Subscribe: RSS Feed | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Home | Contact Us

Posts Tagged ‘FASB Mark-to-market’

Financial Cooking

Posted by Larry Doyle on July 5th, 2009 8:46 AM |

When business operations make money, it is due to the brains and intellect of management, correct? When business operations lose money, it is some sort of nefarious measure at work in the marketplace which can be ‘corrected’ by changing the rules, correct? The implementation of the relaxation of the FASB’s (Federal Accounting Standard Board’s) mark-to-market utilizes that thought process. Make no mistake, it is flawed and simply allows financial institutions to ‘manage earnings,’ otherwise known as “cook the books.”

We receive a whiff of this recipe in a report by the Wall Street Journal, Home Loan Banks See Net Income Decline 51%. I have maintained that the basic business model of the FHLBs is flawed and we see evidence of this in the fact that outstanding advances (loans) by the FHLBs to their member banks actually decreased in the 1st quarter of this year:

Total advances outstanding from the banks declined to $817.41 billion as of March 31 from $928.64 billion three months earlier. After surging in 2007 and early 2008, demand for those advances has slackened, partly because of the recession and partly because the federal government has offered alternative funding programs for commercial banks.

Without even maintaining the level of advances, the FHLB system is coming under increasing pressure to generate earnings in the face of increasing delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures on all of their holdings–advances, mortgage originations, and mortgage-backed securities purchased from Wall Street. (more…)

Banks Cooking a Second Course

Posted by Larry Doyle on June 4th, 2009 2:15 PM |

I am of the strong opinion that the relaxation of the FASB’s mark-to-market accounting standard is nothing short of an allowance for banks to “cook their books.” Well, it now appears that the banking chefs are whipping up a “second course.” The Wall Street Journal opens the door to the kitchen and reports, Banks Try to Stiff-Arm New Rule:  

The financial-services industry is taking steps to delay an accounting rule that would force banks and others to bring some of their off-balance-sheet vehicles back onto their books next year, which could force some to raise additional capital.

A group that includes the Chamber of Commerce, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the American Council of Life Insurers and others sent a letter on June 1 to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, regarding the off-balance-sheet accounting-rule change, saying it should be adopted “cautiously and seek to minimize any chilling effect on our frozen credit markets.”

The letter was signed by 16 industry associations, many of which were part of a group known as the “Fair Value Coalition,” which was formed earlier this year with the goal of changing mark-to-market accounting rules. Mark-to-market accounting rules set guidelines for banks on when they are required to reflect market prices in the values they assign to hard-to-value securities and other assets.

Please recall that the massive leverage within the banking industry was largely housed within these off-balance sheet vehicles (SPVs, special purpose vehicles). The lack of transparency of these vehicles allowed banks to leverage their assets to greater than a 30:1 ratio. Regulators and rating agencies were totally remiss in fully exposing these vehicles and protecting investors.  We have all paid for it. 

The banks and Washington jointly conspired to pressure FASB to relax the mark-to-market accounting rule so the industry could alleviate the pressure of raising capital. I detailed that “course” just yesterday in writing Wall Street-Washington: “Pay to Play.”

We hardly had time to digest that “inedible” piece of meat and now understand our chefs are working to continue the lack of transparency within the industry. Regrettably, our Congressional watchdogs have been more than happy to accept perfunctory campaign contributions and lobbying dollars to facilitate this charade.

The WSJ takes a whiff of what is simmering and reports:

Some accounting experts say they aren’t surprised by the banking industry’s latest effort. “Here we go again. They will get out their checkbooks and go to the Hill,” says Lynn Turner, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s former chief accountant. 

At what point do the patrons get some representation, drop these meals in the garbage, fire the chefs and staff, and hang out the “Condemned: Department of Health” sign?

LD

Wall Street – Washington: “Pay to Play”

Posted by Larry Doyle on June 3rd, 2009 7:46 AM |

In my opinion, the relaxation of the FASB’s (Federal Accouting Standards Board) mark-to-market rule was nothing more than a vehicle to allow banks to “cook their books.”  The “cooking” of the books put the burner on a low simmer in order to allow the banks sufficient time to generate earnings. Those new earnings can and will be used to offset the currently embedded losses on the toxic assets still residing in the banking industry.  

