Mealey’s Litigation Conferences

A Unit of BVR Legal

Posts Tagged ‘Financial Crisis’

The FDIC: It’s Back, It’s Busy and It’s More Powerful Than Ever

Posted by tomhagy on December 20, 2008

What corporate counsel needs to know about the FDIC in 2009

An interview with Megan Kraai by Teresa Zink

KraaiMegan Kraai is a partner in the Litigation and Regulatory practice group at DLA Piper, LLP (US). She practices in the areas of commercial litigation, regulatory and compliance matters and government controversies. Ms. Kraai was formerly Head of Compliance for Fannie Mae in Washington, D.C. and before that was Senior Vice President for Global Anti-Money Laundering Operations and Compliance at Bank of America. She will speak further on this topic at Mealey’s Litigation Conferences program “The FDIC & The Banking Crisis: Litigation Challenges Past, Present & Future” being held Jan. 15 and 16 at the Westin Grand in Washington, D.C.

Wachovia, IndyMac, Washington Mutual…these and other bank failures have rocked the financial world and should be a wakeup call for corporate counsel and others who represent banks or companies that do business with banks. So far in 2008, there have been 24 bank failures, with ten of those in the last quarter alone, notes DLA Piper partner Megan Kraai. Compare that to three bank failures in 2007 and none in 2005 or 2006 and it is easy to understand why the number and speed of recent bank failures have caught many by surprise.

“I would encourage lawyers to talk with their clients and make sure their clients understand the nature of their relationship with the bank, even when the bank is healthy,” Kraai advises. “2008 has shown us is that these bank failures can happen quickly.” It is important to understand what your position is in the event of a bank failure, and it is equally important to understand the role the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) plays in addressing the problems of failed banks.

Because there were few bank failures in recent years, there are not as many practitioners as there were in the 1980s who understand what the FDIC does when a bank becomes troubled. But they should. “When the FDIC takes over a bank, it has what are sometimes called superpowers in the event of a receivership,” Kraai warns, and the situation is not all that similar to a business bankruptcy. Lessons learned from the recent wave of consolidations in the banking industry won’t help much either, she says. “A bank acquisition is much different than a receivership by the FDIC.”

Acknowledging that “we are all reluctant to admit what we don’t know,” Kraai offers a primer on the FDIC for 2009.

The FDIC is Busy, And Getting Busier
As a response to the sheer numbers of bank failures, Kraai notes, the FDIC has taken steps to bolster its ability to respond. For example, she says, in an effort to find people with relevant experience, the FDIC in August began hiring back some of its retirees who had experience in the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. In October, the FDIC increased the amount of the deposit insurance on accounts to $250,000, in part to preempt runs on banks and in part reacting to the reactions of WaMu depositors as the bank was failing, according to Kraai.

The FDIC maintains what is called a Troubled Bank List and while the names of the banks are confidential in order to prevent runs on the banks, the size of the list is important, Kraai says. “Currently there are 171 troubled banks on the list, which is up 46 percent since just the second quarter and it is the highest number since 1995,” according to Kraai. Historically approximately 13 percent of the banks on the list have failed.

However, Kraai warns, “although it is an important list, no list is perfect.” For example, she points out, “IndyMac, which was an historic failure, was not on the troubled bank list six months before it failed. WaMu never went on it. So, I think it is interesting to note that the list is large and growing larger, but I think it also indicates that the speed of some of these recent failures has taken many by surprise.”

New Territory For Many
Kraai thinks that, “because it has been a fairly long time, thankfully, since we have seen bank failures on this scale,” it is worth thinking about what happened and how to advise clients who “haven’t experienced this type of economic environment or bank failure environment.” Whether the clients are banks, companies that have service contracts with the banks or large depositors, it is worth taking the time to understand what their rights and responsibilities are if a bank should fail.

“I think an important thing to recognize is, to the extent that you look at a traditional business bankruptcy as an analogy, it is not all that useful.” Kraai warns. “In a regular business bankruptcy, the goal is to keep the business operating as a going concern and try to find a private sector resolution.” However when a bank fails and the FDIC comes in, it has “significant powers and wide latitude in what it can do and the goal is to resolve the failed bank’s problems and its commitments at the least cost possible to the FDIC and therefore the consumer.” That is a very different goal.

The other often surprising thing is how quickly the banks operations can be wound up. “The FDIC is efficient, which might surprise some people in a government agency,” says Kraai. She notes that companies can operate in Chapter 11 for years, but a bank failure is generally resolved within 90 to 100 days, and sometimes more quickly than that. So even if a bank your client does business with is on sound financial footing, it is still a good idea to take the time to understand what their rights and responsibilities are should something happen to the bank.

