Volume 14, Issue 3 - Accounting and Finance

In accordance with the theme of the Yuri Ijiri lectures, I focus on something foundational to accounting: the communication of uncertainty through accounting numbers. I do so in the context of providing information to investors about “the amount, timing, and uncertainty of future cash flows”, an objective of accounting standard setters (with emphasis added). I outline accounting principles that convey uncertainty and discuss the implications for a financial statement analysis that extracts information about uncertainty. I also show how accounting-based valuation is modified to incorporate that information. Asset pricing in finance deals with risk and uses accounting numbers to do so. I explain how that endeavor might be improved by recognizing the accounting for uncertainty. That puts accounting and finance on the same platform. Finally, I address normative issues of accounting policy for conveying information about the uncertainty of future cash flows.

Penman (2023. Accounting for Uncertainty. Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium ) develops a conceptual framework which reconciles accounting and finance in view to provide information for financial investment. His framework is based upon resolution of uncertainty over expectations as a convenient basis for accrual accounting. In this context, accrual accounting can be interpreted as a convenient instrument to protect the corporate capacity to generate future earnings on which the expected financial value is based upon. However, in order to fulfil this control function, accounting applies an additive process (simple return), while financial valuation imposes a multiplicative process (compound return) over the invested financial capital. This divergence between accounting and finance enables disentangling business profit – as determined by accounting – from money interest and ownership rent, paving the way to a theory of the business firm based upon its accounting structure, and enabling measures of financial performance consistent with this divergence.

This empirical study explores the financialization of social sustainability driven by sustainability accounting and reporting initiatives (SARIs). Since no globally accepted definition of what social sustainability encompasses exists, the paper asks how social sustainability is translated into the financial market language by SARIs as they provide standards for disclosing corporate non-financial performance and promote their concepts of social sustainability. The paper uses a two-step qualitative content analysis. First, it operationalizes social sustainability based on the empirical data of six sustainability rating agencies. Second, this operationalization is compared with the concepts created by three SARIs. The paper shows significant differences between the concepts of the SARIs and the rating agencies. While the rating agencies altogether interpret social sustainability with 83 distinct aspects, the SARIs, although differently created, use significant reduced concepts where 20% of these aspects are absent. The result of this financialization process could be a simplified and financially determined concept of social sustainability within die socially discourse. The research is limited to social sustainability and its financialization by SARIs. Individual indicators and their way or intensity to capture aspects of social sustainability were not part of the research interest. Further research should investigate the economic and the ecological pillars of sustainability as well as the usage of such financialized concepts within the society and especially by corporations. The paper unfolds the arbitrariness of operationalizing a qualitative phenomenon like social sustainability through the financial system. It discloses the need for looking at the mechanisms behind such processes and at the interests of the actors behind the frameworks. The paper reveals the financialization process driven by SARIs and demonstrates its simplifying effects on the concept of social sustainability. Furthermore, the paper shows that SARIs as metrics for non-financial aspects are troubled with a lack of transparency and a lack of convergence.

Two papers on the nature of equity and its implication for accounting and public policy are introduced.

In this paper I reconsider the concept of equity in corporate accounting from the perspective of the origin and attribution of business profit. In both Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB’s) and International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB’s) Conceptual Frameworks, shareholders’ equity is synonymous with a firm’s net assets. However, it is not the sole definition of equity. We may regard equity as the interest in the corporate capital itself. From this viewpoint, shareholders’ equity consists of retained earnings attributable to shareholders’ as well as invested capital provided by them. We should note that, under the current corporate accounting system, shareholders are assumed to be the sole residual claimants. However, the existence of implicit contracts in corporate activities implies other residual claimants in addition to shareholders. If shareholders are not the sole residual claimants, it is necessary to revisit the proprietary theory under which equity is identical to shareholders’ equity. In this paper I reconsider the significance of the entity theory, which emphasizes an entity as an organization comprising various stakeholders and attributes business profit above shareholders’ expectations to an entity itself. The ownership interest cannot generate the excess profit by itself. Without firm-specific investments by employees and/or entrepreneurial activities by managers, the excess profit would never emerge. We should critically examine the foundation of the current corporate accounting in order to design a more equitable and efficient corporate accounting in which business profit is attributable not only to shareholders but also to other stakeholders who contribute to its generation.

We analyse the effects of changes in regulatory capital requirements under Basel III on the dynamic evolution of bank shareholder equity over time. Evidence from managerial and regulatory reports shows that bank shareholder equity stands between micro-prudential regulatory capital requirements and managerial pursuit of equity economising strategies. Shareholder value strategies see shareholders as the equity investment remuneration recipients. Micro-prudential regulators, in turn, address them as equity investment providers. With opposing cash streams, one orientation puts the other to a test. The article visualises this conflict by analysing the actual shareholder contribution to the bank equity position in nine case studies of European financial institutions between 2001 and 2017; our evidence-based financial analysis applies an innovative method to data directly extracted from financial statements, in order to measure this equity position evolution and assess bank equity dynamics in light of revised regulatory capital requirements and persistent assurance of shareholder value thriving in managerial reports. The choice of in-depth analysis of a sample of relevant case studies overcomes the absence of detailed data on changes in bank equity in existing databases.