It seems odd that in the environment of continuing loss of income, employment and wealth in the real economies, discussions on the arcane accounting treatment are still festering. In the past week, I came across two separate news articles that reported views and comments by some of the most senior regulators and executives in the business world on the subject of Mark-to-Market accounting.
SEC head says accounting rules must be neutral (Associated Press; 8 Dec 2008)
Behind Schwarzman Spat With Wasserstein Lies FASB Rule No. 115 (Bloomberg; 8 Dec 2008)
Granted, the issue was not fully resolved by the accounting bodies which, after intense lobbying and protest, allowed certain exemptions from the application of the treatment. But that was two months ago- a long time by 2008 standard (Obama was elected barely a few weeks ago but it seems he has been acting as president for months ). Between the two months, the crisis has spread from wall street to main streets around the world.
And we are still debating how we post a number to a balance sheet that was read by less than a fraction of a percentage of the world population?
SEC head says accounting rules must be neutral (Associated Press; 8 Dec 2008)
Behind Schwarzman Spat With Wasserstein Lies FASB Rule No. 115 (Bloomberg; 8 Dec 2008)
Granted, the issue was not fully resolved by the accounting bodies which, after intense lobbying and protest, allowed certain exemptions from the application of the treatment. But that was two months ago- a long time by 2008 standard (Obama was elected barely a few weeks ago but it seems he has been acting as president for months ). Between the two months, the crisis has spread from wall street to main streets around the world.
And we are still debating how we post a number to a balance sheet that was read by less than a fraction of a percentage of the world population?
No comments:
Post a Comment