What Happens When A Bank Fails?
When a bank fails, the FDIC is appointed either receiver or conservator in order to wind up the bank’s business in the way that will minimize the cost to the FDIC deposit insurance fund or to operate the bank as a going concern. Generally, that means drawing up a menu of the assets and the liabilities of the troubled bank and offering it for sale to other financial institutions, according to Kraai.

According to Kraai, “There are different ways that the FDIC can dispose of the assets and liabilities of a failed bank when the FDIC is acting as a receiver, but the most commonly used approach is a purchase and assumption (P&A) transaction.” In a P&A transaction, the FDIC acts as broker and finds a healthy bank to take over part or all of the failed bank.

“There are certain things that you should know if you are advising someone who has a relationship to a failed bank, if you are advising the bank that is having problems or if you are advising a bank that is thinking of acquiring a failed bank,” Kraai says. For example, there are types of claims that never go to the acquiring bank, but stay with the FDIC. These include: claims or lawsuits against the directors and officers of the failed bank, any claims under directors and officers insurance policies and employee benefit plans. Real estate and subsidiaries of the failed bank usually don’t go to the acquiring bank, according to Kraai, however in the case of WaMu, JPMorgan Chase acquired WaMu’s real estate.

Most of the time when a bank fails, the FDIC is appointed as receiver. However, occasionally, the FDIC operates the bank in a conservatorship proceeding. IndyMac, is one conservatorship in the news right now, according to Kraai. When that bank failed it had assets of $32 billion and deposits of $19 billion. According to Kraai, “a conservatorship is more akin to a regular bankruptcy because the FDIC is trying to conserve the resources of the bank and operate the bank, whereas the goal of receivership is to liquidate the bank, wind it up, sell its assets and move on.”

“Though each bank failure is different, there are broad parameters: if a bank fails, the FDIC will either act as conservator or receiver, almost always a receiver. If it is a receivership, most of the time the FDIC disposes of the failed bank’s assets and liabilities through the mechanism of a purchase and assumption agreement. If it is a purchase and assumption agreement, most of the time these claims don’t pass, they stay with the FDIC.” However, she warns “other than those broad parameters, every single failure is different.”

In addition, Kraai emphasizes that, “When assessing the bids for the bank’s assets the FDIC is required to accept the bid that will be least costly to the FDIC deposit insurance fund,” known as the “least cost rule.” If the FDIC believes that a particular failure poses systemic risk, it can waive the least cost rule, but doing so is rare.

Kraai points to the Wachovia transaction as a special situation. At the end of September the FDIC seized Wachovia and brokered a transaction with Citigroup for Citigroup to buy Wachovia on an “open bank basis,” which means that the FDIC was going to advance funds to help make the purchase. Then on October 5, Wells Fargo, “which had been at the table with Citigroup and had walked away from the transaction,” according to Kraai, came back in and bought Wachovia in a private transaction. “It seems as though the FDIC was willing to entertain that because it fit with the least cost resolution since federal government did not have to put forth any funds to make that transaction happen,” Kraai speculates.

FDIC ‘Superpowers’
The FDIC has extensive powers as the receiver of a failed bank which are designed to help the agency achieve its mission very quickly. These powers include the authority to: merge the bank with another bank, transfer any asset of the failed bank, issue subpoenas,
hire private sector services (like law firms) if it is cost effective, repudiate leases or contracts, and sue directors and officers personally for gross negligence. Further, when the FDIC acquires bank assets in the receivership it can defeat claims against those assets, according to Kraai.

Something that surprises many companies that do business with a bank that goes into receivership is that during first 90 days of the receivership, you cannot terminate a contract with the failed bank, says Kraai. “No matter what the contract says, you cannot exercise your right to terminate the contract or declare a default or accelerate any of the remedies. You have to keep performing under the contract.”

In addition, the FDIC has the power to repudiate any contract with the failed bank that it finds “burdensome” and, unlike in other areas of the law where there are certain standards for termination of a contract “the FDIC has sole discretion for determining what it finds burdensome,” Kraai says. “The FDIC does not need to explain, or write down, why it found the contract to be burdensome.” In addition, the FDIC has the power to assign any contract with a failed bank, even if the terms of the contract specifically prohibit assignment.

However, Kraai says, “although the FDIC can chose what contracts to accept or repudiate, it can’t cherry pick within those contracts. So if you have a contract with a failed bank, the FDIC either has to accept that contract in whole or repudiate it in whole.”

