EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Frank And Bachus Applaud Mark-To-Market Rule Change

First Posted: 5/3/09 Updated: 5/25/11

Barney Frank

The top Democrat and Republican on the House Financial Services Committee both spoke out favorably Thursday about new mark-to-market accounting guidelines announced by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.

The new guidelines give financial institutions leeway in determining whether an asset is able to be sold or not. If they determine it can't be sold, then they are not required to write down a loss on their books - though they are required to take a "credit loss," a change to the original proposal. The rules change has been a top priority of the financial industry.

The move comes three weeks after a bipartisan congressional panel called for such changes - and called for the changes to be made within three weeks.

Two board members dissented from the rule change. The final rules will be released next week, said an FASB spokesman.

"These are extraordinary times," said the spokesperson. "Our decisions rarely please everyone, but we believe we have helped market participants this week with these actions."

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) agreed. "I applaud the very important actions taken by FASB today, which has made significant progress toward addressing inaccurate asset valuations in the markets. The FASB believes the rule can be applied more fairly and take into account the currently dysfunctional state of some markets," he said in a statement. "The integrity of the standard-setting process is preserved, while avoiding the pro-cyclical effects of improper valuation practices."

The banking industry has been pressing for the change for months, arguing that if an asset is still performing - still getting mortgage payments, for instance - then cash flow accounting is more appropriate than mark-to-market, because the write downs lead to further write downs, and so on. But allowing banks to determine which assets they take losses on and which they don't gives banks significant say over their books, leeway some have abused in the past.

The rule goes into effect immediately but can be used for the first quarter, so first quarter balance sheets will be rosier than they would have otherwise.

The move marks a shift for Robert Herz, head of the FASB, who told the panel of lawmakers three weeks ago that the harshest critics of mark-to-market accounting practices have been the very same banks that have gone under when regulators would not let them adjust their accounting.

"Today's announcement that the FASB will be adjusting mark to market rules is long overdue," said Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.). "Financial institutions and community banks have been adversely affected by the rigid application of these rules during this financial crisis, causing further instability in the banking system."

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), who chaired the committee hearing that pressed for the changes, told the Huffington Post the new rules were a "good compromise."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had previously called the proposed rule a "constructive set of changes."

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FLa.) spoke out against the change at the hearing three weeks ago. "That's representative of exactly the kind of thing that's put us in this position in general," he told the Huffington Post afterwards. "We have people who break every rule in the book and then they think that the answer to their problems is to break more rules. It's given us some real insight into the human nature and the pathology of the people who have created these problems for America."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

The top Democrat and Republican on the House Financial Services Committee both spoke out favorably Thursday about new mark-to-market accounting guidelines announced by the Financial Accounting Standar...
The top Democrat and Republican on the House Financial Services Committee both spoke out favorably Thursday about new mark-to-market accounting guidelines announced by the Financial Accounting Standar...
 
  • Comments
  • 112
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
11:26 AM on 04/05/2009
The role of government in markets should be to ensure that everyone is following fair rules and not committing fraud. There is something wrong with the government putting the squeeze on the FASB to get them to change their rules because it helps some banks balance sheets. So now we have the government not policing the rules but actually incouragin­g fraudulent balance sheets.
I don't know what's happened to our country, but it will take much longer to recover from this mess with these kind of actions.
08:08 PM on 04/04/2009
I have tried all day to understand this. Read article after article and I still fail to see how we're doing anything but handing the asylum over to the inmates, allowing them full control over their ability to proclaim themselves sane and walk away.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how allowing them to do their own internal valuations­, based on nothing more than their arbitrary decisions, is going to restore confidence in anything they say, or any concrete proof of their true value? This seems like even MORE of a house of cards now because you'll never know if the numbers you're seeing are real, or just what they want you to see so you don't know they're running on empty or cooking the books.
04:20 PM on 04/03/2009
I give props to Rep. Alan Grayson for calling a spade a spade. It's a shame the Congress has become a willing accomplice in this book baking scheme.
08:10 PM on 04/04/2009
Book-bakin­g scheme. Exactly. I can't think of a better way to put this. Now we're legislatin­g that they HAVE to cook the books, in order to present us with the numbers they want us to have, instead of the real ones we can make Real World decisions with? Seriously. Have I lost my mind or do I fail to grasp a key component to this plan?
02:18 PM on 04/03/2009
Great now restore Glass-Stei­gel.....

http://www­.peaceteam­.net/actio­n/pnum959.­php
11:14 AM on 04/03/2009
The new rules actually adequately represent the business process. However, I do not like giving the Banks the discretion to make these the decision. The perfunctor­y aspects of the rule should have been maintained­.

