Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium

Published by De Gruyter

Volume 12 Issue 2 - Unreliable Accounts

May 2022

Issue of Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium

Submit manuscript

Contents
Journal Overview

Publicly Available May 26, 2022

Frontmatter

Page range: i-ii

Download PDF

Research Articles

August 30, 2021

Unreliable Accounts: How Regulators Fabricate Conceptual Narratives to Diffuse Criticism

Karthik Ramanna

Page range: 81-151

Abstract

In 2010, the U.S. accounting rulemaker (FASB) updated its longstanding constitution to eliminate “reliability” as a fundamental accounting property. FASB argued that “reliability” was misunderstood in practice and that this amendment clarified its original intent. Drawing on primary archival resources and field interviews with regulators, I provide evidence that the change also sought to legitimize the rise of fair-value accounting. By eliminating the need for accounting to be “reliable,” the change attempted to neutralize concerns about the subjectivity in fair-value estimates. Such subjectivity can facilitate accounting manipulation, and some fair-value rules can be attributed to lobbying by managers who stand to benefit. The change illustrates “conceptual veiling,” wherein regulators, seeking to diffuse criticism, including suspicions of capture, manufacture costly conceptual narratives for justifying their actions.

Publicly Available February 28, 2022

The Social Value of FASB

Gregory B. Waymire, Sudipta Basu

Page range: 153-180

More Download PDF

Abstract

Ramanna (Unreliable accounts: How regulators fabricate conceptual narratives to diffuse criticism. Accounting, Economics and Law: A Convivium , this issue) argues that the FASB’s new Conceptual Framework deemphasizes reliability, and especially verifiability, in favor of representational faithfulness to facilitate the FASB’s promotion of an “asset-liability” approach measured at fair values. More importantly, he argues that this change is likely to generate costly unintended consequences by undermining reporting quality. We agree and consider more broadly whether FASB creates social value through better accounting knowledge, and whether it is time to sunset the FASB monopoly in establishing accounting standards.

December 16, 2020

Exploring the Relevance and Reliability of Fair Value Accounting

Yoshitaka Fukui, Shizuki Saito

Page range: 181-190

Abstract

While the FASB had regarded relevance and reliability as two of the most important qualitative characteristics for years, it replaced reliability with faithful representation revising its Concepts Statement No. 2 in 2010. Even if fair values are relevant for the measurement of assets and liabilities, these figures are not necessarily reliable or verifiable. We believe this point is the central message of Ramanna, K. (2022). Unreliable accounts: How regulators fabricate conceptual narratives to diffuse criticism. Accounting, Economics and Law: A convivium forthcoming. The application of fair value measurement has been substantially extended recently to income recognition of not-for-trading financial instruments and even non-financial assets. Is this extension due to the primacy of relevance over reliability, or the relaxing of requirement for reliability toward faithful representation? Whatever measurement method we use, it is absolutely necessary to construct a system of concepts on which the purpose of measurement should be established. In spite of the fact that any measurement method is a means to intended purposes, if we first chose a particular method and applied it to every situation slavishly, we would become similar to a bogus doctor selling a fake drug as panacea valid for any disease.

Open Access February 25, 2022

The Pluralistic Foundations of Conceptual Veiling

Julia Morley

Page range: 191-210

More Download PDF

Abstract

The theoretical foundations of Karthik Ramanna’s “Unreliable Accounts” are investigated, demonstrating the pluralistic approach which underlies his critique of the accountability and governance of the FASB. In particular, I highlight Ramanna’s use of multiple units of analysis and theoretical frameworks in his arguments for the existence of conceptual veiling, but I question the extent to which extent Ramanna’s account can be viewed as a generalisable causal explanation. Finally, avenues for future research are noted.

