home

Mark To Market

James Kwak writes up the Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) weakening of the "mark to market" rule. It's a good read. But as Kwak notes, investors won't be fooled by it. It does allow Geithner and the banks to play games with us though:

What if the function of these rule changes is to make it easier for banks to ignore the results of the PPIP auctions? For example, Bank A puts up a pool of loans for auction, but doesn’t like the winning bid and rejects it; Bank A doesn’t want to be forced to write down its loans to the amount of the winning bid. Or, alternatively, Bank B sells a security to a buyer, and Bank A holds the same security; Bank A doesn’t want to be forced to write down the security to the price of Bank B’s transaction.

I think it is more pernicious than that -- it allows "investors" to justify gambling taxpayer money (remember the non-recourse loans) and pay higher prices for the "legacy assets" than the market calls for. This is part of the Rube Goldberg contraption called the Geithner Plan to hand over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to the financial industry.

Speaking for me only

< The "Stale Debate" On The Financial Crisis | Iowa Supreme Court : Can't Ban Gay Marriage >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The entire point of any plan... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:33:34 AM EST
    ...will be to sucker people back into accepting the over-inflation of assets--so that there can be a new speculative boom.  

    It's all very transparent. The bankers need to be allowed to get back to making paper profits. Heaven forbid they have to lift, move or make--or talk/write about anything for a living.

    Normalization (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    The Bush regime normalized election theft, torture, and the destruction of the rule of law.

    Now the Obama administration is normalizing the largest transfer of wealth in American history, with no transparency and no accountability, and not so much as a Congressional hearing.

    Silly you (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:19:02 PM EST
    Reliving the primaries... ;-).

    Isn't that the argument of "the staunchest Obama supporters" whenever we point out that our worst suspicions about Obama turned out to be true?

    Bush was corrupt. Obama is corrupt/Chicago.  Nothing new.

    Parent

    Kwak seems not to know (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:31:34 AM EST
    much about the mark-to-market rule or accounting.

    While there may be reasons to criticize the loosening of the rule, Kwak doesn't know enough about the subject to even be credible.

    What is it exactly that Kwak says here (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    that indicates that we need to all understand that Kwak doesn't know what Kwak is talking about?

    Parent
    That's a wonderful sentence. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:24:37 PM EST
    I think he understands it well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    I now wonder if you understand it.

    Parent
    Are you a bot? (none / 0) (#21)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    It's like I've seen this comment in a lot of guises:

    __  seems not to know  much about the __. While there may be reasons to criticize the __, __ doesn't know enough about the subject to even be credible.


    Parent
    That went over like a lead balloon (none / 0) (#1)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:05:19 AM EST
    with me when I heard about it yesterday.

    What's to stop banks from inflating the values of their assets?

    Again?

    The accounting firms (none / 0) (#7)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:28:18 AM EST
    will not allow banks to overstate the value of their assets. The accountant firms are spending a huge amount of time on these matters, and for the most part are being very conservative. If the accounting firms don't do their jobs, and the banks fail, the accounting firms will get sued.

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    Yeah right (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:42:19 PM EST
    As someone who used to sue accounting firms in securities fraud cases for a living, I can safely give this comment a big bwahaha.

    Parent
    FASB Change Makes PPIP... (none / 0) (#3)
    by santarita on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:05:21 AM EST
    more likely than not to be DOA.  Savvy investors like PIMCO know what they are willing to pay for those assets.  They are not going to buy assets that in their minds are overpriced because even if their losses are relatively small compared to taxpayer losses, they are not in the business of investing knowing that they will lose their investment.

    The FASB change will make the banks even more intransigent about their pricing of this toxic assets.  

    This to me is obviously not about (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    what investors are willing to pay for a bank's assets, it is about banks being able to be declared solvent.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:14:04 PM EST
    This is the cover for overpaying with taxpayers non-recourse loans.

    I am somewhat amazed that some of you do not see that.

    Parent

    I Tend to Agree... (none / 0) (#24)
    by santarita on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:40:13 PM EST
    with Kwak about the effect of the change on PPIP.  However, the more I read, the more I think the FASB change is minor and may actually require more disclosures and hence, transparency.  Which in turn may make it more difficult for the banks to justify their valuations or at least to make credible valuations.

    FASB rules and the explanatory comments are almost as bad as IRS code, regulations and opinions in terms of nuance and complexity.

    I see three different groups that are looking at the bank valuations of the assets:  the investment community, the regulators and politicians - the first two are much more skeptical than the last group.

