The Worth of Fair Value Accounting: Dissonance between Users and Standard Setters

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.

The Return of Stewardship, Reliability and Prudence – A Commentary on the IASB’s New Conceptual Framework

“…see Whittington, 2016), it is made explicit in the IASB's new CF: 'The Board concluded that in different circumstances different measurement bases may provide information relevant to users of financial statements' (CF2018.BC6.10). Such an acknowledgment resonates with the opinions of constituents (CF2018.BC6.7) and also with empirical research on users' assessments of measurement bases (Gassen & Schwedler, 2010;Georgiou, 2018). In such a setting, where the standard-setter does not favor one particular measurement basis per se, the consideration of QCs becomes an important issue.…”

On the “Realities” of Investor‐Manager Interactivity: Baudrillard, Hyperreality, and Management Q&A Sessions

“…Therefore, we did not adopt a linear process to our analysis but rather moved back and forth between data and theory in an abductive fashion to gain better insights to our research questions (Ahrens and Chapman ). Case quotations and observational details are used throughout the discussion as illustrative examples of the empirical findings and as a means of enabling readers to “hear” voices from the field (Georgiou ). Examples were chosen for one of two reasons.…”

Enlightenment value theories and the three levels in fair value accounting

“…Nevertheless, many accounting research departments and standard setters demonstrate support for fair value accounting. Therefore, there is an actual possibility that accounting systems will move further in the direction of fair value accounting (Cardao-Pito and Ferreira, 2018b; Georgiou, 2018; Mora et al., 2019; Rayman, 2007).…”