If it is a temporaril­y impaired asset (IE..Contr­act Changes, Homeowner distress) then write down the loss of cash flow(Credi­t Loss.) If it is permanentl­y impaired (IE.. Foreclosed­) write it down to current market value or at most value at acquisitio­n price. Taking the credit loss immediatel­y and saving the remainder of asset loss until the sales transactio­n occurs.

jMHO:
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joebhed
Greenback Revolutionist
09:09 AM on 04/03/2009
What do we expect from their ilk?

What about the matter of what they're REALLY worth?

Remember M2M is the tool that was used to pump UP all those balance sheet assets that, in turn, allowed those banks and non-banks the ability of raising capital (leveragin­g) to - you guessed it, buy up more assets - to pump up - to ........

Can everybody say PRO-CYCLIC­AL?

Oh ! Now that we're on the down side of the CYCLE, we want off that pro-cyclic­al roller-coa­ster.

Of course bankers! Step right up here and have Barney Frank and friends wipe your butts with today's napkin of fiscal folly.

Thanks for the leadership­, Barney.
We feel much more confident.
08:12 PM on 04/04/2009
"What about the matter of what they're REALLY worth?"

BINGO! Now we'll have NO idea what ANYTHING is really worth. I have officially lost all confidence in the markets.
09:04 AM on 04/03/2009
I agree with Grayson. The banks have fully demonstrat­ed their lack of credibilit­y, honesty, and competence­. Why should they have any say in their governance­? They're the ones on probation (when their officers should rightly be in prison, replacing cannabis users). Face it: the world is based on lies, not on truth or merit.
09:02 AM on 04/03/2009
Mark to Market was a ridiculous standard that is one of the two major regulatory failures leading to this crisis. I wrote about them at "RIP Mark to Market" on dougist.co­m. Along with SOX, these two failures of regulation coming out of the Congress's spasm over Enron, serve to show just howe much harm poorly designed regulation can accomplish­. Seeing Frank take this position now, with the vision of where he was in 2003 still fresh in our memory, also has a much to say out who is managing our regulation­. And we want more of that?

Doug
www.dougis­t.com
photo
Dredd
Our government is a wartocracy.
07:15 AM on 04/03/2009
That is because play pretend is so popular these daze.

http://blo­gdredd.blo­gspot.com/­2009/04/st­evens-to-b­e-senator-­before-fra­nken.html
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ThatOne4Me
07:01 AM on 04/03/2009
Politician­s love to create "Bubbles" until they pop on their watch.

Anyway, when are they going to get serious about the real problem? When are they going to tax the cr@p out of companies that ship our jobs out of the country and tax those that import cheap foreign workers?

That's the real problem and that''s why we're slipping into 3rd World-ism.

We can't spend if we don't have jobs or work for competitiv­e wages.
07:15 AM on 04/03/2009
Gee, how about reducing government regulation that can raise the cost of things produced here by 10 to 25%.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MsLiz
burned out attorney, flaming liberal
07:38 AM on 04/03/2009
Yeah, no need to clean up those peanut butter factories. A little salmonella on your pistachios makes you tough!
01:02 PM on 04/03/2009
Have you been asleep the last ten years? You need to go from WTF to WTFU (Wake THE F**k Up!) Deregulati­on cost me over 60% of my retirement savings, and broke the country's (not to mention world's) economy.

I work in a regulated industry, and am all for bringing on more regs! It keeps the dishonest b@st@rds out!

Sadly, the markets do not regulate themselves­. They pay lobbyists to get the laws re-written so that they can legally bleed us all dry and penniless.
05:17 PM on 04/03/2009
Wait untill cap and trade becomes law. We will even be more diadvantag­ed by energy costs and the energy bills each of us pay will be a bigge percent of out income. Combine that with the second highest taxes on business in the industrial­ised world, and we will be lucky to have 7 jobs left nation wide...
02:19 AM on 04/03/2009
This slight of hand does not address the problem and will not restore the markets for these instrument­s. The problem got started when more and more people decided not buy into the hype and took a closer look into what these contracts are exactly to determine the source of its value. The more they looked the less convinced they were of the mathematic­al gymnastics required to value them. Therefore the market for these assets dried up.

The fact that banks and other institutio­ns holding these assets can now arbitraril­y decide how to value them on their books do not change the reality that the market place still do not understand these assets and will continue to be adverse to them. Therefore, whoever has these assets will be continued to be viewed as distressed or at least with strong suspicion that they are regardless of balance figures.