    Parent

    More disclosures (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    are meaningless when what they will "disclose" is 'see, we told you they were worth more than the markets say!'

    This is all part of the Rube Goldberg contraption known as the Geithner Plan.

    Parent

    Is it not both? (none / 0) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:51:16 PM EST
    Is it not both a way to cover for over paying and a way of allow these financial institutes to create the appearance of solvency?

    I just found this interesting article about Geithner on HuffPo:

    As Crisis Loomed, Geithner

    Although Geithner repeatedly raised concerns about the failure of banks to understand their risks, including those taken through derivatives, he and the Federal Reserve system did not act with enough force to blunt the troubles that ensued [1]. That was largely because he and other regulators relied too much on assurances from senior banking executives that their firms were safe and sound, according to interviews and a review of documents by The Washington Post and the nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica.

    It is an interesting article about what government's role was in the run up to the collapse and Geithner's in his role at the NY Fed.


    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    But santarita argues that this will undercut the Geithner Plan. I think it is part and parcel of it.

    Parent
    Very Machiavellian. (none / 0) (#30)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:13:42 PM EST
    Not that I disagree.  It would explain Barney Frank's support better than the notion that the change would derail the toxic assets auction program because I don't get the sense that he is in any way at odds with Obama or Geithner on this front.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:15:59 PM EST
    Frank is on board with the Geithner Plan. He is wrong.

    He is not bad. Neither are Obama and Geithner. They are just wrong.

    Parent

    I think Geithner is ideologically (none / 0) (#32)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    impaired more than anything else.

    Parent
    Too Many Moving Parts... (none / 0) (#35)
    by santarita on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    From what I understand, the bankers, some on Wall Street and some from Congress were pushing for a revision to mark to market.  In fact a few weeks ago at a Congressional hearing, the SEC was told that if it did move to correct the mark to market that Congress would.  SEC did not bite.  FASB, apparently jumped, but how high, I am not sure.

    So I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

    I do think that there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that might have a material impact on the way we look at things.  In a way this is like trying to carry on multi-party settlement negotiations but with CNN, FOX etc looking over the shoulders of the negotiators and not quite understanding what they are hearing but reporting it kind of anyway.

    I continue to reserve judgment.  I will agree that Geithner and Obama are not taking bold and radical moves.

    Parent

    There were a few articles that (none / 0) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    suggested that the mark to market rule change would undermine Geithner's toxic assets plan because the financial institutions can value the toxic assets and hold onto them.

    BTD mentioned (none / 0) (#5)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:15:28 AM EST
    taxpayer dollars!  Stunned.  But still for bailouts and stimuli I would guess.  

    Look Everyone........... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:42:05 AM EST
    Solvent Banks!!!!!!!!!

    Passing those stress tests :) (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:49:14 AM EST
    In a position to earn their way out :)

    Parent
    BTD, I'm not sure that I follow your (none / 0) (#13)
    by coast on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:56:03 AM EST
    contention that this change will somehow cause taxpayers to pay more for these assets at auction.  Mark-to-market has absolutely nothing to do with what a buyer is willing to pay for an asset.

    Non-recourse loans do (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:12:44 PM EST
    This is cover for paying higher than market prices for "legacy assets."

    Pretty simple point I thought.

    Parent

    I guess its not so simple, please expand on (none / 0) (#22)
    by coast on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    your explanation.  I can't connect how rules related to how a company is to value items that it holds on its balance sheet has anything to do with how much some hedge fund, the government, or whomever is going to pay for a mortgaged backed security at an auction.

    Parent
    then you just do not want to (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:39:25 PM EST
    see it. Continue in your blind faith that the Geithner Plan is not another backdoor bailout for the banks.

    I really can not be clearer to you than that.

    Parent

    Exactly what from my statements has (none / 0) (#29)
    by coast on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    either indirectly or directly shown that I support Geitner's plan?  Your assumption that I do support the plan, or must because I happen question your analysis of an accounting issue, is both baseless and incorrect.  To be clear, I don't support his plan and I don't believe that your analysis on this issue is correct. IMHO.

    Parent
    My apologies then (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:23:15 PM EST
    But I can not be clearer than I am being on this.

    Parent
    No apology really necessary, but (none / 0) (#34)
    by coast on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    accepted nonetheless.  I just wanted to understand your analysis.  I will plead ignorance at this time and will try to brush up on the issue after the 15th.

    Parent