It's like what they did with the consumer price index, cooking the books until we looked reasonably prosperous.
I wonder if the bank will let it work that way for everyone. See, I have this ongoing project. My partners and I had wanted to ask for more money on it by this point in time. But, with the economy the way it is, we haven't gotten all the advertisers we want, so, we haven't approached the clients yet for that extra cash. Maybe I should just tell the bank that I really ought to have an extra few hundred in my bank every month, so, can they just push my personal assets up to where I say they *should* be?
They can't just SAY that the assets is worth X. They have to have proof of thier estimate and their auditor has to sign off on it.
That being said... would it make sense to write down an asset that is just temporarily impaired? If the rest of the assets that a company has is not based on what it would sell for *right now* but rather the expected cash flow over a series of time... and discounted to present day dollars... why would we then say mortgage assets are different and make them mark to market.
And not only that, but what happens when that house comes back? Will they get another adjustment to bring that asset back up? Nope. It seems to me that marking an asset to market is in fact causing more harm then good and I agree that it should be changed to a different approach.
Yes, they get to use mathematical flow models and other methods to justify their write-ups or write-downs. But is that realistic? Home prices are still historically too far ABOVE the long-term historical home price trend-line, far ABOVE the income/affordability trend-line, and far ABOVE the rent trend-line.
I'm very ware of letting them use their own mathematical flow models to value their own assets. We got a big dose of what that can do with the derivatives and credit default swaps. If I recall correctly, there were quite a few institutions that pushed to use "mark-to-market" back when home prices were super-inflated, in order to have more assets, in order to show higher reserves, in order to make more loans.
I just wanted to say, as you actually work in the area and I only have an accounting degree but I don't have the background or experience to fully understand FAS 157 and the recent changes to mark-to-market rules... that while I'm still very concerned that banks are now reporting profits partially because of the new mark-to-market rules, I do want to acknowledge that you do have a point and you may very well be right.
Comments 9
This shit is so ridiculous.
It's like what they did with the consumer price index, cooking the books until we looked reasonably prosperous.
I wonder if the bank will let it work that way for everyone. See, I have this ongoing project. My partners and I had wanted to ask for more money on it by this point in time. But, with the economy the way it is, we haven't gotten all the advertisers we want, so, we haven't approached the clients yet for that extra cash. Maybe I should just tell the bank that I really ought to have an extra few hundred in my bank every month, so, can they just push my personal assets up to where I say they *should* be?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
That being said... would it make sense to write down an asset that is just temporarily impaired? If the rest of the assets that a company has is not based on what it would sell for *right now* but rather the expected cash flow over a series of time... and discounted to present day dollars... why would we then say mortgage assets are different and make them mark to market.
And not only that, but what happens when that house comes back? Will they get another adjustment to bring that asset back up? Nope. It seems to me that marking an asset to market is in fact causing more harm then good and I agree that it should be changed to a different approach.
Reply
I'm very ware of letting them use their own mathematical flow models to value their own assets. We got a big dose of what that can do with the derivatives and credit default swaps. If I recall correctly, there were quite a few institutions that pushed to use "mark-to-market" back when home prices were super-inflated, in order to have more assets, in order to show higher reserves, in order to make more loans.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment