By Chase Nerison and Harrison Heaton
Marked-to-market accounting is a method of measuring fair value. Since the fair value of assets and liabilities fluctuates over time, the numbers constantly change as well, affecting the balance sheet. Though this method attempts to produce a realistic appraisal of a company’s financial situation, being based on current market conditions can create issues. This problem was exposed through the 2008 financial crisis. Despite some saying marked-to-market accounting caused the crisis, this does not mean it should be completely abandoned.
There are positives and negatives to this style of accounting. Marked-to-market accounting presents a more accurate picture of the company’s current value of assets and liabilities. This style is contrasted by historical cost accounting, which uses the price paid for the asset or similar past transactions. Cost accounting is easier and more stable, but it does not always represent the current market value. The main issue with marked-to-market accounting is how assets’ true value is represented during unfavorable or volatile times. Additionally, the fair value of an asset with low liquidity might be higher than the current selling price. These were shown in the 2008 financial crisis.
In late 2007, marked-to-market accounting was mandated. Banks were forced to value their assets, especially illiquid assets. With volatile conditions, this caused major issues for banks. Though overinflated home prices and questionable lending were prevalent, these were not the deciding factors. The tipping point was the new FAS-157 marked-to-market accounting rule implemented by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. That rule change made valuing illiquid securities like credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities very difficult. Consequently, some banks became bankrupt such as Lehman Brothers.
These accounting rules forced banks to write off losses before they occur. As displayed by the crisis, the price of many securitized mortgage pools is below their value due to the cash flows. As banks take artificial hits, this affects their growth and can make the markets less liquid. As further problems arose and more banks failed, the government bailouts drove prices down even further.
In response to the chaos of FAS-157 and the bankruptcy of the fourth-largest US investment bank, the stock market took a deep dive as shown by the graph below. The one-day drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average of 4.5% was the largest decline since the September 11th attacks in 2001. As trillions of wealth somehow disappear, the worst global financial crisis since the great depression occurred.
After this crisis unfolded, the FASB modified the marked-to-market rules to provide more leniency to valuing assets under FAS-157 on March 16, 2009. Despite the global financial system still in shock, the stock market bottomed shortly after the modification and the recession ended. After marked-to-market accounting was suspended in 1938 to prevent another depression, many wonder the need to implement the rule again in 2007. Thankfully, the rules have changed.
Conclusively, marked-to-market accounting has many pros and cons. It was a significant cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Though this method measures fair value, its subjectivity to volatility and illiquidity hinder its effectiveness. Thankfully, the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised the rule in 2009 to hopefully prevent a similar future financial crisis.
Works Cited
Halbert, G. (2018, September 18). Did "Mark-To-Market" Rules Cause The Financial Crisis? Advisor Perspectives. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2018/09/18/did-mark-to-market-rules-cause-the-financial-crisis.
Tuovila, A. (2021, August 22). Mark to market Accounting. Investopedia. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marktomarket.asp.
Comments