The problem with rationalistic solutions is that they often prove to have unintended consequences. That is why the conservative tradition looks for empirical truths learned through time tested methods.
Jeff Skilling had one qualifier before he took the helm at Enron. Remember what that was? That Enron commit, and have its auditors commit, to using Mark-to-Market accounting methods.
MTM easily can become Mark-to-Make-Believe
Even your anology points this out if looked at from my view. Mark to Market allows that seller to name the value -- not the careful buyer. In the closed world of a company, the finacial officers say what he assets are worth and those outside have to guess if truth is there. Appreciation and related profits are made on paper before any real sale and can easily be lost without accounting for them if the pressure is too high.
Book value is always confirmed by audits or appraisals, both somewhat outside the control of the finacial accounting management although influenced by the Board.
Is there a place for some of that method applied in a careful manner -- surely, but lets not make it a panecia.
Would you loan your friend $250,000 using his house as collateral? You aren’t buying the house from your friend, you are giving him your money and if he doesn’t pay you back you’ll then get his house.
Audits and Appraisals are mark-to-market techniques. If your friend hired an outside company to audit his holdings, they would look at the house, say it’s worth 10,000 and he would then have to take the $490,000 loss.
In Eron’s case, they were required to explain how the valued their profits, investors who read those documents knew they were taking wildly optimistic views. Those who invested in the research knew to stay away. A Book Value accounting system would not have provided any information.