FASB meeting with regard to mark to market

Accounting Board Mulls Expanding Mark-to-Market

US accounting rule makers met Thursday to consider expanding mark-to-market accounting rules to loans and other securities, moving ahead with a plan already strongly opposed by banks.

Mark to-market, or fair value accounting, requires companies to put market values on their financial assets. It is currently used for traded securities, such as stock holdings or real estate, but is not required for bank loans and other types of financial instruments that make up large portions of the balance sheets of banks.

The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is in the early stages of discussing a proposal that could require nearly all financial instruments to be recorded at market value on corporate balance sheets and recognize changes to those values in earnings. The FASB is expected to release a formal proposal, or "exposure draft," on the changes in the first half of 2010.

...

Banks are already concerned about the potential changes because loans, which are not currently marked to market, make up a large portion of their balance sheets. A change in accounting rules could force them to take losses, potentially affect their ability to meet capital requirements or cause additional volatility in earnings.

"What the accounting boards are discussing now would be the biggest accounting change we've ever seen," Donna Fisher, the American Bankers Association's senior vice president of tax, accounting and financial management said in a statement Thursday.

The ABA said in the statement it was "deeply concerned" about the potential changes and that, while bankers have long supported mark-to-market accounting for assets that are "actively traded," they oppose its use for the traditional loans banks make.

:tap:
 
We've already heard rumblings about turning Fanny loose again. What the hell is wrong with these people???

Turning her loose again? I'm not sure we ever really tied her up to begin with. More importantly, her sister has now come of age, and is out running the streets - and she might just turn out to be even more of a hellion than her big sister was.

The Next Fannie Mae

Much to their dismay, Americans learned last year that they “owned” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Well, meet their cousin, Ginnie Mae or the Government National Mortgage Association, which will soon join them as a trillion-dollar packager of subprime mortgages. Taxpayers own Ginnie too.

Only last week, Ginnie announced that it issued a monthly record of $43 billion in mortgage-backed securities in June. Ginnie Mae President Joseph Murin sounded almost giddy as he cheered this “phenomenal growth.” Ginnie Mae’s mortgage exposure is expected to top $1 trillion by the end of next year—or far more than double the dollar amount of 2007. (See the nearby table.) Earlier this summer, Reuters quoted Anthony Medici of the Housing Department’s Inspector General’s office as saying, “Who would have predicted that Ginnie Mae and Fannie Mae would have swapped positions” in loan volume?

Ginnie’s mission is to bundle, guarantee and then sell mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which is Uncle Sam’s home mortgage shop. Ginnie’s growth is a by-product of the FHA’s spectacular growth. The FHA now insures $560 billion of mortgages—quadruple the amount in 2006. Among the FHA, Ginnie, Fannie and Freddie, nearly nine of every 10 new mortgages in America now carry a federal taxpayer guarantee.

Herein lies the problem. The FHA’s standard insurance program today is notoriously lax. It backs low downpayment loans, to buyers who often have below-average to poor credit ratings, and with almost no oversight to protect against fraud. Sound familiar? This is called subprime lending—the same financial roulette that busted Fannie, Freddie and large mortgage houses like Countrywide Financial.

...

All of which means that the FHA and Ginnie Mae could well be the next Fannie and Freddie. While Fan and Fred carried “implicit” federal guarantees, the FHA and Ginnie carry the explicit full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

We’ve long argued that Congress has a fiduciary duty to secure the safety and soundness of FHA through common sense reforms. Eliminate the 100% guarantee on FHA loans, so lenders have a greater financial incentive to insure the soundness of the loan; adopt the private sector convention of a 10% down payment, which would reduce foreclosures; and stop putting subprime loans that should have never been made in the first place on the federal balance sheet.

The housing lobby, which gets rich off FHA insurance, has long blocked these due-diligence reforms, saying there’s no threat to taxpayers. That’s what they also said about Fan and Fred—$400 billion ago.
 
Top