ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate & Securities Law Blogs -> Institutional Shareholder Services -- Corporate Governance Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Corporate & Securities Law

: Institutional Shareholder Services -- Corporate Governance Blog

Loosening of ?Mark-to-Market? Accounting Rules DebatedSubmitted by: Subodh Mishra, Governance Institute

ADVERTISEMENTS

Sections 132 and 133 of the Senate bailout bill approved last night would authorize the Securities and Exchange Commission to suspend and to study alternatives to ?mark-to-market? or ?fair value? accounting. The method of accounting--known formally as SFAS 157--effectively values an asset at its current, rather than purchase, price.

Critics of the practice blame valuations made under the decades-old rule for fueling the credit crisis by forcing financial institutions to value their assets at ?fire-sale? prices. The SEC and the Financial Accounting Standards Board took steps on Sept. 30 to ?clarify? the rules to give companies a greater say in how they value certain assets. The move was welcomed by banking interests that have also pushed for a loosening of mark-to-market accounting rules in the bailout legislation.

?More and more of our members in recent weeks have raised concerns that a number of accounting firms were mistakenly interpreting SFAS 157 in a way that required marking assets to fire sale values,? American Bankers Association head Edward L. Yingling noted in a Sept. 30 statement. ?This guidance will help auditors more accurately price assets that are difficult to value under current market conditions ? [and better their] understanding of the accounting literature as they prepare third quarter reports,?

Advocates for investors and auditors oppose the change, arguing that any watering down of SFAS 157 would result in illusory accounts. The Center for Audit Quality, the Council of Institutional Investors, and the CFA Institute--which represents the nation?s public company auditors, institutional investors and chartered financial analysts--said they oppose any suspension of SFAS 157.

?Suspending fair value accounting during these challenging economic times would deprive investors of critical financial information when it is needed most,? the groups said in a joint statement on Oct. 1. ?Investors have a right to know the current value of an investment, even if the investment is falling short of past or future expectations.?

Full post as published by Institutional Shareholder Services -- Corporate Governance Blog on October 02, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0205 secs (new cache)