Answer:
The two approach varies and differs.
Step-by-step explanation:
Maturity matching is simply the pitching of the economic benefits derived from utilization of an asset, with the economic cost utilized in bringing the economic benefits. A company is either financed by debt instrument or equity instrument. Unlike equity, debt comes with stated terms on repayment and/or redemption. This is often determined by the maturity dates specified.
Basically, maturity matching specifies that a current asset should be matched with a current liability. In same vein, a non current liabilities should only be earned on a non current asset. Maturity matching matches these in a bid to properly convey the financial true position of the firm.
An aggressive approach, nonetheless, difers from the above in that, a short term loan(overdraft) could be used to finance a long term project- non current asset. A firm might be influenced by the much liquidity available through the short term loan and there by erroneously use such in, say, expansion bid. This is wrong. The loan will be repaid in the shortest period and the firm will thus be challenged with such. The implication with this approach is that it takes a wrong view on the financial position as the cost is not evenly spread. Thus, even though it posted a good liquidity standing, this cannot be taken as final, as the cost implication must be evenly spread throughout the lives of the project. This thus vitiate the integral matching concept in accounting.
A more conservative approach tows the line of the maturity matching approach as it seeks to only incur a non current liability on a long current asset, and a current liability on a current asset. Using this approach thus takes cognizant of other risk elements in business. Cost, earnings and depreciation are thus evenly matched. It thus aid critical financial performance evaluation and also depicts true financial position of as firm. The conservative approach is knowledge based and less riskier on long term sustainability.