Do Accounting Rules Matter? The Dangerous Allure of Mark to Market

R. Epstein, M. Henderson
{"title":"Do Accounting Rules Matter? The Dangerous Allure of Mark to Market","authors":"R. Epstein, M. Henderson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1385382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the relative strength of two imperfect accounting rules: historical cost and mark to market. The manifest inaccuracy of historical cost is well known, and, paradoxically one source of its hidden strength. Because private parties know of its evident weaknesses they look elsewhere for information. In contrast, mark to market for hard-to-value assets has many hidden weaknesses. In this paper we show how it creates asset bubbles and exacerbate their negative collateral consequences once they burst. It does the former by allowing banks to adopt generous valuations in up-markets that increase their lending capacity. It does the latter by forcing the hand of counterparties to demand collateral even when watchful waiting and inaction is the more efficient course of action when the downward cascades generated by mark-to-market accounting may trigger massive sell-offs at prices below true asset value. The fears of private suits and regulatory sanctions on counterparties can compound the problem. Mark to market generates the functional equivalent of bank runs for which the functional equivalent of the automatic-stay rule in bankruptcy is the appropriate response.","PeriodicalId":336554,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Securities Law","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Securities Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1385382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

This paper examines the relative strength of two imperfect accounting rules: historical cost and mark to market. The manifest inaccuracy of historical cost is well known, and, paradoxically one source of its hidden strength. Because private parties know of its evident weaknesses they look elsewhere for information. In contrast, mark to market for hard-to-value assets has many hidden weaknesses. In this paper we show how it creates asset bubbles and exacerbate their negative collateral consequences once they burst. It does the former by allowing banks to adopt generous valuations in up-markets that increase their lending capacity. It does the latter by forcing the hand of counterparties to demand collateral even when watchful waiting and inaction is the more efficient course of action when the downward cascades generated by mark-to-market accounting may trigger massive sell-offs at prices below true asset value. The fears of private suits and regulatory sanctions on counterparties can compound the problem. Mark to market generates the functional equivalent of bank runs for which the functional equivalent of the automatic-stay rule in bankruptcy is the appropriate response.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
会计准则重要吗?盯市的危险诱惑
本文考察了历史成本法和按市值计价法这两种不完善的会计准则的相对强度。历史成本的明显不准确是众所周知的,矛盾的是,这也是其隐藏力量的一个来源。因为私人方面知道它的明显弱点,所以他们从别处寻找信息。相比之下,难以估值的资产按市值计价有许多隐藏的弱点。在本文中,我们展示了它如何制造资产泡沫,并在泡沫破裂后加剧其负面附带后果。前者的做法是允许银行在高端市场采用慷慨的估值,从而增加它们的贷款能力。后者的做法是迫使交易对手要求抵押品,即使在观察等待和不作为是更有效的行动方案的情况下,当按市值计价的会计制度产生的下行连锁反应可能引发以低于真实资产价值的价格进行大规模抛售时。对私人诉讼和对交易对手的监管制裁的担忧可能会使问题复杂化。按市值计价产生了银行挤兑的功能等价物,而破产时自动停留规则的功能等价物是适当的反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
How Should a Firm Go Public? A Dynamic Model of the Choice between Fixed-Price Offerings and Auctions in Ipos and Privatizations Do we need a European 'National Market System'? Competition, Arbitrage, and Suboptimal Executions Emergency Short Selling Restrictions in the Course of the Financial Crisis Litigation Governance: Taking Accountability Seriously The SEC and the Madoff Scandal: Three Narratives in Search of a Story
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1