We investigate analytically and empirically the relationship between demand uncertainty and cost behavior. We argue that with more uncertain demand, unusually high realizations of demand become more likely. Accordingly, firms will choose a higher capacity of fixed inputs when uncertainty increases in order to reduce congestion costs. Higher capacity levels imply a more rigid short-run cost structure with higher fixed and lower variable costs. We formalize this “counterintuitive” argument in a simple analytical model of capacity choice. Following this logic, we hypothesize that firms facing higher demand uncertainty have a more rigid short-run cost structure with higher fixed and lower variable costs. We test this hypothesis for the manufacturing sector using data from Compustat and the NBER-CES Industry Database. Evidence strongly supports our hypothesis for multiple cost categories in both datasets. The results are robust to alternative specifications. Data Availability: All data used in this study are available from public sources.

Accountants examine multiple indicators when assessing whether individual assets are impaired. Different indicators predict cash flows over varying time horizons, and their importance varies with how far into the future individual assets are expected to generate cash flows. We predict that earnings exhibits asymmetric timeliness with respect to multiple indicators, including stock return, sales change, and operating cash flow change, which differentially explain write-downs of current assets, long-lived tangible assets, and indefinite-lived goodwill. We predict an interaction effect between indicators, such that the total impact of several consistent indicators is greater than the sum of their individual impacts. Empirical estimates for U.S. firms are consistent with our predictions and yield new insights about the effects of multiple indicators for both conservatism and impairment research. Our multi-indicator asymmetric models also change inferences about the relative explanatory power of economic factors versus reporting incentives in asset impairments.