Why finance theory fails to survive contact with the real world: A fund manager perspective

Coleman, Les

doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2013.02.001

Cited by 50 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The third theme we identified relates to fallacies in current accounting-related theories such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model (McGoun, 1993), the Efficient Market Hypothesis (Rosen, 1990;Soufian, Forbes & Hudson, 2014), mainstream finance theory (Hudson et al, 1999;Coleman, 2014), Positive Accounting Theory (Martens & Stevens, 1993;Neu & Simmons, 1996;Milne, 2002;Chabrak, 2005;Lambert & Sponem, 2005), principal-agent theory (Ogden, 1993;Chwastiak, 1999;Mihret, 2014), as well as individual accounting measures (Jensen, 1990;McGoun, 1990). …”

Section: Legitimating Accounting Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Standard-setting Theories Ideologies NPM Briloff, 1990 Ponemon, 1990Mitchell & Sikka, 1993Briloff, 1993 Walker, 1993 Davis & Strawser, 1993 Hooks & Moon, 1993Briloff, 1993 Hanlon, 1996 Seal et al, 1996 Briloff, 1999Cousins et al, 1999 Fuerman, 1999 Green,1999Miller, 1999 Peck, 1999 Ward, 1999 Catchpowle & Cooper, 1999 Cullinan & Sutton, 2002 Baker & Owsen, 2002Everett et al, 2005 Bakre, 2005 DiGabriele, 2008 Radcliffe, 2008Lee et al, 2008 Newberry & Robb, 2008Dellaportas & Davenport, 2008 McKinstry, 2008 Funnell, 2011 Hasseldine, Holland & van der Rij, 2011 Radcliffe , 2011Boyce, 2014Lehman, 2014Nickell & Roberts, 2014 Everett & Tremblay, 2014 Edgle, 2014 Dellaportas, 2014 Hunt & Holger, 1990 Committe, 1990 Robson, 1993Cousins & Sikka, 1993 Ohsawa & Tinker, 1993Bryer, 1999 Macve, 1999 Robson, 1999 Samuelson, 1999 Whittington, 1999Bryer, 1999Shapiro, 2002 Coleman, 2014 Froud et al, 2014Mihret, 2014Soufian et al, 2014 Dillard & Nehmer, 1990 Murray & Knights, 1990 Humphrey & Moizer, 1990 Lukka, 1990 Funnell, 1990Bryer, 1993 Hooper & Pratt, 1993 Munro & Hatherly, 1993 Chwastiak, 1996Neu & Taylor, 1996 Fogarty & Ruhl, 1996 Dempsey, 1996Lee, 1999Chwastiak, 1999Lee & Williams, 1999 Baker, 2002 Humphrey, 2002 Filling et al, 2002 Armstrong, 2002 Drennan & Kelly, 2002 Ezzamel & Hoskin, 2002Oguri. 2005 Jinnai, 2005 Chand, 2005 Shapiro, 2005Schwartz et al, 2005Bourguignon, 2005 Pesqueux, 2005Lehman, 2005 Broadbent et al, 2008Alawattage & Wickramasinghe, 2008Cronin, 2008Bakre, 2008 Murphy, 2008 Everett, 2008Gleadle & Cornelius, 2008 Jeacle, 2008 Nagy &am...…”

Section: Appendix Thematic Categorization Of Selected Cpa Articles 19mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both Hudson et al (1999) and Coleman (2014) identify neoclassical finance theory's inability to explain real-world phenomena as a problem that prevents a fully developed understanding of market operations. The societal risk that lies therein is that efforts to regulate market operations or prevent the emergence of financial crises are necessarily ineffective if based on a theoretical understanding decoupled from actual practice.…”

Section: Legitimating Accounting Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some fifteen years after the publication of Hudson et al (1999), Coleman (2014) returns to the topic of neoclassical investment theory, as taught and researched in higher education institutions, being out of touch with the world of practitioners. Motivated by such an apparent dichotomy, Coleman is concerned with exploring the reasons that have led to its emergence.…”

Section: Legitimating Accounting Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An interesting pair of articles, Hudson et al (1999) and Coleman (2014), considers the flaws in mainstream finance theory. Hudson et al (1999) take as their starting point Findlay and Williams' (1985) critique of the underlying assumptions of mainstream finance theory, which in the latter's view result in discrepancies between theory and practitioner observations.…”

Section: Legitimating Accounting Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A case study of critique: Critical perspectives on critical accounting

Dillard

Vinnari

2017

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As accounting academics, we have a responsibility to act in the public interest as conscience, critic and counselor of society regarding economic, social and environmental justice. In fulfilling this responsibility, we are concerned with how accounting, accountants, and accountability regimes can facilitate democracy by serving the needs of pluralistic communities, giving particular attention to the various underserved constituencies. Informed by Flyvbjerg's (2001) notion of phronetic social science research that matters, we reviewed 353 articles published in Critical Perspectives on Accounting from 1990 to 2014 identifying the focal constituency(s), the injustice(s) addressed, the groups or institutions responsible for the injustice as well as the proposals for social and political praxis outlined in the studies. Our review indicates that generally the studies identify a somewhat focused, though salient and appropriate, set of economic, social and/or environmental injustices experienced by various constituencies, and to some extent, the studies consider the context and conditions that perpetuate the inequality and injustices. However, as the field matures, there is a need for more robust development of the social and political implications of critical accounting research and for articulating the ideas and implications as action programs. Further, our review suggests that several relevant constituencies such as non-human animals, children, future generations, developing nations, and gender and sex/uality minorities have received little or no attention in the current literature.

show abstract