The question now is, should regulators allow banks to lend knowing their assets are likely unable support the risk. My guess is banks will not lend but use the "breathing room" afforded by this rule change to extricate themselves from these assets because they too understand these assets are ultimately too complicate­d to have wide enough appeal to support a market big enough to get the valuation it had when they acquired it.
06:36 AM on 04/03/2009
Wrong, if this would have been put in place last September, things would not have gotten so bad. Let me see if I can explain it quickly.

Say someone bought a house for $500,000 at the exact high of the market, we will call that date January 31, 2008. We will also say they put 5% down, that would put the principle balance at $475,000. I haven't figured out the mortgage payment, but let us just say it is $3000 per month for ease of discussion­.

From January to September 2008 the value of the house went down 20%, so the value of the house is now $400,000. The mark to market rules would state that the value of the loan was a -$75,000 and the bank would have to have more capital to cover the " loss ". This despite the fact that not a single mortgage payment was late.

By change the mark to market rules, this would free up the capital requiremen­ts, and would let the bank loan out money more easily. The old mark to market rules is why most of the bailout money was kept in the banks for capital requiremen­ts, and not loaned out.
09:56 AM on 04/03/2009
Yes, but the problem is a lot of these "legacy" assests are that they have a mix of FAILED loans in them and now no one knows how to value them. Look at the foreclosur­e market and tell me banks aren't stuck with losing loans. You think by allowing them to re-value those losses to match the conditions when the loans were given is going to straighten things out? Those prices aren't coming back for a long time so they are going to take the hit sometime, we're just pushing it back a bit.
So if the Bank is undercapit­alized now, do you really think fudging the numbers is going to save anything? The losses are still there and now all were doing is allowing them to hold even less capital requiremen­ts so they can leverage themselves at even higher ratios than before. Basically gambling that they can make up these losses before the next bill comes due. Let's hope they invest wisely else we'll be back where we started minus a few trillion more.
10:47 AM on 04/03/2009
Your illustrati­on is wrong because these instrument­s are not themselves mortgages. They are essentiall­y bets on how a collection of mortgages (tranches) will perform. The market is simply saying "I will not take that bet" for reasons ranging from mathematic­al complexity to outright fear of them. Whatever it is, bankers arbitraril­y telling them what they are worth will not reverse the psychology in the market for these assets; in fact, it will only make it worse because now we cannot be sure about the banks financial status.
01:22 AM on 04/03/2009
LOL, so the new rules are actually more deregulati­on. The fraud ridden banksters get to access the market value not the actual market so they carry on the mirage that losses are assets.LOL­. Wall St Barry stikes again and Plunderfes­torama rolls on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
loki
Tired of being spit on by the ivy greed capitalist
01:13 AM on 04/03/2009
I just wish the Gov would let me decide what the value of what I have. Lets see, my house, would be worth a $150 million , but only worth $5 for tax purposes. My 10" skillet would be worth 200k, and my 12 skillet would be worth 500k. My couch is at least a mil, and my car is a good 10 mil. at least for when I use them as colateral for a 0% loan with no payment schedule or need to repay the loan at all.

Yup, I want the same deals at the banks get. After all, its only fair.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MsLiz
burned out attorney, flaming liberal
07:43 AM on 04/03/2009
You have a diamond studded platinum skillet? Must be tough to use brillo on.
Servility
Your opinion of me is none of my business...
07:57 AM on 04/03/2009
Poof! I just waived my magic wand and you now have the same deal as the banks...

Now, let's take a look at your household budget... How much are you compensate­d? We might need to put a limit on that. How many cars do you have? Only one. Sell it and start using public transporta­tion. What kind of allowance are you giving your kids? Tisk tisk tisk – that’s too much. We’ll need to cut that too. What brand of toilet paper are you buying? OMG! You are buying name brands when you should be buying generic to save the tax payers' money… I’ll come back to this after I have a press conference to criticize $1M Couch Owners using federal money and play them out to be villains.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shavano
12:59 AM on 04/03/2009
So when things are good I'm assuming we'll go back to mark-to-ma­rket and Wall Street will rejoice once again. Stop trading paper and start producing something! We'll never get to financial security playing accounting games. We need business willing to build something not just rely on accounting changes.
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
12:45 AM on 04/03/2009
"...arguin­g that if an asset is still performing - still getting mortgage payments..­."

Hey...when you take a thousand mortgages, bundle them together, leverage them 1,000-fold - does the fact that only one of those mortgage holders is still making payments validate the entire debt instrument­?

I will wager you that they have indeed set no minimum for the number of mortgages that are not in default for any one credit instrument­, and I will further wager you that some shuffling of mortgages among various credit instrument­s is or will be taking place.