|
I think this is a very nuanced point of discussion. The rule change that is being talked about does not eliminate the requirement to mark to market but deals with the timing.
The old rule required that assets be valued at the average of the last three months valuation. This mitigated day to day volatility but did show the trend in valuation.
The new rule required a today, or a minuet to minute mark to market. This rule change transferred the market volatility into the asset valuation meaning wild swings thru out the day. Combined with the elimination of the up tick rule for shorts and what we have seen is dramatically increased volatility.
The point is that with the current rules in effect no one can know the true value of a portfolio with any certainty. By the time a valuation is established it most likely has changed. Therefore it is always wrong.
I think all would agree that mark to market is necessary and a good practice, the debate is more related to the value of a mark to market that reflects the volatility we are seeing today or one that is more stable and smoothes out some of the volatility.
This is more a discussion about the current market volatility rather than the need for "mark to market"
|