RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Putting Perfume on a Pig!!

The FASB (Federal Accounting Standards Board) just relaxed its rule known as the mark-to-market. This rule requires firms under the FASB’s purview to mark their assets to changing market prices on an ongoing basis. The institutions subject to this rule have been lobbying FASB and Congress for a change because the markets for these assets have imploded and in certain cases totally dried up.

What did the FASB do? The FASB caved to the lobbying pressure and will allow institutions to use their own internal models based upon cash flow analysis to price these assets. This change in the mark-to-market will not only allow institutions the flexibility to not mark down certain assets, but simultaneously mark up other assets.

fhlb-logoThe media only presents the impacted assets as “hard to value” or the dreaded “mortgage-backed securities” or “securitized assets”. In fact, many of these assets are very simple and plain vanilla. Let’s enter the world of the Federal Home Loan Banks.

The FHLB system consists of 12 regional banks and it provides liquidity (capital) for its respective members to operate. The FHLB system invests its own capital, primarily in plain vanilla conventional mortgages (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae) and Jumbo ARMS (adjustable rate mortgages) and fixed-rate pass-thrus. Certain banks within the FHLB system may have moved slightly off the plain vanilla path to purchase a small percentage of sub-prime assets, but that was much more the exception than the norm.

The FHLB funds itself by issuing simplistic debt issues.

The point I am raising is that the FHLB business model is a VERY simple model. The fact of the matter is the valuations of their assets have fallen through the floor. If the FHLB system marked these assets at levels at which the assets are currently trading (and yes, they are trading everyday….I could get a bid on a large block of bonds within the next 10 minutes!!), then the FHLB would need significant capital injections.

Who gets this? Charles Bowsher, who resigned just last week as chairman of the Federal Home Loan Banks Office of Finance. Bloomberg’s Jonathan Weil does yeoman work in profiling Mr. Bowsher and the joke that is FHLB accounting:

Bowsher, who was comptroller general of the U.S. from 1981 to 1996, had a simple reason for resigning last week as chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank System’s Office of Finance. He didn’t want to put his name on the banks’ combined financial statements, because he was uncomfortable vouching for them. Bowsher, 77, had held the post since April 2007.

With so many top executives complaining they can’t figure out what their companies’ assets are worth, the real wonder is that more corporate directors haven’t quit rather than certify financial reports they don’t understand.

The job Bowsher left is a crucial one. The Office of Finance issues and services all the debt for the 12 regional Federal Home Loan Banks. That’s a lot of debt — $1.26 trillion as of Dec. 31, making the FHLBank System the largest U.S. borrower after the federal government. The government-chartered banks, which operate independently, in turn supply low-cost loans to their 8,100 member banks and finance companies. If any of the FHLBanks were to fail, taxpayers could be on the hook.

Where have we seen this nightmare before? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were the poster children for private profit and social loss. While I know of nobody at Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who willingly exposed the holes in their internal accounting, Bowsher will not acquiesce:

“I was not comfortable as an audit-committee member in signing off on the financial statements, after I became aware of the standards and processes for valuing the mortgage-backed securities,” Bowsher told me.

In typical political fashion, the finance office was less than forthcoming about Mr. Bowsher’s departure.

The finance office didn’t say why Bowsher was quitting, when it issued its March 24 press release announcing his resignation. On March 30, a spokesman, Michael Ciota, told me the people who work there didn’t know, including its chief executive, John Fisk. “We’re not aware of any reason,” Ciota said. “There’s not a whole lot to tell.”

After I told Ciota yesterday about Bowsher’s comments to me, Fisk called me back. He confirmed that “Mr. Bowsher has expressed his concerns to me around the complexity of valuing mortgage-backed securities and the process of producing combined financial statements from the 12 home loan banks.” He added: “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to speak for Mr. Bowsher.”

For what it is worth, John Fisk formerly worked at Freddie Mac. With all due respect to Mr. Fisk, his experience at Freddie Mac is not exactly a resounding vote of endorsement.

Thus, the equity markets will rally on news of this accounting change, but as they do, please do not forget about Mr. Bowsher and his principles. His principles are being run over in the name of “creative accounting.” To wit,

The year-end balance sheet at the FHLBank of Seattle, for example, showed $5.6 billion of non-government mortgage-backed securities that it says it will hold until maturity. Yet the estimated value of those securities was just $3.6 billion. The bank, which reported a $199.4 million net loss for 2008, said the declines were only temporary. They’ve been anything but fleeting, though. Most of those securities have been worth less than they cost for more than a year.

