01 Oct 2008
Banks have no alternative to fair value accounting, a leading standards expert has said, after US congressmen proposed suspending the controversial ‘mark-to-market’ rules as they struck down the US government’s $700bn (£370bn) bailout.
As the world lurched towards a global financial crisis, experts also claimed
that the issues on Wall Street had damaged the chances of IFRS being taken up in
the US.
US politicians this week made clear their distaste for the mark-to-market rules.
Republican critics of Hank Paulson’s $700bn bailout for Wall Street said that it would have been better to suspend fair value.
Tory shadow chancellor George Osborne this week echoed the view with a call for a three month suspension of mark-to-market. The Tories say the assets should be valued according to what the banks ‘expect to get out of them over the long term’.
The Republican study committee said it would be better to mark assets to their ‘true economic value’ rather than according to values derived from a ‘short term mania’. The committee, headed up by Texas representative Jeb Hensarling, is trying to push through a bill suspending mark-to-market accounting.
The proposal has brought the contest over fair value accounting to the forefront of global debates on resolving the financial crisis. But experts say there is no alternative.
‘I can’t really see what alternative you’ve got,’ said Ken Wild IFRS leader at Deloitte.
‘Mark-to-market has taken some flak in recent weeks, but there is an element of “shoot the messenger” in all of this. 15 years ago, everything was done at historical cost. Saying, “let’s just use averages” for example strikes me as a bit of a nonsense. Accounts are meant to be objective.’
Peter Wyman of PricewaterhouseCoopers said the move would reduce comparability between banks.
JP Morgan also said this week that the move would entail ‘shooting the messenger’, while Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has said any such plan would actually damage investor confidence rather than the other way around.
The spectacular events of the last few weeks could have also dealt a blow to IFRS convergence, some are arguing. ‘It was probably not very prudent to think that [IFRS] could be adopted in such a swift way,’ said a research fellow from the Bruegel institute, a Brussels-based think tank.
A source close to the IASB said they understood there were distractions from IFRS in the current climate, but the board has no evidence of a re-evaluation.
If the Republican bill is pushed through, the SEC will also have to submit an exhaustive report on mark-to-market accounting within 90 days of the bill becoming law.
You may also like
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
Visitor comments Add your comment
What is the right value
I agree that it is very unfair to blame fair value accounting on the credit crisis. It seems that "if in doubt blame the accountants". You should not shoot the messenger!
Even if we were to go to some system of historical or smoothed values financial statement users would still want to know the current "fair values".Who is fooling who? We had enough of this type of thing in the past in Canada (the "old"days), smoothing FX gains and losses on long term debt for example. (Don't you know fx goes up and down - today up tomorrow down - why worry?) Thank heaven that we no longer use such accounting methods. How can changing the way you keep score help restore confidence? What happens if a financial institution does go broke and assets are overvalued?
Other points:
Fair values are essential to evaluate management performance and for any reward system.If you want to get credit for increases in value you must also be responsible for losses (the consequences of risk taking).
If governments are to buy distressed/toxic assets why would they pay more than the current fair value?
Posted by: Darla Sycamore ("The IFRS Exorcist"), 02 Oct 2008 | 00:00
Mark to market a distortion
If a bank has my mortgage as an asset worth, say, £150000 on the basis that I will pay my mortgage it might be valued at zero just now because no-one will buy it at present.
Surely, if the bank does not need to sell the asset now then zero is the wrong value and screws up the balance sheet to no good purpose.
Posted by: ian, 02 Oct 2008 | 00:00
Fair Value Accounting
Fair value accounting has a lot to answer for as it is based on fantasy and is wholly misleading. The problem primarily arises where there is no real market for a particular asset, so the number used is a guesstimate. Where the fair value definition (market value for a transaction between two willing parties) cannot be met, then historical cost, rather than a guesstimate should be used. In any event, unrealised profits/(losses) should never go into the Income Statement, unless genuine 'fair value' falls below historical cost (which after all is a real, rather than made up figure).
Posted by: Malcolm Howard, 03 Oct 2008 | 00:00