Obama Policy on Mark-to-Market: A Hint?

There is a lot of interest in policy initiatives from the Obama Administration.  Circumstances have changed the prospects for many of the ideas mentioned in the campaign.  Investors should be watching what policies can be changed very quickly.  We are monitoring the first 100 days at ElectionStocks.com, where we focus on how politics and public policy affect stocks.

Various observers have labeled a change in the mark-to-market accounting rules as the biggest immediate action affecting stocks.  My RealMoney colleague Jason Schwarz thinks that a change is imminent.  New rules could preserve visibility for investors in the individual stocks, while providing relief in the calculation of required regulatory capital.  Regular readers know that we share this viewpoint.

We believe that neither the TARP method of adding capital, nor the quest for private investment, can work until and unless we stop the death spiral.  The marks are exacerbating and continuing the problem in a pro-cyclical fashion.

Whether or not an investor agrees with the correctness of the current policy, it is wise to have a healthy interest in the prospects for change.  We have been looking for hints on this subject from anyone in the Obama administration.  Since the SEC has authority over FASB in setting accounting rules, the confirmation hearings for Obama's nominee as SEC chair, Mary Schapiro, promised to be a useful source.  Some of the questions and responses were in written form.  Below is her response to a question from Sen. Carl Levin (D, Mich).

10. The SEC recently issued a report supporting the existing mark-to-market valuation rules, but recommending some improvements. What is your view of the current mark-to-market valuation rules?

Response: We know that certain banks were not presenting investors with the full picture of their financial health, utilizing off-balance sheet vehicles and other accounting methods. This was a disservice to investors as the integrity of the numbers is critical to their making smart investment decisions and to the smooth functioning of our markets. While there are a lot of different views on whether mark-to-market accounting contributed to this crisis, my personal view is that it was not a significant factor. As Chair, I will read the recent SEC report on this matter fully, talk with other regulators, and get their views as we move forward.

Conclusion

She promises to consider the evidence with an open mind.  There is no suggestion that this has been an important topic for the transition team or that change is imminent.  Readers can get the full text of the written questions and responses from both Schapiro and Tim Geithner at Sen. Levin's site.

You may also like

4 comments

  • Fred January 24, 2009  

    Jeff…curious as to whether you think MTM contributed to this mess? I was actually reading something the other day (and I am no accounting historian so no idea of the accuracy) that said there was a version of MTM during the depression and that it was repealed near the end of it. Personally, I think the disclosure benefits can be achieved through the creation of an audited statement that provides detailed cost and market information but there is no need to move temporary asset fluctuations to the income statement.

  • nullpointer January 25, 2009  

    dont like the rules?
    no problem, just change them!
    the problems will all go away, if we just pretend they dont exist!
    good luck with that.

  • Jeff Miller January 25, 2009  

    Fred – many wise observers have shown how we can have plenty of visibility concerning the holdings of individual companies without subtracting from regulatory capital. Former FDIC head William Isaac has pointed out that if these rules had been in place in the 80’s, the entire banking system would have collapsed due to marks on Latin American debt.
    Nullpointer’s viewpoint holds sway right now. It has a sassy sound that most find convincing. The critics of mark-to-market are not ostriches trying to ignore problems. I find their analysis to be much more detailed, insightful, and persuasive than those making glib and stupid analogies about “blaming the doctor or the thermometer’ or whatever.
    Meanwhile, others believe that the correct valuation for an asset is whatever you can get in a forced sale into an illiquid market. They see that as an appropriate valuation, something to be forced on every other financial institution. It does not matter if the underlying loans are performing.
    Thanks to both of you for joining in. We have not yet heard the end of this topic.
    Jeff

  • dougrroyce February 4, 2009  

    evidence is everywhere that MTM is a total catastrophy. I DON’T KNOW WHY WE ALL WANT TO GO DOWN WITH THE TITANIC TO KEEP THESE INEPT RULES THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY PROVEN TO DAMAGE OUR ECONOMY.
    http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/11/market-value-accounting-crippl/
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aeaJxuGtTSbc&refer=home
    http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/01/27/a-bold-new-plan-dump-fas-157.aspx