Publicly Available May 9, 2022

Unreliable Accounts: Governing behind a Veil

Paul F. Williams

Page range: 211-231

More Download PDF

Abstract

This paper serves as a commentary to Professor Ramanna’s paper, “Unreliable Accounts: How Regulators Fabricate Conceptual Narratives to Diffuse Criticism.” The case analyzed by Professor Ramanna is the case of CON 8 in which the FASB changed the qualitative characteristics originally identified in CON2 to eliminate the concept of reliability from those qualities accounting data must possess before such data is decision useful. This commentary intends to add some historical depth to the particular case analyzed by Professor Ramanna to demonstrate that conceptual veiling has been a continuous process since the FASB’s original concepts statements that created a conceptual framework made up of two conflicting narratives, i.e. a mixing of the language of two metaphors for accounting. These two metaphors are “accountability” and “information.” The fateful error that has plagued the concepts statements with incoherence since the FASB began was the repurposing of accounting to that of “decision usefulness.” Decision usefulness as defined by FASB had to contain the property of prediction, explicitly predicting the timing, amount and uncertainty of cash flows. However, information is always “about something;” it is not a free-floating abstraction. Since knowledge about the future in economic affairs has eluded the ability of economists and likely always will, FASB is allegedly providing information about the future for which is has not any noteworthy expertise. CON 8 is just another stage of the growing incoherence of the concepts project. The norms of double entry accounting that developed over centuries and shaped accounting’s fundamental concepts served the purposes of accountability for which information to be information must be reliable. The entire edifice of science would collapse if scientific information were not reliable. Without reliability, the boundary between information and misinformation is blurred to the point of invisibility. Professor Ramanna’s analysis provides great insight into the absurdity standard setters now endorse that information does not have to reliable!

September 25, 2020

Unreliable accounts: How regulators fabricate conceptual narratives to diffuse criticism – A response to Karthik Ramanna

Colin Haslam

Page range: 233-238

Abstract

Karthik Ramanna’s article titled “unreliable accounts: How regulators fabricate conceptual narratives to diffuse criticism” provides a critical insight into how Fair Value Accounting (FVA) was incorporated into the conceptual framework for general purpose financial reporting. Karthik reveals that the installation of FVA into the FASBs constitution can be understood through a framework: conceptual veiling. In this framework, the FASB is captured within the logics of financial market economics, assuming investors and capital market actors are best served by financial disclosures that reflect market valuations. Captured by these interests, the FASB needed to modify the narratives contained in the conceptual framework removing reliability and substituting faithful representation because much of what constitutes FVA disclosures are estimates and judgements of questionable reliability. A more forceful critical evaluation of the re-orientation of accounting practise from Historical Cost Accounting to FVA might have located changes in the context of the financialized company.

Publicly Available November 26, 2021

“Unreliable Accounts: How Regulators Fabricate Conceptual Narratives to Diffuse Criticism” by Karthik Ramanna: A Comment on Ideological Capture

Vera Palea

Page range: 239-246

More Download PDF

Abstract

Karthik Ramanna in ‘ Unreliable accounts: How regulators fabricate conceptual narratives to diffuse criticism ’ considers how the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) justified a conjunctural break from historic cost accounting (HCA) to Fair Value Accounting (FVA). Karthik’s paper explores how the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) legitimized the introduction of fair value accounting (FVA). This fundamental reorientation of financial reporting practice can, he argues, be understood within a framing device: conceptual veiling. Firstly, the FASB is (suspected to be) captured by the interests of investors and capital market actors. Secondly, the FASB needed to construct new narratives to enable this reorientation in accounting practice and this was achieved with changes to the governing conceptual framework. An alternative framing device is offered in this review, that of the financialization of company financial reporting and implications for company viability as opposed to a capital market efficiency perspective. Financialized accounting facilitates the valuation of a range of asset classes to a market value. These asset valuations are speculative in nature. FVA accounting imports speculative capital market risk onto company balance sheets and this can threaten company financial stability and viability for a going concern.

Publicly Available January 31, 2022

The Politics of Accounting Standards: A Comment on Ramanna’s “Unreliable Accounts: How Regulators Fabricate Conceptual Narratives to Diffuse Criticism”

Steven K. Vogel

Page range: 247-252

More Download PDF

Abstract

Karthik Ramanna recounts how the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) dropped “reliability” as a fundamental property of accounting in 2010. He offers two possible explanations for this change: (1) The FASB removed reliability to clarify its conceptual framework, and (2) It sought to reconcile its framework with the growing use of fair-value accounting. Ramanna does not give total victory to one explanation over another, nor does he assign purely public- or private-interest motives to the actors in the story. Yet this very ambiguity tells us a lot about the distinctive politics of accounting and other technical realms of regulation, and exposes some of the shortcomings of more standard interest-group models in political science.

About this journal

Objective
The Journal of Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium (CONVIVIUM) aims to encourage a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between individuals, organizations, and institutions in economy and society. Among other matters, attention will be paid to financial, economic, and legal methods and languages that have an important albeit neglected role in this relationship. Concerns of finance, control, accountability, responsibility, valuation, regulation, and governance will be raised in their connection with accounting, economics, law, sociology, anthropology, history, finance, political science, and the management and policy sciences. The journal encourages works that seek to recombine disciplinary domains in response to practical and relevant issues, including theoretical advances and insights, and comparative historical perspectives.

