找回密码
 注册
搜索
查看: 2166|回复: 20

[转贴] Obama Repeats Bush's Worst Market Mistakes

[复制链接]
发表于 2009-3-6 07:30 PM | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式


By STEVE FORBES

What is most astounding about President Barack Obama's radical economic recovery program isn't its breadth, but its continuation of the most destructive policies of the Bush administration. These Bush policies were in themselves repudiations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Mr. Obama's hero.

The most disastrous Bush policy that Mr. Obama is perpetuating is mark-to-market or "fair value" accounting for banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions. The idea seems harmless: Financial institutions should adjust their balance sheets and their capital accounts when the market value of the financial assets they hold goes up or down.

That works when you have very liquid securities, such as Treasurys, or the common stock of IBM or GE. But when the credit crisis hit in 2007, there was no market for subprime securities and other suspect assets. Yet regulators and auditors kept pressing banks and other financial firms to knock down the book value of this paper, even in cases where these obligations were being fully serviced in the payment of principal and interest. Thus, under mark-to-market, even non-suspect assets are being artificially knocked down in value for regulatory capital (the amount of capital required by regulators for industries like banks and life insurance).

Banks and life insurance companies that have positive cash flows now find themselves in a death spiral. Of the more than $700 billion that financial institutions have written off, almost all of it has been book write-downs, not actual cash losses. When banks or insurers write down the value of their assets they have to get new capital. And the need for new capital is a signal to ratings agencies that these outfits might deserve a credit-rating reduction.

So although banks have twice the amount of cash on hand that they did a year ago, they lend only under duress, or apply onerous conditions that would warm Tony Soprano's heart. This is because they know that every time they make a loan or an investment there is a risk of a book write-down, even if the loan is unimpaired.

If this rigid mark-to-market accounting had been in effect during the banking trouble in the early 1990s, almost every major commercial bank in the U.S. would have collapsed because of shaky Latin American and commercial real estate loans. We would have had a second Great Depression.

But put aside for a moment the absurdity of trying to price assets in a disrupted or non-existent market, of not distinguishing between distress prices and "normal" prices. Regulatory capital by its definition should take the long view when it comes to valuation; day-to-day fluctuations shouldn't matter. Assets should be kept on the books at the price they were obtained, as long as the assets haven't actually been impaired.

Mark-to-market accounting does just the opposite. When times are good, it artificially boosts banks' capital, thereby encouraging more investing and lending. In a downturn it sets off a devastating deflation.

Mark-to-market accounting is the principal reason why our financial system is in a meltdown. The destructiveness of mark-to-market -- which was in force before the Great Depression -- is why FDR suspended it in 1938. It was unnecessarily destroying banks.

But bad ideas never die. Mark-to-market was resurrected by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and became effective in the fall of 2007 (FASB rule 157) to the approval of the Bush administration, its Treasury Department, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Even as FASB 157 began to take its toll on financial institutions last year, Mr. Bush refused to kill or suspend it. When Congress voiced displeasure last fall, the administration and regulatory authorities made some cosmetic changes, but the poisonous essence remained.

Another horrific Bush policy that Mr. Obama has left untouched concerns short selling. In 1938, the SEC, created by FDR, enacted the so-called uptick rule, which held that investors could not short a stock unless it went up in price. In July 2007, the SEC, whose commissioners were handpicked by the White House, got rid of the rule. Market volatility exploded.

Compounding this lunacy was the SEC's inexplicable failure to enforce the rule against "naked" short selling. Before an investor can short a stock, he is supposed to borrow the shares and pay a broker or stockholder a fee. What sellers soon realized was that the SEC was turning a blind eye to naked short-selling, thus adding even more pressure to beleaguered bank equities. Short sellers quickly saw how mark-to-market made seemingly invincible companies vulnerable to destruction. They picked their targets and relentlessly sold financial stocks short.

If the president really takes Roosevelt's legacy seriously, he should suspend mark-to-market accounting rules, restore the uptick rule, and enforce the prohibition against naked short selling. If he doesn't, historians will look back in utter amazement at Mr. Obama's preservation of Mr. Bush's worst economic policies.

Mr. Forbes is chairman and CEO of Forbes Inc. and editor in chief of Forbes magazine.
发表于 2009-3-6 07:34 PM | 显示全部楼层
Forbes = 最好的反指,那个公司出现在它的封面就是大跌的预兆

Steve Forbes = 无知的小丑
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2009-3-6 07:44 PM | 显示全部楼层
I personally think mark-to-market accounting rules will be suspended, and the uptick rule will be re-installed soon. I am surprised no action from SEC for so long.

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. House Financial Services subcommittee plans a hearing on mark-to-market accounting rules, which have been blamed for forcing banks to report billions of dollars in write-downs, a source briefed on the matter told Reuters on Wednesday.

The subcommittee on capital markets has tentatively scheduled the hearing for March 12, the source said.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant and the chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, will be asked to testify, the source said.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-6 07:54 PM | 显示全部楼层
If this will be implement, the financials will rock higher!
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-6 09:13 PM | 显示全部楼层
Thanks!
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-6 10:12 PM | 显示全部楼层
1# pennbrook

Thanks.

