Comparison of bases for estimating uncollectible debts

When using the allowance method for estimating bad debt we have 3 approaches. 1 of them is in relation to the income statement, the other two is in relation to the balance sheet. Having said that, I understand that for example, the income approach has better matching than the balance sheet approach and the balance sheet approach provides a better estimate of cash realizable value. However, I'm still trying to figure out why the income statement is worse for realizable value than the balance sheet approach. I have some ideas.

Ideas related to the balance sheet approach:

-The balance sheet approach provides a better estimate of cash realizable value because the account "allowance for uncollectible accounts" is a permanent account. This means it doesn't close, which means it will have a more accurate picture of the portion of receivables that will be uncollectible

Ideas related to the income statement approach:

-The income statement approach provides a worse realizable value because when you estimate the bad debt as a % of sales you have to bare in mind that sales are pair with cash and accounts receivable. So your % will include a portion of cash. This wont make sense because cash should not be recorded as bad debt expense.

-Other reason is because the account of sales revenue and bad debt expense close at the end of the period and their unadjusted balance is always 0. For this reason, the estimation of bad debt will not be as accurate as the balance sheet approach.

​

I'm all ears people. If you can help me then I will appreciate that!!!!

​