFO higher, etc.).
Investors and analysts who like ratio analysis must be vigilant: Key ratios such as gross profit margin, net profit margin, inventory turnover, and even return on equity can look very different under alternative cost flow assumptions.
Inventory Turnover = COGS / Average Inventory. If LIFO inventory balances are very low because the oldest layers remain on the balance sheet, turnover could appear artificially high.
Gross Margin = (Sales – COGS) / Sales. LIFO might yield a lower gross margin if prices are rising.
Return on Assets (ROA) = Net Income / Average Total Assets. Net income and the carrying value of inventory both affect this ratio.
Hence, it’s prudent to track the inventory method in use and adjust if needed for cross-company comparisons.
I once consulted for a specialty food import business that chose Weighted Average because their goods had widely varying shelf lives—some quickly perishable, some with a year or two of stable shelf life. The CFO joked that Weighted Average was “the path of least headaches,” but with recent high inflation in shipping and commodity prices, the firm realized Weighted Average might mask the real margin impacts of rising costs. They ended up disclosing more granular cost data so analysts could see how inflation influenced specific product lines.
Important Notice: FinancialAnalystGuide.com provides supplemental CFA study materials, including mock exams, sample exam questions, and other practice resources to aid your exam preparation. These resources are not affiliated with or endorsed by the CFA Institute. CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned exclusively by CFA Institute. Our content is independent, and we do not guarantee exam success. CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, or warrant the accuracy or quality of our products.