Google 现有3,450 results for "Obama Repeats Bush's Worst Market Mistakes".

如果周一增加到十倍,底大概就成了。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-6 10:25 PM | 显示全部楼层
说的很有道理!
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-6 10:30 PM | 显示全部楼层
当年国有企业大亏损的时候,大概是2000年左右,还是朱镕基在做总理的时候,因为国企破产,国企亏损的坏账一大堆,国家的几大银行也都是亏损累累。中国政府不是不公布这些数据吗,现在这些银行不是都好好的吗!
个人感觉当年中国几大银行的问题跟现在美国银行的问题有相似性,很有相似性!
我抛砖引玉,有没有懂行的人给讲讲?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-6 11:36 PM | 显示全部楼层
Forbes说穿了就是mutual fund的婊子。

那伙人要出货了,有漏点风声给Forbes,好让一些傻瓜们上钩。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 12:17 AM | 显示全部楼层
If you abandon mark-to-market, what do you mark your securities to?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 12:28 AM | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 小金 于 2009-3-7 00:30 编辑

凹霸马的经济政策比布什还差,投资人逃光,失业率疯涨。很难收场。凹霸马正在摧毁美国。时间拖得越长,凹霸马越脱不了责任。美国人民不是傻瓜,after few months, no excuse, 凹霸马终究会付出乱搞一通的代价。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 12:33 AM | 显示全部楼层
Forbes = 最好的反指,那个公司出现在它的封面就是大跌的预兆

Steve Forbes = 无知的小丑
dividend_growth 发表于 2009-3-6 19:34


他比凹霸马懂多了,难道凹霸马更无知?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 12:43 AM | 显示全部楼层
凹霸马的经济政策比布什还差,投资人逃光,失业率疯涨。很难收场。凹霸马正在摧毁美国。时间拖得越长,凹霸马越脱不了责任。美国人民不是傻瓜,after few months, no excuse, 凹霸马终究会付出乱搞一通的代价。
小金 发表于 2009-3-7 00:28



"失业率疯涨"怪在Obama身上好象太早了一点吧?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 12:45 AM | 显示全部楼层
"失业率疯涨"怪在Obama身上好象太早了一点吧?
xook 发表于 2009-3-7 00:43


nod
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 03:36 AM | 显示全部楼层
当年国有企业大亏损的时候,大概是2000年左右,还是朱镕基在做总理的时候,因为国企破产,国企亏损的坏账一大堆,国家的几大银行也都是亏损累累。中国政府不是不公布这些数据吗,现在这些银行不是都好好的吗!
个人 ...
Jimmylee 发表于 2009-3-6 22:30


中国的银行都是国有银行。政府当年出了巨资拯救的。但是这也无可厚非,反正是左手右手,都是在政府口袋里。

美国的银行不是国有银行,如果赚钱的时候进私人口袋,亏损了要纳税人掏腰包,这样就不是自由资本主义啦。所以要用中国政府的方法救银行,就要先把这些银行国有化才行。这也是为什么讨论银行国有化问题的原因。

另外,这次金融危机,实际上就是以前监管太少,金融界黑箱作业而导致的过度投机。如果什么都不公布,只会泡泡越来越大,更难收场。最早实行Mark 2 Market的时候,就已经很让人吃惊居然以前不是Mark 2 Market的,而是自己随便定价,这样完全不符合自由资本主义的原则啊。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 04:55 AM | 显示全部楼层
m2m is the true reflection of reality. any argument that the low price is caused by illiquid market is bs.  Forbes is a moron.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 08:35 AM | 显示全部楼层
Forbes = 最好的反指,那个公司出现在它的封面就是大跌的预兆

Steve Forbes = 无知的小丑
dividend_growth 发表于 2009-3-6 19:34

回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 11:33 AM | 显示全部楼层
If m2m is the root cause of the problem, then why Paulson did not suspend it? Anyone really believes that once m2m is suspended, all the confidence will suddenly come back? Ok, say m2m rule is suspended, anyone really thinks they should put money in Citi, or BoA, or even GS? I think not. The only thing it will accomplish is that all confidence in accounting will be lost, and no one will put their money back.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 11:38 AM | 显示全部楼层
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-3-7 11:40 AM | 显示全部楼层
当年国有企业大亏损的时候,大概是2000年左右,还是朱镕基在做总理的时候,因为国企破产,国企亏损的坏账一大堆,国家的几大银行也都是亏损累累。中国政府不是不公布这些数据吗,现在这些银行不是都好好的吗!
个人 ...
Jimmylee 发表于 2009-3-6 22:30


Simple, as long as TG is still in control of the power, you will never figure out how much money they have lost. And given the fact that Chinese govt can print as much money as it sees fit (not necessarily a bad thing), these figures are meaningless anyway. As for "这些银行不是都好好的吗", if I have a printing press at home, I would be "好好的" even if I lost a trillion dollars a day. Maybe you and other will not be "好好的", but that is another matter.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

手机版|小黑屋|www.hutong9.net

GMT-5, 2024-4-28 03:52 PM , Processed in 0.122007 second(s), 14 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

© 2001-2024 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表