Looks like we might have fisticuffs amongst the accountants...
First we have the IASB with this:
http://www.iasb.org/NR/rdonlyres/4483EDB9-CAE7-4119-A0FC-C243ECDF32D1/0/snapshot2.pdf
If the proposals above are enacted, simplistically, any instrument that has 'contractual cashflows' doesn't have to be marked-to-market and can be carried on an amortized cost basis. That would mean that anything bond-like, such as ABS etc, doesn't have to be marked-to-mkt. Needless to say, that would make financials mucho happy.
However, next we have the FASB responding with this, which, effectively, contradicts the IASB's and would introduce a lot more fair-value recognition, i.e. mk-to-mkt:
http://cfodirect.pwc.com/CFODirectWeb/Controller.jpf?ContentCode=AALN-7TZ3PT&rss=true
This is proper fun 'n games, if anyone cares...
First we have the IASB with this:
http://www.iasb.org/NR/rdonlyres/4483EDB9-CAE7-4119-A0FC-C243ECDF32D1/0/snapshot2.pdf
If the proposals above are enacted, simplistically, any instrument that has 'contractual cashflows' doesn't have to be marked-to-market and can be carried on an amortized cost basis. That would mean that anything bond-like, such as ABS etc, doesn't have to be marked-to-mkt. Needless to say, that would make financials mucho happy.
However, next we have the FASB responding with this, which, effectively, contradicts the IASB's and would introduce a lot more fair-value recognition, i.e. mk-to-mkt:
http://cfodirect.pwc.com/CFODirectWeb/Controller.jpf?ContentCode=AALN-7TZ3PT&rss=true
This is proper fun 'n games, if anyone cares...