Can you please explain the below readings in a simpler manner (1-2 short paragraphs)

Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) and the Standard-Setting Process

Many commentators on EMH have concluded that EMH supports dispensing with accounting standard setting; that all the effort expended to date by the APB (Accounting Principles Board) and the FASB (Financial Accounting Standard Boards) has been principally a waste because, regardless of the conclusions reached, the market would adjust; and that disclosure was the factor od overriding significance in the accounting process. Such comments are obviously disturbing for accounting standard setters and those interested in the day-to-day processes of reaching accounting judgements on emerging transactions.

"If managers reactions to proposed accounting changes lead to fundamental changes in entity decisions, and if the market price doesn't react to those decisions is the market really efficient?"

Even those who accept EMH, however, should recognize that management decisions appear to be affected by accounting rules and by management's perception of how a transaction form will affect reported earnings. Under these circumstances, a better observation may be that EMH supports and enhances the importance of an accounting standard-setting process based on soundly conceived standards as compared with one based on politically compromised standards.

At this stage of accounting evolution, I am unpersuaded that financial statements are an unnecessary and uneconomic business phenomenon. Thus, my observation is that neither discontinuance of the current standard setting process nor total reliance on disclosure for financial reporting is an appealing alternative. Periodic reporting in a systematized manner does serve a purpose in our society. It permits an evaluation of the credibility of periodic news release data. It permits entity-to-entity comparisons. It permits comparisons with expectations and evaluations of forecasts and of management forthrightness. It provides a basis for assessing management performance.

It seems to me that an alternative view of those who are believers in EMH, therefore, could well be that accounting standard setting is of even greater significance if the hypothesis is valid, and it should rest far more heavily than in the past on a conceptual framework. The objective should be to develop a conceptually tight system subject to as few political or economic pressures as possible.

To me, the evidence is overwhelming that accounting alternatives do affect managements business decisions. So, even if the stock market isn't fooled, accounting standards development may still be of substantial importance to the efficient functioning of our economy. If EMH is valid, it seems that the case for standard setting based on a conceptual framework is at least as valid as the case for abandoning the standard-setting effort. Likewise, it seems that the case for standards that have been heavily influenced by economic consequences is lessened. If the hypothesis isn't valid, the case for a conceptual framework foundation is still strong, but the case for the influence of economic consequences is relatively greater.