Critical transparency[edit]

There is a rich literature in accounting that takes a critical perspective to market transparency, focusing on the nuances and boundaries.^[6][7] For example, some researchers question its utility (e.g. Etzioni^[8]). This also connects to the performativity of quantitative models^[9] or "reactivity."^[10] Specific cases include transparency in the art market.^[11] There are also studies from finance that note concerns with market transparency, such as perverse effects including decreased market liquidity and increased price volatility.^[1] This is one motivation for markets that are selectively transparent, such as "dark pools".^[12]


Dynamics of transparency may also differ between investment markets, cambist markets where goods trade without being used up,^[13][14] and other types of markets, e.g. goods and services.


In fair value accounting (FVA), transparency may be complicated by the fact that level 2 and 3 assets cannot strictly be marked-to-market, given that no direct market exists, creating questions about what transparency means for these assets. Level 2 assets may be marked-to-model, a topic of interest in the social studies of finance,^[15][9] while Level 3 assets may require inputs including management expectations or assumptions.