Something else to keep in mind, says Kraai, is that if your client is a depositor with money in a foreign branch of a bank that fails, that deposit is not insured, even if it is a domestic bank.

Where are the Failing Banks?
Briefly examining the demographics of recent bank failures, Kraai notes that this year they have been spread around the country, including California, Georgia, Texas, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, North Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, and it is fairly obvious that the failures can be tied to banks that were heavily involved in mortgages.

In addition to making sure clients understand the nature of their relationships with banks, it is also important to for people to understand that “if you have a relationship with a bank that has gone into receivership there are priorities of how people are going to get paid out, just like in a business bankruptcy.” Administrative expenses of the receivership are paid first (which can sometimes work to the advantage of entities that have a contract with a failed bank), then the deposits, other senior liabilities, subordinated debt and finally shareholders.

Talk To The FDIC
Also, she says, don’t be shy about going to the FDIC and asking questions. “I think it can be a natural tendency to not want to go in and ask ‘What’s my status, where am I?’” Kraai notes. Although anyone with an agreement with a failed bank is required to keep performing under any contracts for the first 90 days, “there may be things you can do and it is wise to talk with the FDIC.” She notes that the FDIC maintains a website with information on all of the failed banks and telephone numbers to call “and they are very responsive, even with the volume of work they are doing.” Because every P&A agreement is different, “it can be confusing for someone who has an agreement with the bank to know where it is residing and what is going to happen to it,” according to Kraai.

“So I think that it makes sense to spend some time talking with your clients and understanding ‘this is what my agreement means and this is what happens if the bank goes under or is taken over.’ Then if the bank fails, avail yourself and your client of the resources the FDIC provides.”

Teresa Zink is a freelance writer living in the suburbs of Philadelphia. She is former legal news editor at Mealey Publications . She is a frequent contributor to HB Litigation Conferences, formerly Mealey’s Litigation Conferences. You can email Teresa at tkz@verizon.net.

Posted in Credit Crisis, Financial Crisis, Women in Law | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Credit Market Leaders Discuss What’s Next in Market Forces, Litigation, Regulation, Accounting & Tax

Posted by tomhagy on December 9, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:
Nicole Quigley
Crowell & Moring LLP
202.624.2849
nquigley@crowell.com

Tom Hagy
Mealey’s Litigation Conferences
484.324.2755 x207
tom.hagy@bvresources.com

New York, N.Y. – December 8, 2008 – The volatile credit default swaps (CDS) market is expected to prompt significant litigation as investors seek to recoup their losses, as well as attention from regulators who are likely to seek control over the market.

That is the forecast of attorneys at Crowell & Moring LLP which is hosting a free continuing legal education program on the CDS market on December 11, 2008, from 1:30-5:00 pm EST. The seminar, “Credit Default Swaps: Exploring the Controversy – Market Forces, Litigation, Regulation, Accounting & Tax,” will take place at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, New York. A cocktail reception will follow.

Panelists will explain credit derivatives, discuss how the controversy arose over them, and where they are headed in the future. Members of the press and public are invited.

One partner at Crowell & Moring said that while the CDS market has been blamed for much of the current financial crisis, it may have been more of a scapegoat. “We need to look more closely at the product,” said attorney William J. McSherry, Jr., part of the firm’s white collar and securities litigation group. “CDS is a derivative product that to date has had no regulation or transparency. As we attempt to steer our way through the panic of the financial crisis, we must be careful that the regulations we put into place are the right ones, not merely placeholders. They have to buttress the strength of the industry, not regulation for its own sake.”

Crowell & Moring partner Viva Hammer, a former associate tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of Treasury, said, “Everyone is wondering if there is a next Lehman Brothers that hasn’t been identified yet. This is an opaque market. No one even knows who their counterparty’s counterparties are.”

“There are untested and novel tax issues running around the CDS market,” Hammer added, “and there will be a variety of controversies unfolding after the planned clearinghouse is operational. On the regulation side, there will most certainly be legislation. Companies are concerned about disclosure obligation, requirements over registration, and transparency. They’re also concerned about mechanisms for enforcement, such as mandatory arbitration and access to a forum different than a court.”

Crowell & Moring is currently advising a number of global investment banks who are dealers in the CDS markets on the proposed formation of a CDS clearinghouse, which is to be created together with the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.
Speakers and topics at this fully accredited event include:

2:05 – 3:00 pm: How Did We Get Here?
Panelists will discuss topics including the development of the market and the current environment; fair valuation issues in the current market environment; value hierarchy under FAS 157; and counterparty risk considerations for derivatives.

