I finally heard an understandable definition of “mark to market” accounting as it applies to the so-called toxic mortgage backed securities that banks are holding:
‘Mark to market’: setting a book value for an asset that you have no intention of selling based on the price that a third party — who doesn’t want to buy it — is willing to pay for it. (I think it was Harvey Pitt, former SEC commissioner who said it)
Since the asset is what it is, why is the accounting such a big deal?
First, because of basic financial reporting — on which people decide whether to invest in a company or not. But, that can be handled by using another valuation scheme (say, net present value of expected cash flows) and footnoting the differences to mark to market
Second, because — by government regulation — banks have to keep a specified ratio of capital to loans. So, if some non-sellable assets are undervalued. a bank has to raise other capital or reduce the amount of loans it has on the books. That causes a credit squeeze.
There seems to be some momentum to easing the strict mark to market accounting rules, allowing banks to loan more money while staying in regulatory compliance.
Makes sense to me … especially since it’s free.
* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => The Homa Files Blog
