The SEC has decided to provide “guidance” (pdf) for Wall Street lawyers on possible lines of argument to take when defending their clients’ pretense that their holdings are still worth more than the going market price.
The determination of fair value often requires significant judgment…
Determining whether a particular transaction is forced or disorderly requires judgment…
The determination of whether a market is active or not requires judgment…
Determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary is a matter that often requires the exercise of reasonable judgment based upon the specific facts and circumstances of
each investment…
Unfortunately, judgement is the one thing that none of these people have shown they have.
The NYT smells a rat:
Under pressure from banks and legislators, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an interpretation of an accounting standard that could make it easier for banks to report smaller losses, or perhaps even profits, when they announce results for the third quarter… The S.E.C. said it was interpreting, not changing, the mark-to-market rule.
It’s interbank lending that has frozen up. Do the banks think they are going to fool each other?
Was Abu Gonzales involved in this? Something about this parsing reminds me of “it must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death…”
Comments 1
A good example (from comments on Krugman):
Posted 01 Oct 2008 at 3:34 pm ¶Post a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.