• (Keynote address) Robert Pickel, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA)

• Anthony Saunders, Ph.D., John M. Schiff Professor of Finance and Chairman, Department of Finance, Stern School of Business, New York University

• Justin Burchett, Ph.D., Economic Advisory Services, Grant Thornton LLP and former managing director at Structured Credit Holdings, responsible for asset origination of credit derivatives and structured finance securities

3:00 – 3:45 pm: Where Are We Now?
Panelists will discuss topics including the limited scope of the current accounting and reporting rules; real examples of how CDS and TRS are used to create synthetic assets, liability and equity, as well as conversion of liability into equity; financial innovation; and the new Chapter 11.

• Douglas G. Baird, Harry A. Bigelow Distinguished Service Professor of Law; former Dean of Law School, University of Chicago

• Bala Dharan, Ph.D., CPA, Visiting Professor of Accounting, Harvard Law School and Vice President in the financial accounting and valuation practice, CRA International, Inc

• The Honorable Robert E. Grossman, Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York;

• Stephan Kuppenheimer, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, FSI Capital

• John Ray, Managing Director, Avidity Partners, LLC, and Chairman, Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation

4:00 – 5:00 pm: Where Are We Going?
Panelists will address topics including the benefits of CDS; the costs and benefits of CDS policy proposals; CDS systematic risk characteristics; the use of accounting for derivatives; and what to anticipate in terms of financial statement and litigation issues in the future.

• Steven Halterman, National Office Director, PricewaterhouseCoopers and former Director of Derivatives and Financial Instruments, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

• Chester S. Spatt, Ph.D., Kenneth B. and Pamela R. Dunn Professor of Finance and Director, Center for Financial Markets, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University and former Chief Economist and Director, Office of Economic Analysis, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

• René M. Stulz, Ph.D., Everett D. Reese Chair of Banking and Monetary Economics, Ohio State University, former president of the American Finance Association, and author of “Risk Management and Derivatives”

In addition to McSherry and Hammer, Crowell & Moring panelists include: Clifton S. Elgarten, litigation partner; Thomas A. Hanusik, white collar and securities litigation partner; William M. O’Connor, financial services partner; William C. O’Neill, insurance/reinsurance partner; Nilam R. Sharma, insurance/reinsurance partner.

Conference services for this event are being provided by Mealey’s Litigation Conferences, a unit of BVR Legal. To register and view a full agenda, please visit www.BVRLegal.com and click on “Live Events,” or contact Lynnsey Perrin-Hee at lynnsey.perrinhee@bvresources.com or  610-312-3527 .

Mealey’s Litigation Conferences is a legal education and information company that has been promoting legal discourse since 1992.

###

Posted in Credit Crisis, Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Philadelphia to Host Two Insurance Law Events

Posted by tomhagy on October 31, 2008

PRESS RELEASE

 

Contact:

Tom Hagy, Publisher

BVR Legal

610-312-4754

tom.hagy@bvresources.com

 

 Philadelphia – October 29, 2008 – Insurance lawyers, in-house counsel, and financial professionals have two options this quarter to get up to speed on major legal and financial issues facing the insurance industry.  Top legal experts from companies and firms around the country will assemble here in November and December.

 

“The Secondary Market for Life Insurance Conference” will take place November 17-18 at the Rittenhouse Hotel.  The program will be chaired by Stephen Baker of the well-known Philadelphia law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.  Baker is a nationally recognized litigator and graduate of Villanova University School of Law. Co-chairing this event is James Hoffman, II of Lincoln Financial Group, a Philadelphia-area based financial services organization with $200 billion in assets under management. Hear from these experts and two dozen others on the challenges facing the insurance industry in this $12 billion market. 

 

Attendees will benefit from a complete rundown of recent cases and ongoing litigation; advising high net-worth individuals on life insurance options; recent state regulatory developments, such as NAIC & NCOIL model laws; how life insurers investigate policy files for STOLI; how reinsurers underwrite high face-value life insurance, and much more.

 

December 8-9 presents an opportunity for broader study of issues confronting insurers, with “Insurance Industry Top 10 Risks & Opportunities Conference” taking place at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel. 

 

From liabilities created by new technologies to the current turmoil in financial markets, insurance carriers are facing a number of potentially unanticipated risks, but also new business opportunities.  Attendees will learn and network with experts on subjects, including the implications of the capital markets crisis, food recalls and liabilities, the interplay between insurance and reinsurance, coverage for a business’ lost enterprise value, risks in mergers and acquisitions, catastrophic loss disputes, claims involving bodily implants of nanotechnology devices, claims arising from climate change, plus the latest developments in regulatory and legislative arenas. 

