dmh00000

The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board ((FASB)) will discuss mark-to-market guidelines at a board meeting Monday. The FASB says it will focus on "additional application guidance that would clarify how mark to market is used in illiquid markets." Earlier today, FASB chairman Robert Herz told a House subcommittee that new rules could be implemented within three weeks.

Wall Street Wizard, Ok, I partly see the error of my ways but not entirely :-) For accounting (solvency) purposes one model or another has to be chosen. I'm ok with the less conservative model here as it will keep more companies solvent.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to require a view on the financial statements of both. By requiring companies to provide both Mark to Market and either Mark to Model or some other PV calculation, you're giving investors the opportunity to manage risk tolerance. Some conservative investors may choose to invest in companies where the Mark to Market and Mark to Model value variances (MMMMVV) are quite low. Others may see greater risk and opportunity in the companies with higher variances. Unquestionably, the risk adjusted present values of high and low MMMMVVs should not be the same. Investors should be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to invest in high or low MMMMVV companies.

I believe my solution provides that.