No abstract

Investors and analysts are designated as the primary users of financial reports by standard setters, yet we know very little about their use of accounting information and about their relationship with standard setters. This paper explores how investors and analysts evaluate the usefulness of fair values to their work. Standard setters typically presume that investors and analysts view accounting as a practice of valuation and, therefore, favor the greater use of fair value measurement. However, using interview evidence, it is shown here that investors and analysts expect accounting to provide them with insights into the performance of a business, and are quite cautious about the limits of using fair values in financial reports. Overall, the paper contributes to a better understanding of the relationship between accounting and its users. It adds specifically to research which has analyzed the disconnect between users and standard setters in terms of standard setters ignoring user needs (Young ), and in terms of users being indifferent about, or uncritical of, outcomes of standard‐setting processes (Durocher, Fortin, and Cote ; Durocher and Gendron ). The paper suggests a re‐theorization of the disconnect between the two groups that involves thinking away from tension, or blame. Drawing on the work of David Stark (), the situation observed is conceptualized as one of “dissonance,” where the different ways of evaluating fair values coexist without being involved in a fierce contest. That is, even though the principles of valuation and performance differ, this difference does not lead to open disagreement and political lobbying from investors and analysts. Consequences of this dissonance to our understandings of the (absence of) worth of fair values in capital markets are discussed.

No abstract

In its recently revised conceptual framework, the IASB re-affirms decision-usefulness as the objective of financial reporting, disregarding claims about its lack of coherence. In this paper, we examine how this notion of decision-usefulness works in practice by focusing on the case of fair value measurement. In particular, we explore how decision-usefulness is perceived and experienced by financial analysts when using fair values in their work. We use the frame of 'problematisation', which involves challenging assumptions in existing literature, to formulate our research question and to interpret our findings. Empirical evidence, drawn from interviews with UK financial analysts and comment letters analysts wrote to the IASB, puts into question three key assumptions inherent in the revised conceptual framework. First, fair values are not considered to be unquestionably useful to decisionmaking; second, this usefulness is found to be contingent on the context of the decision being made; and third, the qualitative characteristics required to achieve decision-usefulness are challenged for their lack of meaning. Analysts' testimonies also challenge taken-for-granted assumptions implicit in academic studies. Assumptions that the decision-usefulness of fair values can be established prior to practice are re-evaluated. We also reflect on the premise that the decision-usefulness of fair values can be challenged on its underlying market-based economic rationales. Overall, our findings contribute to thinking problematically about decision-usefulness which appears to be contingent rather than given by some Q1 predetermined ideals as envisaged in accounting conceptual frameworks.

No abstract