[jveritas]

So the banks can mark a toxic asset worth crap into a much higher value to show faked big assets on their balanced sheet. In this case we are back to the same problem that caused the crisis to begin with. This is insane.

[wagglebee]

From the late 1930s to 2007, the U.S. banking system was reasonably stable, with a few exceptions. One big reason for this is the absence of mark-to-market.

Mark-to-market was largely responsible for creating the present crisis and ending it will go a long way toward ending it.

[bigbob]

This is a necessary step to recovery. Let’s hope Obama’s people are paying attention.

[jaz.357]

Slice it thin Geitner!

[rsobin]

Enron comes to mind when looking for a reason mar to market came about. It was a measure to try to instill a little ‘honesty’ in the system. But I do not think it a coincidence that 2 weeks after imposed the bear market began , about nov 15 2007.

[TheNewPundit]

The mark to market rule makes no sense for mortgages when the mortgages are being paid. If you have a working asset, you have a working asset. Had this rule not been enforced in this manner, AIG would never have needed on dime of tax dollars.
The only time a mortgage asset should change in value for banking purposes is when it is sold.

[norwaypinesavage]

Makes sense to me. I’ve always thought the previous rule was foolish. Consider that George Bailey’s Bedford Building and Loan is thriving, with customers making deposits, taking loans, and paying their mortgages. Now, if for some external reason, the value of the properties suddenly drop, even if the customers continue making deposits, taking loans, and paying their mortgages, the accounting rules still required bankrupcy. Hopefully now there will be a little more sense in the new rules.