March 17, 2008


Comments

 
 
 
  • Most people don''t have your keen insight into the "theoretical" nature of mark to market accounting and valuations, so I hope you appreciate their reluctance to deal with institutions that, by all appearances, are worthless on paper. Hmm, does this sound like anyone we know?
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • I would disagree that the carnage is due to the insanity of mark-to-market accounting. This would not have happened if the banks and dealers had not gorged on copious amounts of structured, excuse me, crap and abandoned disciplined risk assessment practices in the process. Furthermore, how would the government abandoning MTM help when the government is not the lender for most transactions, it''s another bank /dealer that has a legitimate interest in the value of the collateral?
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • Brutal assessment, but right on target. The CU industry needs as much candor as it can get.
    Marvin C. Umholtz
     
     
     
  • Right on Dwight. The regulators insistance that we view our organizations at the liquiditation value instead of a going concern makes us vulnerable to whipsaws in market situations regardless of our intent to continue. This is the same reasoning that lead to the liquidation of CapCorp when WesCorp was more than willing to take on the investments and hold on till maturity or a better market. “Ride out the storm” is not in our Government‘s box of tools.
    Gregg Stockdale