The FASB’s rules on this subject, which have never been well defined, are now in flux. Today, after caving in to pressure by the banking industry and members of Congress, the Financial Accounting Standards Board is set to vote on a plan to relax its rules on mark-to-market accounting, so that companies can disregard market prices and ignore losses on their securities indefinitely.

While that wouldn’t make the banks any healthier, it would make their numbers look prettier. The FHLBanks have been among the most vocal lobbyists pressing for the change.

I commend Mr. Bowsher for having the character and integrity to stand his ground on this topic. I commend Mr. Weil at Bloomberg for profiling him and highlighting an Honest Man Emerges From Banking Crisis.

The cost to taxpayers is not only in the risk of real losses on FHLB finances, but also the lack of capital that will flow through the system. This relaxation in the mark-to-market is, in my opinion, a classic Japanese style move of not recognizing losses. I believe we will look back on this day and this rule change as a watershed event.

In my opinion, this change in the mark-to-market for an entity such as the FHLB system is the equivalent of “putting perfume on a pig!”

LD

  • Peggy Sue

    I just heard one of the TV financial analysts say that the uptick this morning in the stock market was partially due to the “new” accounting standards that the banks had been given in valuing their toxic/legacy assets. Creative accounting, indeed. I’ll have to pass this one on to my husband. The narrative guys have won. Again.

    This whole thing is so-o-o wobbly. We’re on a high wire without a net. Thanks for the Bloomberg link; I’ll add it to my “read” list. Nice to know there are still some honest people out there like Bowsher. We need more of them [I know they exist] to stand up and be counted.

    Thanks for the info!

  • http://deleted Aaron

    This would be funny if it weren’t happening in America. It is really troubling that we are attempting to solve problems by letting them fester under another name, this used to only happen in third world countries. The politicization of regulation is what is destroying American capitalism. This was a problem with the ratings companies and is a problem with FASB. This will allow banks to hold toxic assets on the books without establishing an adequate reserve fund in case these assets fail to pay off. The banks are toast when the commercial real estate loans hit the books because those are just good old fashioned non performing loans.

    • Northwest rain

      Chicago is like a third world country —

      So the creeps that Obama appoints think this is normal.

  • jbjd

    So, let me get this straight. We dig ourselves out of the financial industry insolvency by having the FASB to relax accounting rules, allowing holders of toxic assets to re-calculate their worth until the assets are worth more than the price they paid for them.

    Just yesterday, I learned, we won the Global War on Terror by re-naming this, the Overseas Contingency Operation.

    This week has been great for a ‘hope and change’ recovery.

  • Docelder

    But all of this could have been done without spending any money for the “bailout” or “stimulus” at all. Why now? Or has this really been more “change” than “hope” from the start?

  • I’mFedUp

    Okay, well I heard something last night that scared the crap out of me. From my friend in DC…I can hardly explain it, but maybe someone else know.

    What I was told that AIG, GM, The Stimulus and Budget are all “distractions” and what is really going on is that our money is bailing out banks overseas, etc. which we all already posted about. Our tax dollars, laundered through AIG, bailing our Banque Parabas, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclay’s, etc. But NOW what I am being told is that behind our back, the Federal Reserve is bailing out those people to the tune of 15 TRILLION DOLLARS. If this is true, I mean, WTF is going on?

    • jbjd

      Well, this theory certainly would explain why we have no idea where all of the money resulting from the bailout bills is going; and why no accountability provisions were written into the bills.

  • Sammie

    I can’t help but wonder how many mortgages are covered by private mortgage insurance, exactly how well positioned those insurers are to cover losses, and what if any impact pmi has on the mortgage meltdown.

    Yesterday, there was an article in Bloomberg about a private mortgage insurer that was instructed by the State of Illinois’ insurance regulators to only pay out 60 or 70 cents on the dollar (I believe these insurers cover the difference between the foreclosure value and what was left on the mortgage). Illinois apparently made this call after being concerned about the insurer’s ability to meet all of its obligations.

    Oh, and prior to the crash, these insurers were making about 35 cents on each dollar of premium, so it seems as though they may not have been holding enough in reserves (if they were running at such a high profit level and may not be able to fully pay claims now).

    I’m just not sure if the role of pmi in the mortgage meltdown has been explored enough. What is the impact of some mortgage “losses” being reimbursed by insurers at 60, 70 or even 100%? Perhaps pmi has been factored in, and I’ve just missed it.

  • Citizen70

    I wrote to my Representative, Barney Frank, a few weeks ago asking him to be a leader on this issue and stand against fiddling with mark-to-market. Haven’t heard back but after seeing him slap Geithner on the back, I fully expect that Barney was one of the pack pressuring the FASB. All they care about is short-term appearances and good will to get them through the next election. My retirement and college balances may rise with the stock market because of this but I’ll remember that our elected officials did not take the prudent path for the economic and political future of our nation.