The FASB did not relax their accounting rule without enormous pressure applied by both the Wall Street and Washington chefs.  The Wall Street Journal reports, Congress Helped Banks Defang Key Rule:

Not long after the bottom fell out of the market for mortgage securities last fall, a group of financial firms took aim at an accounting rule that forced them to report billions of dollars of losses on those assets.

Marshalling a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign, these firms persuaded key members of Congress to pressure the accounting industry to change the rule in April. The payoff is likely to be fatter bottom lines in the second quarter.   

I have numerous questions and comments on this topic, including:

1. If this accounting rule was so insidious, why was “mark-to- market” accounting ever enacted in the first place?  

Sense on Cents: As with any accounting rule, the “mark-to-market” was implemented to create transparency.

2. Are the toxic assets still on the bank books?

Sense on Cents: Most definitely. They are merely being masked via this relaxation.

3. Banks maintain the toxic assets don’t actively trade and, when they do, they trade at levels not reflective of their true values.

Sense on Cents:  These assets have traded everyday and at levels assuming a heightened level of future defaults on the underlying mortgages. If the banks believe the market levels are not reflective of true value, then why haven’t they and global investors raised the funds to purchase these massively undervalued securities? Investors trust the market assumption of future defaults.  

The WSJ reports:

Earlier this year, financial-services organizations put their lobbyists on the case. Thirty-one financial firms and trade groups formed a coalition and spent $27.6 million in the first quarter lobbying Washington about the rule and other issues, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public filings. They also directed campaign contributions totaling $286,000 to legislators on a key committee, many of whom pushed for the rule change, the filings indicate. 

4. Wall Street paid approximately $28 million in contributions and lobbying to effect this accounting change. The banks made these payments while in receipt of billions of dollars of TARP funds (taxpayer/ government assistance). Did Wall Street effectively utilize taxpayer funds in order to “pay” Washington so the banks could continue “to play” their game?

Sense on Cents: In my opinion, most definitely!!

5. How long had the “mark-to-market” been in effect prior to its relaxation?

Sense on Cents: Decades. It worked just fine.

6. Why didn’t banks lobby in the 2000-2006 era that assets were being overvalued via this accounting standard?

Sense on Cents: Bank executives were being “paid” from those inflated valuations. 

7. Given that the banks now utilize internal pricing models to value the toxic securities, are those models and their embedded assumptions made public so investors can have some degree of transparency?

Sense on Cents: NO!! Why would the banks want the “cooking” exposed?

In summary, this version of “pay to play” will be seen as a watershed event in the Brave New World of the Uncle Sam economy. Why will future economic growth underperform? The banking industry will be forced to continue to set aside reserves against the embedded toxic assets. In so doing, the banks will have less credit to extend to consumers and business.

LD

For more on this topic, I submit:

Putting Perfume on a Pig
April 2nd; post written the day FASB relaxed the mark-to-market standard

Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Deja Vu?
May 28th; post highlighting the massive embedded losses in the Federal Home Loan Bank system. These losses are masked by the relaxation of the mark-to-market.

Legalized Bribery
February 16th; post highlighting Chuck Hagel and Leon Panetta implicating Washington politicians’ endless pursuit of money. 

How Wall Street Bought Washington
March 9: post highlighting the massive money spent by Wall Street to curry influence in Washington.

Citigroup’s Earnings: More Fuzzy Math

Posted by Larry Doyle on April 18th, 2009 9:21 AM |

In reviewing bank earnings this week, I truly get the sense with a number of institutions that they determine just how much they want or need to outperform analyst expectations and then they figure out how to “manage” the books in order to get there.

This “managed earnings” process can be played for an extended period, but ultimately the earnings – or more importantly “hidden losses” – come out in the wash. 

Citigroup played this game yesterday. The NY Times reports, After Year of Losses, Citigroup Finds a Profit. I give the Times credit; they did not report that Citigroup generated a profit, but that they found it. Where did they find it? The Times offers:

Like several other banks that reported surprisingly strong results this week, Citigroup used some creative accounting, all of it legal, to bolster its bottom line at a pivotal moment.

