Trustee reputation in securitization: When does it matter?

We consider the role of trustees–who are nominated to protect the interests of investors–in securitization pricing and whether investors rely on them to mitigate risks. In particular, we examine the effect of trustee reputation on initial yield spreads of European mortgage‐backed security (MBS) issuances between 1999 and the first half of 2007. We find that engaging reputable trustees led to lower spreads during the credit boom period prior to the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Our findings suggest that trustees’ reputation was considered by investors to be more important when risk assessment became more challenging.     

Impression management,myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman

This paper explores the nature of private social and environmental reporting (SER). From interviews with UK institutional investors, we show that both investors and investees employ Goffmanesque, staged impression management as a means of creating and disseminating a dual myth of social and environmental accountability. The interviewees’ utterances unveil private meetings imbued with theatrical verbal and physical impression management. Most of the time, the investors’ shared awareness of reality belongs to a Goffmanesque frame whereby they accept no intentionality, misrepresentation or fabrication, believing instead that the ‘performers’ (investees) are not intending to deceive them. A shared perception that social and environmental considerations are subordinated to financial issues renders private SER an empty encounter characterised as a relationship-building exercise with seldom any impact on investment decision-making. Investors spoke of occasional instances of fabrication but these were insufficient to break the frame of dual myth creation. They only identified a handful of instances where intentional misrepresentation had been significant enough to alter their reality and behaviour. Only in the most extreme cases of fabrication and lying did the staged meeting break frame and become a genuine occasion of accountability, where investors demanded greater transparency, further meetings and at the extreme, divested shares. We conclude that the frontstage, ritualistic impression management in private SER is inconsistent with backstage activities within financial institutions where private financial reporting is prioritised. The investors appeared to be in a double bind whereby they devoted resources to private SER but were simultaneously aware that these efforts may be at best subordinated, at worst ignored, rendering private SER a predominantly cosmetic, theatrical and empty exercise.     

An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions

We address the following overarching questions: What kind of accountability framework could regulators use to (a) motivate auditors to improve audit quality, and (b) evaluate how well auditors have carried out their duties? We draw on research in accounting, economics, psychology, and neuroscience to critique the accountabilities, incentives, and learning opportunities embedded in auditors’ extant regulatory environment. We first establish that forward-looking estimates are the basis for most financial statement information and that some of these estimates are highly uncertain, which increases the challenges faced by auditors. We propose an accountability framework with two dimensions: rewards versus penalties and processes versus outcomes. We show that auditors’ current regulatory accountabilities generally are in the form of penalties rather than rewards and primarily depend on audit outcomes rather than attributes of auditors’ judgment processes. We provide evidence from a range of disciplines that questions the suitability of the present system for improving the quality of auditors’ judgments and the quality of evaluations of those judgments made by inspectors. We identify four potential changes for improvement in audit quality based on our framework. Each of these identified changes has an impact on one or both of the two dimensions in our framework. For each of these changes, we outline JDM research questions that could be addressed to inform our overarching questions and to provide empirical evidence to help refine our accountability framework and improve audit quality.     

Rural afforestation programmes for sustainable rural development: How realist conceptualisation can help

The role of conceptualisation in influencing the development process is the theme of this article, which demonstrates how poverty has forced rural households to exhaust their forestry resources at the expense of the long-term sustainable development of the broader communities concerned. The article stresses that the dilemma and contradictions of creating deforestation problems in order to develop can only be overcome by empowering the communities concerned to reverse the deforestation process through afforestation. Using a judicious blend of theory and empirical material, the article demonstrates that the realist method of rational abstraction has an important role to play in identifying the relevant variables that need to interact with the forestry sector to achieve sustainable development. The overall thrust of the article is that concrete development practices are intrinsically incomplete if not linked to a conception of sustainable development as a critical theory.     

ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS INCOME UNDER INFLATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND VIEWS IN THE UNITED STATES*

To adjust business accounting for inflation, one current proposal is to convert all dollar figures in existing financial statements to units of fixed general purchasing power. A widely offered alternative is to retain the dollar units but replace the historical-cost figures by current values. The two alternatives would yield very different results. After reviewing these and variant proposals, the analysis concentrates on certain major issues: the unit of measurement; the treatment of capital gains; the concept of capital maintenance; and the treatment of changes in the purchasing power of debt. Current value accounting would not correct for changes in the general price level and would involve far more difficult problems of concept and measurement than general purchasing power accounting. The latter is therefore preferable.     

PERSPECTIVE ON PRODUCTIVITY RESEARCH*

Radical changes, up and down, have taken place in the estimates of growth in total factor productivity in the U.S. made by different economists, or by the same economists at different times. If such estimates provide “some sort of measure of our ignorance,” as Abramovitz once put it, we seemed to be a lot less ignorant in 1927 (when Cobb and Douglas published their famous paper), or in 1967 (when Jorgenson and Griliches published theirs), than we were in the years between (when Schmookler, Abramovitz, Kendrick, and Denison completed their studies), or than we are today (when we have, or will soon have, revised estimates by Denison and by Kendrick, and new estimates by Christensen and Jorgenson). Viewed in this perspective, many questions may be raised about the significance of the current estimates that something like a third or more of the rate of increase in U.S. national output is “due” to increase in productivity, as well as about the concepts, data, and methods that underlie the estimates. A list of particular subjects worth considering for research is given and each is briefly discussed.