IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting for complex entities: implications for ARMS


  • Charles B. Moss
  • Danny A. Klinefelter
  • Michael A. Gunderson


Purpose - The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of accounting for complex organizational forms on data collection with the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). Design/methodology/approach - This research reviews the literature from accounting theory along with the goals of data collection for policy analysis to draw conclusions about the applicability of accounting pronouncements. Findings - Historically, the financial data collected in ARMS were based on financial accounting standards which were adequate for most purposes. However, this study develops the fact that many of these financial accounting standards were created to provide information for equity market transactions. The complexities of accounting for consolidations will provide valuable information, but implementing these standards will require accounting sophistication that is not prevalent in agriculture. Originality/value - By drawing accounting theory together with the targeted use of data, this study offers guidelines to improve the data quality for a growing complex US agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles B. Moss & Danny A. Klinefelter & Michael A. Gunderson, 2012. "Accounting for complex entities: implications for ARMS," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 72(2), pages 201-209, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:72:y:2012:i:2:p:201-209

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Paul N. Ellinger & Bruce L. Ahrendsen & Charles B. Moss, 2012. "Balance sheet and income statement issues in ARMS," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 72(2), pages 247-253, July.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:72:y:2012:i:2:p:201-209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Virginia Chapman). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.