Citi utilized creative accounting supported by the pressure applied by Congress on the FASB. Where is the pressure applied by the SEC and FINRA on behalf of investors? Isn’t it only fair that somebody speaks up for investors? Is the SEC and FINRA in bed with Congress to “play the game?” Let’s move on.

The top rated banking analyst on the street chimes in: (more…)

Games of Chance: TALF, PPIP, TARP, FDIC, FASB

Posted by Larry Doyle on April 7th, 2009 2:40 PM |

In thinking about the economy, markets, and our banking system, my memory brings me back to my early days in New York. While working my way along 8th Avenue back to my apartment in Hell’s Kitchen, I would happen upon numerous versions of the classic NYC “hustle.” The shell game (also 3 card monte) was rampant in NYC in the ’80s. Mayor Giuliani cleared out this game, along with a host of other street scenes. For those not familiar with this game, there was a constant need for new players with new money to keep the game alive.

Why do these games remind me of our current banking system? The similarities are scary. Let’s access the most recent piece from John Mauldin’s site to “view the games.”

Mauldin’s guest, John Hussman, comments on these various “games” (TALF, PPIP, TARP, FDIC, FASB), in which taxpayers bear the brunt of the risk in the government’s engagement with financial institutions. Hussman writes of the PPIP:

this is a recipe for the insolvency of the FDIC and an attempt to bail out bank bondholders using funds that have not even been allocated by Congress. The whole plan is a bureaucratic abuse of the FDIC’s balance sheet, which exists to protect ordinary depositors, not bank bondholders.

(more…)

Tune in Sunday Evening to NoQuarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle

Posted by Larry Doyle on April 5th, 2009 7:10 AM |

Please join us Sunday evening (tonight!) from 8-9 p.m. ET for NoQuarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle. With the stock market near 12 year lows, what is driving soc-promo5the flows? What is truly going on in the economy? Where are markets headed? What came out of the G-20 Summit? How about the FASB’s easing of mark-to-market? So much to cover.

These are truly historic times in the global economy. Let’s “navigate the economic landscape” without the pandering or nonsense found elsewhere! What is on your mind? What would you like to address? Please share your questions and thoughts by calling in to (347) 677-0792, and also join our live chat room, which I’ll start up about 10 minutes before the show begins.

Tonight I will be speaking with Phil Trupp, a journalist/author with more than 30 years of professional experience writing for several prestigious newspapers and magazines in the world. Over the years, his investigative reporting and columns have led to congressional hearings on coal mine safety, corruption in the trucking industry, poverty in America, environmental hazards, and global warming, among other controversial issues. Trupp’s financial journalism background includes a seven-year stint as Washington correspondent and assistant bureau chief for Fairchild Publications, and as a reporter at the Washington Evening Star.

Phil Trupp is currently writing MONEY ON ICE: How Ordinary Investors Beat the Biggest Fraud in Wall Street History. It is an exposure of the Auction Rate Securities scandal in which 146,000 investors have been bilked out of $336 billion.

As a reminder, all NoQuarter Radio programming is archived and can be played back at any time. Just go to the NoQuarter Radio site and look for previous episodes. In addition, each program is available as a podcast on iTunes.

Many thanks to Larry Johnson and the rest of the team at NoQuarterUSA blog for providing such a vibrant vehicle as NoQuarter Radio. I look forward to having you join me Sunday evening as we collectively navigate the economic landscape!!

Wall Street: Moving Business or Storage Business?

Posted by Larry Doyle on March 29th, 2009 11:39 AM |

A standing joke on Wall Street trading desks was a question posed by sales management to trading management.

Sales Manager, looking to sell products and generate commissions, would ask Trading Manager, looking to manage risk and maximize profits or minimize losses, “Are we here at Bank (fill in the blank) in the “moving” business or “storage” business?” Meaning, would the trading desk be competitive in pricing so as to allow the sales desk an opportunity to sell product (stocks, bonds, loans, et al).

This very question is at the heart of a rapidly developing conflict in the PPIP (Public-Private Investment Program) and an expectation of relaxing the FASB’s (Federal Accounting Standard Board) mark to market. (more…)






Recent Posts


ECONOMIC ALL-STARS


Archives