Featured Interview: Professor Matt Bamber
Schulich students at the undergraduate and graduate level have likely taken a course with Matt Bamber (Associate Professor, Accounting). Known for his engaging and entertaining lectures, outside of class, Matt is known for his research on interactions between analysts and managers during question-and-answer sessions during corporate earnings calls (which means that he has probably heard more conference calls than is good for a person). Additionally, Matt’s research is focused on improving awareness of the challenges facing stigmatized and discriminated workers.
Matt sat down with us to answer a few questions about his current research interests, and how earnings calls can parallel other types of formal interactions.
Hi Matt! Please, introduce yourself:
My name is Matt Bamber, I’m an Associate Professor of Accounting at Schulich and a Schulich Research Excellence Fellow. I joined Schulich in 2018 and just recently got back from sabbatical. Normally, I teach ACTG 3000 Financial Reporting and Analysis and ACTG 5200 Financial Decisions for Managers.
Matt, you have a very interesting background. Your Undergraduate and Masters degrees are in Philosophy and History. After that, you spent a few years of working as an accountant, and, later, received a PhD in Accounting, with a focus on financial instrument disclosures. Tell me – what made you follow that journey?
First, I’d like to say that I consider myself to have been very lucky at every step of my journey. I am surrounded by family and friends that love and support me, and I was fortunate to meet some great people, who gave me excellent advice, which translated into opportunities, that finally led me here. Importantly, I have enjoyed each and every phase of my academic and professional life.
I stayed in university after my undergraduate studies because I loved everything about higher education; not just the learning and knowledge, but the atmosphere, the conversations, the freedom to both think and do, and much else besides. I would have stayed on after my Masters and switched into a PhD program but a combination of the seeming dwindling number of academic job vacancies available to humanities scholars and my mother gently suggesting that—perhaps—it were time I joined the ‘real world’ (which one might translate as: ‘we’re cutting the purse strings’), meant that I was forced to think about ‘what’s next’.
Which led you to accounting – what was the appeal of accounting over another type of role?
Accounting seemed to offer me things that nothing else did and promised to open doors that were too good to miss. I went through the normal recruitment processes and landed at a firm that perfectly suited my character and background.
Having been invited to do some teaching while in practice, I found I had a passion for it, and the time seemed right to find a way back to the university corridors I had loved as young(er) man.
Naturally, a PhD followed, and I specialized in something I thought I knew something about (as with all doctoral studies). But, as is also the case with doctoral studies, I found out I was way less knowledgeable on the subject than I initially believed myself to be.
That’s often the joy and the thrill of research, finding out what you don’t know.
What are your current research interests?
My research focuses on two overarching themes:
- First, I am interested in the social interactions between market actors. I particularly enjoy studying conference call Question & Answer (Q&A) sessions, where management respond to analysts’ questions. These are earnings call and therefore the question normally relate to the firm’s position, performance, and strategy. For me, this offers unique opportunities to study accounting words, deeds, and actions. My core focus is on what I call ‘accounting interrogations’, where accounting and accountants are exposed to scrutiny, so I especially enjoy Q&A encounters. However, for the record, despite many years of study, I still have a lot to learn about “asking questions” and “giving answers”.
- Second, I study issues of workplace discrimination, stigmatization, and marginalization. I am interested in hearing the perspectives of diverse voices and thereby shining light on modern work challenges.
Do you think that your background has influenced your research topic or how you approach research? If so, how?
Definitely so. I’ve always been interested in questions and answers, including: the mechanics, the design, the influences, and the outcomes. I love to know why certain questions are asked while others go unsaid, and at the same time why some questions get answers and others are met with silence.
This fascination moved into another dimension when I studied philosophy at university, and the more I have learned, the more my interest has grown. In the broadest possible sense, I like to know why people do and say the things they do and say, and hope that the pursuit of these themes will fill the rest of my days in academia.
Seems like that’s a good place for me to ask the question “What are you working on right now, research-wise?”
