Comments on: Why Newt Gingrich Is Wrong About Mark-To-Market Accounting

By: jimsenter

jimsenter — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:20:07 +0000

I’ve just been reading William Black’s “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One” about the S+L meltdown of the 1980s. He points out another great reason for mark to market accounting. It makes it much harder for the fraudsters and their accountant accomplises to steal the public blind. It provides some measure of objective valuation. Left to their own devices, they can make up any balance sheet that suits them.
Let’s not assume that the people involved in the present mess have been honest. With the barely existent regulation, there was little reason for them to be.

By: killbornj

killbornj — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:09:28 +0000

But, lets take a look at the alternative that is being place. We are asking taxpayers to allow the government to go out, borrow yet more money to buy these assets that currently have little to no market for. As a taxpayer, I would much rather see these bankers and investors take the punishment. Will this affect me? Most certainly it will, with little or no access to credit I will have to make due with what I have. The company that I work for will have harder times getting loans to help operations, which may force it to layoff workers that could include me. I am tired of being asked to foot the bill for a mess that someone else created. I am tired of being told, “it is just too big to fail” or “its a mess that has too big of consequences to let them fail’. You would think, with all the power we give our government, and the brains that it employees the could come up with something less expensive.

Wall Street used a complex financial instrument they didn’t understand. They used this unwisely and are paying the consequences of their decisions. I agree permanent removal of regulations would do more harm than good, but asking me or any other taxpayer to take on that kind of debt is unacceptable! Any senator or representative that votes for this bailout will hopefully be booted out of office.

By: stateofthedivision

stateofthedivision — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:26:17 +0000

Why does Newt want Sarbanes-Oxley gone? It might be because the National Republican Congressional Committee failed miserably in their governance and management of donor money.

Congress passed the anti-Enron bill in 2002. It passed with 423 ayes. The NRCC didn’t see a real external auditor from 2003 to 2008.

The same leaders who called for more oversight and tightened accounting standards did nothing in their NRCC governance role. Is Newt looking to block for them with his call?

By: stateofthedivision

stateofthedivision — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:16:21 +0000

Welcome to disaster capitalism. The complete seizure of a $62 trillion unregulated financial market, credit default swaps, results in tax cuts and less regulation? Newt is slippery. What about?

Credit derivatives
Off balance sheet items

Hank Paulson and Ben Bernake virtually admitted credit default swaps couldn’t deliver on their promises. Normally, when you sell something that isn’t there, it’s called fraud.

I’ve been on a board of directors under Sarbanes-Oxley and did not find its requirements intrusive or expensive. For someone wanting to safeguard corporate assets, it made sense.