Obama's TARP 2 Signals an End to Mark to Market [View article]
seems you could have a sort of moving average type mark to market to smooth out the excesses whether up or down.
On Jan 15 12:41 AM johngonole wrote:
> With all the great comments here I can't believe I still get to make > this suggestion. Keep in mind I don't know what the current accounting > rules are regarding mark to market but bear with me anyway. First > we must have mark to market accounting otherwise the markets, investors, > speculator, and even management of companies will have no idea how > good or bad their company's financial condition is. Without mark > to market accounting we might as well torpedo the economy now. Who > should get a loan, etc... The structural problems with this type > of or lack of accounting are endless. > > The problem with mark to market accounting is that sometimes markets > are irrational or inefficient due to liquidity or lack of information. > The solution is obvious. Depending on what type of security is being > held one uses the long term beta (a measure of volatility) to adjust > the market value of the asset based on a moving average. The more > volitile the term beta of underlining asset the shorter the moving > average used to price the asset. For example a stock with a beta > of 2 would basically have to be marked to market at the current trading > price. However a stock with a beta of 0.5 might be allowed to be > marked to market with a 360 day moving average. > > In the current mortgage situation I heard of some mortgage backed > securities being priced at 9 cents on the dollar mainly due to the > lack of demand when fear was at a fevered pitch. This instant mark > to market destroyed financial institution balance sheets causing > everyone to unload these types of assets at the same time. This > caused prices to plunge further setting off a devestating chain reaction. > Now if mortgage values were priced using a 2 year moving average > then the downward spiral would have never happened to the degree > it just did. Likewise banks couldn't have written up the value of > their securities as fast as they did. The point is that we need > to eliminate the potential for illiquid markets to force companies > to write off investments that everyone knows are worth more than > they are in the long term. > > If I plan on holding a 30 year mortgage security backed by someone > with excellent credit who has been steady in making payments for > 20 years and has plenty of equity does it make sense that the security > should have to be written down because of speculative forces in the > security marekets. > > I just think there can be some commen sense written into the mark > to market accounting rules to reduce volitility of company balance > sheets thus allowing for the markets in whole to adjust to realities > gradually. >
The Bear Reaches Out for Commodities [View article]
Dux said it. Those Chinese and Indians and South Americans and Mexicans and so on and so forth are all going to want the same things we have. How will they be made and how will they run after there made. Pickens said we need bridges to gap the switch from fossil fuels to solar and wind and God knows what. Well those bridges will be needed for a good 10 more years, at least.
Manitowoc Offers Investors Growth at a Discount [View article]
Your comparisons with TEREX are weak and have no basis in fact. TEREX is also way undervalued. In my opinion the comparisons to make your point would have been better vs Deere or CAT
LDK Solar: Material Discrepancies in Analyst Coverage/Media Reporting [View article]
When Barrons and others raise questions on accounting issues with LDK should they also be in contact with the KPMG Global Code of Conduct they must know that they can confidentially report any hint of shoddy accounting via the KPMG International Hotline.
Sort by:
Latest | Highest ratedObama's TARP 2 Signals an End to Mark to Market [View article]
On Jan 15 12:41 AM johngonole wrote:
> With all the great comments here I can't believe I still get to make
> this suggestion. Keep in mind I don't know what the current accounting
> rules are regarding mark to market but bear with me anyway. First
> we must have mark to market accounting otherwise the markets, investors,
> speculator, and even management of companies will have no idea how
> good or bad their company's financial condition is. Without mark
> to market accounting we might as well torpedo the economy now. Who
> should get a loan, etc... The structural problems with this type
> of or lack of accounting are endless.
>
> The problem with mark to market accounting is that sometimes markets
> are irrational or inefficient due to liquidity or lack of information.
> The solution is obvious. Depending on what type of security is being
> held one uses the long term beta (a measure of volatility) to adjust
> the market value of the asset based on a moving average. The more
> volitile the term beta of underlining asset the shorter the moving
> average used to price the asset. For example a stock with a beta
> of 2 would basically have to be marked to market at the current trading
> price. However a stock with a beta of 0.5 might be allowed to be
> marked to market with a 360 day moving average.
>
> In the current mortgage situation I heard of some mortgage backed
> securities being priced at 9 cents on the dollar mainly due to the
> lack of demand when fear was at a fevered pitch. This instant mark
> to market destroyed financial institution balance sheets causing
> everyone to unload these types of assets at the same time. This
> caused prices to plunge further setting off a devestating chain reaction.
> Now if mortgage values were priced using a 2 year moving average
> then the downward spiral would have never happened to the degree
> it just did. Likewise banks couldn't have written up the value of
> their securities as fast as they did. The point is that we need
> to eliminate the potential for illiquid markets to force companies
> to write off investments that everyone knows are worth more than
> they are in the long term.
>
> If I plan on holding a 30 year mortgage security backed by someone
> with excellent credit who has been steady in making payments for
> 20 years and has plenty of equity does it make sense that the security
> should have to be written down because of speculative forces in the
> security marekets.
>
> I just think there can be some commen sense written into the mark
> to market accounting rules to reduce volitility of company balance
> sheets thus allowing for the markets in whole to adjust to realities
> gradually.
>
Of Guarantees and Printing Presses [View article]
The Short Case on KBH Homes [View article]
Ambac Collapse: Anticlimax of the Week [View article]
Rating agencies vs analysts ratings compare and contrast...discuss
3 Dividend ETFs That Are Resisting the Bear [View article]
Reevaluating Coal [View article]
whats all the talk about 20 and 50 P/E's ?
China Digital TV Issues Guidance 'Disaster' [View article]
You are long STV ?
The Bear Reaches Out for Commodities [View article]
Pickens said we need bridges to gap the switch from fossil fuels to solar and wind and God knows what. Well those bridges will be needed for a good 10 more years, at least.
Manitowoc Offers Investors Growth at a Discount [View article]
China Digital TV: Red Flag Warning? [View article]
Solar Again Under Attack [View article]
LDK Solar: Material Discrepancies in Analyst Coverage/Media Reporting [View article]
Sunrise or Sunset for LDK Solar? [View article]