[Laughs] Because I’ve just got back from sabbatical, my gut reaction is to ask, “how long is this article?” But seriously, I’ve got a number of exciting and interesting projects on the go.
I am working on a project which I have called ‘accounting interrogations’ and from it, I hope to develop a couple of pieces of research output.
In one project, I am drawing on interview data to develop a framework to explain managerial ‘non-answers’ during conference call Q&As. My proposition is that non-answers can be explained as either: defensive, reflective, or negotiative. Hopefully the labels speak for themselves, but what is most interesting is that the article challenges the dominant idea that ‘non-answers’ are—and are interpreted as—the suppression of bad news.
Interesting – so why would managers choose to give “non-answers” in such a high-profile venue? Wouldn’t it lead to more scrutiny?
First, while non-answers (or ‘silence’ if you prefer) is inherently contextual and situational, when we see non-answers pass between management and their sell-side analysts, the message is rarely interpreted negatively, but on those occasions where it is, more information is sought before amplifying the bad news signal. I find that non-answers are mutable and complex, and a bad news explanation is an over-simplification. Management can be defensive, of course, but not always because they are withholding information in an effort to maintain the information asymmetry gap.
Secondly, there are occasions when management needs time to reflect. After all this is a highly visible and high-stakes encounter which is governed by fair disclosure regulation. In simple terms, would we prefer an immediate ill-thought through and potentially factually incorrect response, or would we prefer to wait? Of course, this question is (hopefully) rhetorical. If the information is not to-hand, then the management team will need to give a non-answer. Again, this should not necessarily be interpreted as bad news.
Third, non-answers are a way to negotiate disclosure boundaries, i.e., what are we as a management team willing (and able) to tell you now. It is also a way to negotiate future Q&A interactions, i.e., what kinds of questions do not belong here.
What other things have you discovered while researching Q&A sessions?
I use Q&A sessions to demonstrate that market actors can, and do, engage in functionally stupid exercises. I do not mean ‘stupid’ in the pejorative sense, rather I am referring to stupidity-for-a-reason. For example, a functionally stupid question during a conference call can be mutually beneficial to the question-asker and -answerer, but that does not necessarily mean it is in their—or *our*—best interests.
While I would not claim that the findings are generalizable, I hope that researchers in other disciplines will be excited to see the parallels to other Q&A contexts, such as Prime Minister’s Questions, Congressional Hearings, Public Inquiries, Court rooms, and many more besides.
How do you see this research being used? Do you see it as acting like a toolkit for improved investor and manager interactions?
Even though my work might be described as quite ‘theoretical’, I believe there are some real-world implications and recommendations. The empirical findings will be interesting to a range of market actors.
How so? Do you see this as helpful to managers?
I think it will help management in terms of their conference call preparations, which can be costly and time-consuming. I wouldn’t for a moment begin to suggest that I could provide a ‘how to’ guide or a ‘toolkit’, but I do think I draw attention to certain themes, assumptions, practices, and processes which are under-studied and/or under-observed.
Specifically, I think my work helps management to think about who they are communicating with and how they are engaging in that communication. My work shows there are gaps in the communication chain between the firm, the sell-side, and investors. By extension, I have tried to suggest ways that these could be closed.
Anything else to add?
Simply to add my thanks to everyone who has helped me thus far and those who will help in the future. That not only includes co-authors and academic friends, but the hundreds of professional people I have spoken to over the years who have patiently responded to my questions (however ‘stupid’) and who have given so generously of their time. Long may these conversations continue and the collaborations flourish because I think they are mutually beneficial.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Professor Bamber’s research on “accounting interrogations” was funded via a 2019-2024 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Grant under the title “Accounting Interrogations: Good Questions, Good Answers, and the Roles of Voice and Silence”.
Professor Bamber can be reached at mbamber@schulich.yorku.ca
Clipart images used in this article were sourced from Headway via Unsplash