In this paper, we use the investment fraud of Bernard Madoff to inquire into the production of trust in the context of financial markets. Drawing upon empirical data related to U.S. individual investors (interviews and letters) as well as documentary material, we investigate the mechanisms through which investing with Madoff came to be seen as a trustworthy investment opportunity. We show how different types of information contributed to construct Bernard Madoff as a trustworthy investment manager and how Madoff avoided meeting demands for accountability by manipulating investors in face-to-face encounters. We shed particular light on the role of institution-based forms of trust which play a critical role in facilitating economic exchanges. More specifically, we suggest that the Madoff case illuminates how the provision of information can lead to an “illusion of trustworthiness” that is difficult to escape for investors. An element of such illusion, we suggest, is inherent to the functioning of financial markets more generally.

Previous studies on accounting innovations emphasize the key role played by innovators and other core actors in theorizing and popularizing such innovations. This paper extends this literature by drawing attention to the role of actors who occupy a more peripheral position within the innovation‐based field. We regard accounting innovations as strategic action fields, in which core and peripheral actors interact to shape the trajectory of the innovation. In contrast to core actors, peripheral actors only weakly identify with the innovation‐based field and often occupy a core position in some other industry, professional, and/or geographical field. Given their embeddedness in these other fields, they are likely to try to accommodate an innovation with existing practices. Such frame blending can be problematic for core actors who envisage a more radical frame shift. Using the case of Beyond Budgeting, we show how the interplay between core and peripheral actors shapes the trajectory of an innovation, in terms of the composition of the field and the framing tactics that dominate at different stages in the development of the field. Our paper advances a perspective on accounting innovations which highlights the variable nature of the innovation space, in terms of different actors entering and exiting this space over time, as well as the importance of considering the overlaps between an innovation‐based field and other (industry, professional, geographical) fields.