The journal is published with the collaboration of the Maison des Sciences de l'Homme - Paris Nord

Editorial Policy
While many journals cover accounting, economics and law separately, the intersection of these fields denotes common and significant concerns in society. Institutional rules and social norms are critical to workings of organizations. Beyond their technical aspects, these issues have broader societal and global consequences. CONVIVIUM is intended to their study.

This journal will pay attention to the institutional analysis of families, businesses, non-business organizations; and their management, finance, control, accountability, responsibility, valuation, regulation, and governance. Financial, economic, and legal devices lie at the heart of business and non business governance and regulation. The journal will examine their influence in the context of social, cultural, and political economy and history.

The journal will explore links among the disciplines in order to yield theoretical insights and perspectives on practice, and seek methodological pluralism and tolerance. Proposals are welcome from sociology, anthropology, history, political science, policy studies, finance, and management sciences.

Focusing at the connections among social disciplines, CONVIVIUM is a unique outlet for inter-disciplinary and combined perspectives. It welcomes transnational co-operative contributions, cross-fertilization of ideas, and will provide a supportive peer review process.

Methodological tolerance and pluralism
Methodological tolerance and pluralism is integral to interdisciplinary research. Formal modeling and quantitative methods of research can serve as a powerful discipline to abstract from myriad of details the essentials of a phenomenon. At the same time, not all the featuring aspects of phenomena are subject to quantification. Therefore, the journal will accept both quantitative and qualitative methods devoted to enhance our understanding of the phenomena of interest. Use of qualitative, quantitative, statistical and modeling methods is recognized.

The journal recognizes that comparative and combined approaches are the most suitable for its purpose. Theoretical, normative, explanatory, interpretative, and historical approaches with contemporary implications will be included. Descriptive studies that provide syntheses of national or international issues; comments, replies and rejoinders; and replications of works published by the journal will be encouraged.

Geographical variety
The journal encourages geographically-varied contributions, particularly those that draw on localized traditions of thought and experience to speak to common concerns. Accordingly, the Editorial Board may accept submissions in languages in English, French, and Italian, with the understanding that the authors' will provide a complete English version of the accepted paper for publication.

Supportive Peer Review Process
The journal welcomes submissions of articles, symposia, and proposals for thematic issues. It supplements its screening and evaluation peer reviews by discussion and cross-fertilization between editors, authors and reviewers, allowing them to move beyond the anonymity of the process, if they so choose, which seems to have outlived its usefulness in the Internet age. Blind peer review is always a choice if this is not preferable.

The reviewers will be expected not only to consider the final publication, but also to submit (i) a relevant set of "suggestions" (further references, structural amendments, and changes), and (ii) a "comment" discussing the paper from their own viewpoint. This comment, and any rejoinder by the author, may be published together with the paper subject to the reviewer's and editor's agreement.

Moreover, each paper will be generally read by at least two reviewers and one member of the Boards, of which at least one will have a primary interest relevant to - but different from - that of the author.

In summary, the journal seeks to attract potential authors through its systematic dedication to the enhancement of their work. The journal wishes to be, in Dante Alighieri's words, a 'Convivium,' convening compelling minds worldwide and promoting significant contributions to the understanding of social phenomena.

Topics

The quality and regulation of accounting
A critique of norms and standards of accounting, such as historical cost, fair value and mark-to-market accounting
National and international institutions of accounting, governance, and regulation
Corporate, fiscal, and securities laws and regulations
Business and not-for-profit accounting, economics, and regulation
Shareholder and stakeholder values and governance
Governmental accounting, economics, and regulation
Socio-economic analysis of family and divorce
Comparative history of accounting, economic, legal thoughts and experiences
Regulation of industries and markets, including environmental and public interest issues
Experimental and behavioral accounting, finance and economics
Accounting, economic, and legal issues in relation to social and cultural norms
Accounting, economic, and legal issues in relation to the theory and analysis of financial and monetary systems
Accounting, economic, and legal issues in relation to the theory and analysis of enterprise groups and multinational firms
Accounting, economic, and legal issues of ownership and property
The role of accounting and control in financial systems, including crises, instability, and resilience

Article formats
Original Research Articles, Commentaries, and Book Reviews.

Information on submission process