Bye Bye Mark To Market?

Speaking at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington this morning, Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee indicated that he wants to see more “flexibility” by regulators in the application of the SEC/FASB “mark to market” rule, that has forced the nation’s banks to take huge, and often unnecessary write downs on so-called “toxic assets” and brought some institutions to the brink of bankruptcy. There is even a likelihood that the changes, long sought by the financial services industry, could be applied retroactively, erasing some of the banks’ previous losses and replenishing their capital accounts.

Whether the changes will be retroactive has yet to be determined, Frank said. He said he would ask the Securities and Exchange Commission to consider a mechanism whereby banks could apply to roll back certain write-downs for some types of assets. Additionally, he said he expects the SEC to soon reinstate the uptick rule, which limits the stock market actions of “short sellers” in driving down the price of a particular stock.
Frank’s mark-to-market comments were echoed by Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan, whose agency oversees national banks. He said some of the write-downs banks have been forced to take do not reflect the true credit risks of the underlying assets and are “inappropriate.”
“I totally believe that mark-to-market accounting does not work with illiquid banking assets,” Dugan said in a speech at the same conference where Frank spoke.

At the root of the “credit crisis” are the so-called “toxic assets” mortgage-backed bonds purchased by financial institutions, who were then ordered by regulators to mark down the value of those assets on their books, often causing severe losses and ultimately eroding their capital base. What has been apparent for a long time, however, is that those bonds are worth considerably more than the discounted value at which banks have been forced to carry them.
The Obama administration has finally come up with a plan, albeit a convoluted and expensive one, to sell off those assets to private investors. And while the prospective buyers want to acquire the assets at the lowest price possible, the current holders, the banks, know all too will that those bonds, held to maturity, are worth far more than the discounted value at which they’re now carried.
With mortgage delinquencies running at 8% of the total outstanding, there is no realistic justification for marking down a portfolio of MBS to between $.10 and $.25 on the dollar. So while it may be difficult enough to find willing buyers, given the Democrats’ recent witless tantrums of ex post facto belligerence, it may be every bit as hard to get the banks to part with the “toxic assets” at the government mandated price.
The answer is to modify the mark to market rule, and allow the banks holding these assets to mark them back up to a more reasonable value, recouping some of their earlier capital losses in the process.
Barney Frank is hardly a friend of free market capitalism, and the coordinated addressing of the problem by both Frank and Dugan tells us that this isn’t Frank’s own idea by any means. But it does indicate that there may actually be a grownup or two on the Obama finance and economics team… a small ray of light at the end of a tunnel made longer, and darker, by Geithner, Dodd, and the rest of the Democrats’ financial illiterati.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array Bat One

    jpe,

    There are some purchases going on (see here), at least of the mortgages themselves.

    But the securities are so much harder to value than the underlying mortgages because they are bundled, and the unwinding process is tedious and difficult. Besides, as the banks have already been constrained to take the write downs, they probably aren’t in much of a hurry to sell, given the enormous discounts from what they too perceive as the securities’ real value.

    Finally, there is the question of the rules themselves. As we saw with the AIG bonuses brouhaha, Congressional Democrats are all too willing to abrogate rules and contracts on an ex post facto basis, hardly the sort of situation that encourages new financial initiatives. I think until all the rules are well established and all parties are comfortable that rules and contracts are actually going to be honored, there will be very little such investments.

  • http://northerngleaner.blogspot.com/ Gene

    Actually Mark to Market is a problem. We need to have proper valuations and analysis of that valuation.

    Mark to Market was a response to Enron and it went too far.

    I’m glad it’s going away.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    Barney Frank the Circus clown on telling us how to screw up our country even more.

  • SigFan

    This is a great example of how ill-informed most of us are. This accounting trick called mark-to-market has been largely (but not entirely) to blame for the devaluation of bank assets. The problem is that I would venture to guess that less 10% of the average citizenry understands how this works, much less gives a rip. Most people hear something like this term, or any other they either don’t understand or don’t care to take the time to understand, and it goes in one ear and out the other. To most people this is little more than the white noise in an office. If in fact they get rid of this, which they should have ages ago, it will have a significant positive impact on bank holdings, which is a good thing for everyone.

  • http://www.rabidamerican.net/ Rabid American

    It’s good to know who really holds the purse-strings…

  • jpe

    With mortgage delinquencies running at 8% of the total outstanding, there is no realistic justification for marking down a portfolio of MBS to between $.10 and $.25 on the dollar.

    Why isn’t anyone buying them, then? Especially in this bear market, one would think that someone would purchase the assets if they thought there was a killing to be made (private equity fund Lone Star made the last significant purchase from Morgan Stanley for around 15 cents on the dollar, but that purchase was financed and and losses indemnified by the seller)

  • Bat One

    SigFan,

    Sadly, you’re probably right about the public being under informed. But what’s absolutely crucial is the leverage factor.

    Those “toxic assets” were only listed as “troubled” before mark to market was imposed. But if ABC bank had $1000 in capital and was allowed to lend out 100% of its capital (simplistic example, I know.) it would have $1000 in loans outstanding and be in compliance.

    Now suppose that half its capital ($500) is marked down on its books to half its original book value. The capital account now stands at $750, while the bank still has $1000 worth of loans on its books and is technically out of regulatory compliance, 33% over its limit.

    Its a poor example, but it illustrates why so many banks and other financial institutions are credit constipated, no matter how much liquidity the Fed pours into the economy, and why removing those “toxic assets” is absolutely crucial. Do that, and the recession is all but over.

  • docdave

    That’s hillarious if not also depressing – The Dems suggesting that they might be willing to clean up the financial mess they helped create.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development