Why we should suspend this destructive accounting rule immediately 
Forbes
September 29, 2008
By Newt Gingrich

Today, Congress voted against passing the bailout package for Wall Street. The stock market reacted immediately, falling almost 800 points.  It is clear that something needs to be done, and in the coming days, a new package must be constructed that has the support of the American people that both deals with the liquidity crisis and sets the stage for long-term economic growth. 
 
However, there is an immediate step that could be taken right now that would calm the markets and dramatically reduce taxpayer risk in any future government intervention.
 
Today the Treasury Secretary released the following statement:
“I and my colleagues at the Fed and the SEC continue to address the market challenges we are facing on a daily basis.  I am committed to continuing to work with my fellow regulators to use all the tools available to protect our financial system and our economy.”

While Congress and the White House consider next steps, the Treasury and its fellow regulators should follow their own counsel and take without delay the one regulatory action within their discretion that can help immediately to calm markets and dramatically reduce the taxpayer risk in any necessary  government intervention: suspend mark-to-market.
 
Chief economist Brian S. Wesbury and his colleague Robert Stein at First Trust Portfolios of Chicago estimate the impact of the “mark-to-market” accounting rule on the current crisis as follows:
 
It is true that the root of this crisis is bad mortgage loans, but probably 70% of the real crisis that  we face today is caused by mark-to-market accounting in an illiquid market. What’s most fascinating is that the Treasury is selling its plan as a way to put a bottom in mortgage pool prices, tipping its hat to the problem of mark-to-market accounting without acknowledging it. It is a real shame that there is so little discussion of this reality. (emphasis added) 
 
If regulators on their own – or Congress, if regulators fail to use their discretion – can fix 70% of the financial crisis by changing the mark-to-market accounting rule, we should change the rule first before attempting to pass another reevaluated bailout package. 

“Mark-to-Market” Accounting and the Origins of the Financial Crisis 

Mark to market accounting (also known as “fair value” accounting) means that companies must value their assets on their balance sheets based on the latest market indicators of the price that those assets could be sold for immediately.  Under such a rule, declining housing prices don’t just reduce the value of defaulting mortgages.  They reduce the value of all mortgages and all mortgage-related securities because the housing collateral protecting them is worth less.  Moreover, when a company in financial distress begins firesales of its assets to raise capital to meet regulatory requirements, the market bottom prices it sells out for become the new standard for the valuation of all similar securities held by other companies under mark-to-market.  This has begun a downward death spiral for financial companies large and small.
 
More foreclosures and home auctions continue to depress housing prices, further reducing the value of all mortgage-related securities.  As capital values decline, firms must scramble to maintain the capital required by regulation.  When they try to sell assets to raise that capital, the market values of those assets are driven down further.  Under mark-to-market, the company must then mark down the value of all of its assets even more. 
 
The credit agencies see declining capital margins, so they downgrade the company’s credit ratings.  That makes borrowing to meet capital requirements more difficult.  Declining capital and credit ratings cause the company’s stock prices to decline. 
 
Panic sets in, and no one wants to buy mortgage-related securities, driving their value under mark-to-market regulations down toward zero.  Balance sheets under mark-to-market suddenly start to show insolvency.  This downward spiral shuts down lending to these companies, so they lose all liquidity (cash on hand) needed to keep company operations going.  Stockholders—realizing that they will be wiped out if the companies go into bankruptcy or get taken over by the government—start panic selling, even when they know the underlying business of the company is fine.  The end result for the company is stock prices driven towards zero and bankruptcy or government takeover.  The criminal liabilities imposed under Sarbanes-Oxley have driven accountants to stricter and stricter accounting evaluations and interpretations and have prevented leading executives from resisting them.
 
The Problems with Mark-to-Market Accounting
 
William Isaac, Chairman of the FDIC in the 1980s under President Reagan, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “During the 1980s, our underlying economic problems were far more serious than the economic problems we’re facing this time around….It could have been much worse.  The country’s 10 largest banks were loaded up with Third World debt that was valued in the markets at cents on the dollar.  If we had marked those loans to market prices, virtually every one of them would have been insolvent.”
 
Isaac continues, “But what do we do when the already thin market for those assets freezes up and only a handful of transactions occur at extremely depressed prices?...The accounting profession, scarred by decades of costly litigation, just keeps marking down the assets as fast as it can.”
 
Isaac concludes, “This is contrary to everything we know about bank regulation.  When there are temporary impairments of asset values, due to economic and marketplace events, regulators must give institutions an opportunity to survive the temporary impairment.  Assets should not be marked to unrealistic fire sale prices.  Regulators must evaluate the assets on the basis of their true economic value (a discounted cash flow analysis).  If we had followed today’s approach during the 1980s, we would have nationalized all of the major banks in the country and thousands of additional banks and thrifts would have failed.  I have little doubt that the country would have gone from a serious recession into a depression.” (emphasis added).

Similarly, University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Eptstein, among the best in the country at law and economics analysis, recently wrote about mark-to-market accounting for today’s mortgage-related securities, “Unfortunately, there is no working market to mark this paper down to. To meet their bond covenants and their capital requirements, these firms have to sell their paper at distress prices that don't reflect the upbeat fact that the anticipated income streams from this paper might well keep the firm afloat.”

Alex Pollock, former head of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, explains that when the economy is in the midst of a severe downturn, the use of mark-to-market accounting “reinforces the downward cycle of panic-falling prices-losses-illiquidity-credit contraction-more panic-further falling prices-greater reported losses-no active markets. Fair value accounting adds momentum to a destructive downside overshoot.”
 
Reform or Bust
 
Because existing rules requiring mark-to-market accounting are causing such turmoil on Wall Street, mark-to-market accounting should be suspended immediately so as to relieve the stress on banks and corporations.  In the interim, we can use the economic value approach based on a discounted cash flow analysis of anticipated income streams, as we did for decades before the new mark-to-market began to take hold.  We can take the time to evaluate mark-to-market all over again.  Perhaps a three year rolling average to determine mark-to-market prices would be a workable permanent system.
 
It is not widely understood that the adoption of mark-to-market accounting rules is a major factor in the liquidity crisis which is leading companies to go bankrupt.  But it is destructive to have artificial accounting rules ruin companies that would have otherwise survived under previous rules.
 
For companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group (AIG), suspending mark-to-market rules will come too late.  But for the remaining vulnerable banks and corporations, doing away with the current mark-to-market accounting rules will safeguard against destructive pricing volatility, needless bankruptcies, job loss, and huge taxpayer bailouts. 
 
Suspending Mark-to-Market Only the First Step to Economic Recovery
 
In the wake of today’s vote, suspending mark-to-market is an extremely important first step to take, but only a first step.
 
Congress should also consider a bold and dramatic program to restart economic growth and rebuild market efforts.
 
In particular, the Congress should look at the impact of the Irish 12% corporate income tax on attracting investment and jobs to Ireland and consider a dramatic cut in the United States corporate income tax (the highest in the world when combined with state taxes) as a step toward attracting high value productive and desirable jobs back to the United States.
 
The Congress should look at the Chinese and Singapore growth patterns and match them by zeroing out the capital gains tax to induce massive flows of private capital to rebuild the market and minimize the need for a taxpayer funded bailout.
 
The Congress should repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, which failed to warn of every single bankruptcy but provides a $3 million a year accounting and regulatory expense for every small company wishing to go public.
 
This is the kind of pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur program that would accelerate the American recovery and lead to the next economic period of real growth.
 
(Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Emily Renwick is a research assistant at AEI and also contributed to this op-ed.)