What do we have in common or not from the first three, to my last three a, b, and c?

Build an argument against requiring current market values on the balance sheet. Historical cost is more accurate than the current market value because it tells exactly the paid and received amounts in the balance sheet. The assets or liabilities can change in value over time-> current market value method is misleading. The significance of historical cost is that the records are kept consistently.

For example, company A pays $10,000 to purchase a printer in May. However, on July 4 is the holiday, this printer's price is on sale $9,000. The historical cost in the balance sheet is $10,000

it is easy to check the price through the original invoice if the historical cost is used.

Build an argument against using historical cost.

In contrast, market value is more relevant than the historical cost method. It provides day to day information about the assets' value. Historical cost does not consider the change of prices into account. Thus, the current market can help investors and creditors to make the right decision.

For example, in 2012, Company A has a value of 1 million, but it would go up to 100 million ten years later. Inventors are more likely to invest or buy the stock of company A.

Thus, the current market value method is more useful than the historical cost.

Which of the two arguments do you find most convincing?

Historical value and current market value have different aspects and usages.

But I think the historical cost method should be used on the balance sheet because we do not need to compare assets and liabilities to the current value. Also, the historical cost fits perfectly with the cash flow statements.

What do we have in common or not?

a. If assets will be recorded in the balance sheet at current market value it shall be subject to manipulation of accounts and financial statements . It is not possible in case of every assets to ascertain its current market value exactly in such case possibility of bias arises and it may results in distorted information. Thus chances of manipulation also arises.

b. Historical cost is price paid for asset, with time market cost may change but asset shall be recorded in financial statements at historical cost only. This will result in incomplete information because financial statements are showing historical cost which is not valid for current time.

c The most convincing argument is argument against requiring current market values on balance sheet(option a) because doing so will give rise to manipulation which shall effect users decisions. More over if assets are not shown at current market values which shall result in incomplete information this shortcoming can be eliminated by disclosing current market values in footnotes to financial statements.