These seem to be the latest angles of attack for the government, which is wrestling with how to amend or replace thebailout bill. From a New York Timesitem:
“As they worked to make the government bailout plan more palatable, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama on Tuesdayboth proposed raising the federal insurance limit to $250,000 in an effort to help small businesses and restore publicconfidence in the American financial system.
“The presidential candidates discussed the idea in separate telephone calls with President Bush on Tuesday, aides said,as they began working to build support for the $700 billion economic package that failed on Monday in the House. Their tones – so far, at least, more measured from one day earlier – underscored thecomplicated politics at work for both men.
“Given the progress we have made, I believe we are unlikely to succeed if we start from scratch or reopen negotiationsabout the core elements of the agreement,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “But in order to pass this plan, we must domore.”
Reuters is also reporting that the FDICwill soon formally request authority to insure deposits above the current $100,000 threshold.
As for mark to market accounting, here is an argument for suspending it. Here is anargument against doing so. Meanwhile, a recentsurvey from the CFA Institute shows that its members largely oppose (73% against) eliminating the accountingstandard.
The thing that I have a hard time with: Those in favor of suspending the standard say that today’s prices are “firesale” prices. They say it’s forced selling that is driving the value of these assets down, and that they are reallyworth a lot more.
I say: Says who? How do we KNOW the intrinsic value is higher — or that prices will be higher, later if banks are justallowed to hold to maturity? If home prices keep falling, the economy deteriorates, and so on, the value of theseassets could just keep slumping.
Even if prices eventually recover, my other point would be “So what!” The price of something — any good, asset,service, or what have you — is what you can sell it for at any given time. Period. I bet GM would love to sell itsHummers for $200,000 each today based on the idea that gas prices will be lower down the road, and therefore the “real,intrinsic value” of its gas guzzlers is higher than what people are paying today. But it can’t. The price is what itis.
Or here’s another example: For the first year/year and a half of the housing market downturn, sales volume started dropping sharply and for-sale inventoriesstarted surging, but home prices really didn’t decline. Ignorant observers said: “Look, there’s no downturn. Prices arestill up!”
But what was really happening? Sellers were clinging to unrealistic views of the long-term, intrinsic value of theirhomes. They were saying: “I’m right. The market is wrong. I’m not going to GIVE my house away.” They refused to mark their homes to market. Result: The housing downturn was prolonged.
Now, thankfully, that attitude has been tossed out the window. Sellers ARE coming to grips with reality. They aremarking their homes to market. And you know what? It’s helping to clear the backlog of inventory in certain hard-hitmarkets. I think what we have here isn’t a case of they’re being NO market for this paper, and therefore artificiallylow “marks.” It’s that sellers and policymakers don’t want to acknowledge just how far the market value of these assetshas fallen.
Related posts:
- April existing home sales slip; inventory sur… We just got April existing home sales data from the National Association of Realtors. Here’s what the numbers looked...
- Pending home sales dip in March It’s pending home sales day again. This time, the National Association of Realtors is providing data on pending sales activity...
- April existing home sales climb 2.9%; supply swells We just got a look at April existing home sales figures. Here’s a recap of what they showed: * Existing...
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
n/a