Marking to Market: Panacea or Pandora’s Box ?
ABSTRACT Financial institutions have been at the forefront of the debate on the controversial shift in international standards from historical cost accounting to mark-to-market accounting. We show that the trade-offs at stake in this debate are far from one-sided. While the historical cost regime leads to some inefficiencies, marking-to-market may lead to other types of inefficiencies by injecting artificial risk that degrades the information value of prices, and induces suboptimal real decisions. We construct a framework that can weigh the pros and cons. We find that the damage done by marking-to-market is greatest when claims are (1) long-lived, (2) illiquid, and (3) senior. These are precisely the attributes of the key balance sheet items of banks and insurance companies. Our results therefore shed light on why banks and insurance companies have been the most vocal opponents of the shift to marking-to-market. Copyright University of Chicago on behalf of the Institute of Professional Accounting, 2008.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
|Date of creation:|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.tepper.cmu.edu/
|Order Information:||Web: http://student-3k.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiadoc/GSIA_WP.asp|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cmu:gsiawp:1805083183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Steve Spear)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.