In the 1950s, when many of today’s retiring senior executives were being educated, the American business scene was much more stable. Over the years, however, the pace of business has accelerated and become subject to many more changes, both internal and external. Options have multiplied, the range of competitors has expanded, the rate of new-product introduction has exploded, and the role of foreign firms in the array of suppliers, customers and competitors has gone beyond anything the manager of the ’50s might have imagined. We have seen and will continue to see new kinds of business combinations and techniques as adaptation to changing technology and conditions continues. Integration vertically, horizontally and otherwise will ebb and flow. Conglomeration in various forms and guises will recur. New cross-border and cross-technology combinations will develop. Distribution-channel patterns and industry definitions are shifting in response to deregulation, technology and consolidation. Rules of thumb based on assumptions of stability, therefore, have become downright dangerous in most cases. With this as background, let’s now examine the case for the use of the UCA Cash-Flow Statement over the FASB direct or indirect methods that we have also considered.