Marking-to-Market: Panacea or Pandora's Box?

Guillaume Plantin, Haresh Sapra and Hyun Song Shin

Journal of Accounting Research, 2008, vol. 46, issue 2, pages 435-460

Abstract: ABSTRACTFinancial institutions have been at the forefront of the debate on the controversial shift in international standards from historical cost accounting to mark-to-market accounting. We show that the trade-offs at stake in this debate are far from one-sided. While the historical cost regime leads to some inefficiencies, marking-to-market may lead to other types of inefficiencies by injecting artificial risk that degrades the information value of prices, and induces suboptimal real decisions. We construct a framework that can weigh the pros and cons. We find that the damage done by marking-to-market is greatest when claims are (1) long-lived, (2) illiquid, and (3) senior. These are precisely the attributes of the key balance sheet items of banks and insurance companies. Our results therefore shed light on why banks and insurance companies have been the most vocal opponents of the shift to marking-to-market. Copyright University of Chicago on behalf of the Institute of Professional Accounting, 2008.

View citations in EconPapers

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent ... &year=2008&part=null link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0021-8456

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Accounting Research is edited by Ray Ball, Philip G. Berger, Merle Erickson, Richard Leftwich, Douglas J. Skinner and Abbie Smith

More articles in Journal of Accounting Research from Blackwell Publishing
Series data maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().