    • Ellen D

      Barney was one of the ones against regulating Fannie and Freddie. Don’t expect him to go against more deregulation.

    • jbjd

      He is my Representative, too. In his last – I meant most recent, although I hope this was his last – campaign commercial, Mr. Frank told the voters to vote for him so that he could clean up the mess left by President Bush and the Republicans. I could not stop screaming at the t.v. That commercial confirmed for me that, the only way to stop BF was to get him out of office.

  • http://bullmoosegal.blogspot.com bullmoosegal

    A pig by any other name … is still in the trough.

  • owawa

    One of the commenters (Buzzbomb) on Market Watch just offered the following brief analysis that I find very pertinent:

    It is so glaringly apparent to anyone above the age of 4 that you cannot allow the bank to value its own assets. No more than you can let a homeowner value their own home. The true value of a home or any other asset is what the market will give you for the asset at that point in time. Just because you don’t like the current market does not mean you can just make up the value of the underlying asset. . . .
    Can I go to the bank and pledge my 401k as assets…and use their July 2007 value? I mean assuming the economy improves and I don’t need to access that money … they are really someday going to be worth the value they were in July 2007. But they are not now. And NOW is when I live and their value is what it is.

    Accounting tricks are not right.

  • WMCB

    Oh, Larry, this is worse than perfume on a pig. It’s a much bigger stench than that.

    This whole thing is more like Weekend at Bernies.

  • jangles

    Well frankly, I think you can make a very good argument that mark to market helped to make a mess of the financial markets by pushing asset values precipitously and way too fast down. So I think some modification of the rule was helpful. I note that those pushing for this did not get all they wanted. So I think your criticism has some merit but it goes too far.

    • http://www.senseoncents.com LD

      Please explain how mark to market had any impact on pushing asset values down? I don’t understand.

      What the market is indicating on these assets is that ongoing delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures will be higher than what the analysts and pundits would tell us.

      Additionally, the amount of leverage embedded in the system via CDS has created a crisis both in terms of liquidity and also capital.

    • WMCB

      The problem is that they are already doing so much to hide, obfuscate, and play a shell game with these assets and with the bailout money, that changing the accounting rules at this time comes across as more of the same.

      Under different circumstances, perhaps it would be a wise move. But what most of the public is wanting is a thorough “coming clean” of what exactly is bad, and how bad it is.

      No one is addressing that. No one is even TRYING to address that. The focus is on being hell-bent to keep all 10 balls in the air, with no one asking whether maybe we’d be better off in the long run with only 6 up there.

      What the public is seeing pretty clearly at this point is that NO MAJOR LOSSES for Wall Street’s financial sector are going to be allowed, period. And that those in charge will do anything, no matter how convoluted, no matter how fiscally irresponsible, no matter how unfair to the taxpayer, to make sure that doesn’t happen. They’ve made that crystal clear.

  • Lisabona

    My mind stopped. I just can’t think anymore. I’m afraid to do that, afraid of the conclusion I will reach. What is happening? The thirst for money is bigger than the love for the Country? the future of our children, grandchildren. Who are this traitors?

  • Ellen D

    THANK YOU LARRY!
    Last week I tried at NQ to get an e-mail drive to stop this, even though I suspected the fix was in.

    I am Comptroller of a mult-million dollar midsize company. I am not a professional in finance – I am an artist – but I have spent my whole life running creative companies. I smelled this one the first I heard of it. If there’s one thing I DO know it is the difference between creativity and hard dollars-and-cents.

    Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Canada was voted the most stable banking system and I am Canadian.

    Please keep us let informed of world reaction. The U.S. is not an island.

    You are doing a terrific job, Larry!

    • Ellen D

      Well here’s a first reaction:

      So, those of us out here in the hinterlands across the “big pond”, are going to read into this: Now, the government approved lying has now extended to not only cover the ratings agencies, but now the accountants, auditors and CFO’s are allowed to lie now too. You Americans are really a riot, ya know it? Here’s what I believe you ought to do next: allow ALL liabilities on every balance sheet, actually be reflected as an asset! Get it over with! Additionally, you should make ALL retirement benefits, accounts payable, payroll, and ALL expenses look like “sales” on your audits. This way, you can get to the finish line faster. And…..now you expect us to all take you seriously. Your a RIOT America!!!

      adios amigos

  • donjo

    Whoops. Reading the title, I thought this thread was about Meechelle and the fawning articles now starting to appear. Especially from AP.