 

Co-chairs of this event are Lloyd Gura of Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass in New York and  Jennifer Devery of Crowell & Moring LLP in Washington D.C. Devery earned her undergraduate degree from Penn State and her J.D. from the University of Maryland Law School. 

 

For more information, please visit www.BVRLegal.com and click on “Live Conferences.” Contact Customer Service at 888-287-8258 or CustomerService@bvresources.com.   Discounts available for multiple attendees, corporations, and government agencies.

 

Please direct other inquiries to Tom Hagy at 610-312-4754 or tom.hagy@bvresources.com.

 

These events are produced by BVR Legal (formerly Mealey Conferences), a division of Business Valuation Resources LLC.  BVR legal is an education and information company serving attorneys and business experts in complex legal disputes. 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

CFA Weighs in on Financial Crisis & FAS 157

Posted by tomhagy on October 21, 2008

It’s no secret that many think FAS 157 helped fan the flames of the current financial crisis (see: More blame for FAS 157 in current economic crisis?) while others assert that it confuses many valuation issues without sufficient guidance, especially on its seemingly counterintuitive valuation requirements. Indeed, just this week, in a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, The American Bankers Association asked that the “SEC use its statutory authority to step in and override the guidance issued by FASB.”  Another take:  In a letter recently sent to Congressional leaders and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the CFA Institute Centre reinstated its position for an end to the calls for rolling back fair value reporting.

 

In brief, the letter notes that:

 

1) Ending fair value reporting will only serve to undermine the confidence of investors in our financial institutions and lead to a further crisis of confidence in our government and the regulatory bodies overseeing those institutions.

2) The process of stabilizing the global financial markets and reinvigorating liquidity starts with improving the transparency of financial institutions.

3) The causes of the massive asset write-downs we have observed have nothing to do with financial reporting, but everything to do with the need for effective stewardship.

4) Complaints about fair value arise largely in the context of their impact on capital adequacy. Rather than suspending fair value and thereby the transparency and relevance of financial information, perhaps the focus should instead be on flexibility in capital adequacy requirements in times of distress.

 

 

 

Posted in Fair Value, Financial Crisis | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

DLA Piper Among Large Firms ‘Publishing’ Frequent News, Views on Financial Tsunami

Posted by tomhagy on October 9, 2008

Law firms are increasingly going straight to the Web with their own brand of updates and perspectives, creating a motherlode of free legal insights.  The urgency of the credit markets crisis has put many firms into high gear with fresh content going up daily.  DLA Piper is no exception.  Below are some recent observations provided by the firm.  More info at www.dlapiper.com.

 

September 21, 2008, Implications of the Global Credit Crisis and the US Government’s Response

1.    “Participants in the global financial services industry have witnessed developments this past week unprecedented since the late 1920’s: within the span of several days, a major investment bank (Lehman Brothers) was forced to file bankruptcy, one of the premier retail and institutional broker/dealers in the United States (Merrill Lynch) was induced to be sold to Bank of America amid concerns of its own solvency and survival, and a major insurance conglomerate (American International Group (AIG)) was rescued by a direct loan and guarantee program that effectively provides for this entity to be owned and operated by the United States government.  These developments occurred within weeks of the federal rescue of two crucial government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), and only months after the near collapse and government-guaranteed acquisition by JP Morgan of another prominent investment bank (Bear Sterns).”

 

2.   “The Treasury has been encouraging its counterpart agencies overseas to develop and implement comparable asset purchase programs.  The ability to extend the availability of the US purchase program to additional foreign entities having a significant presence in the US may, in turn, depend on the extent to which comparable programs are established overseas.”

 

3.   “In light of the broad ranging and dramatic nature of the proposals promulgated by the regulators and contemplated for passage by the Congress, the impact on individual businesses and their counterparties will be significant…”

 

4.   “By allowing hedge funds or other investors to hold amounts greater than 25 percent of the total contributions to the capital of a banking entity, without becoming subject to regulation as a bank holding company, banking regulators may create the potential of opening a significant amount of new sources of capital for investment in the banking industry.”

September 22, 2008, SEC Attacks Short Selling on Regulatory and Enforcement Front

1.    “With the issuance of a formal order of investigation, the Enforcement Division now has the power to subpoena documents and testimony relevant to its investigation into manipulative and ‘abusive’ short selling practices and illegal ‘rumor mongering.’”

 

2.   “According to the SEC’s press release, hedge fund managers, broker-dealers and institutional investors with significant trading activity in certain financial issuers or positions in credit default swaps will be required to disclose these positions, under oath, to the Commission.”

September 24, 2008, Update: The Global Credit Crisis and the US Government’s Response

1.   “Today the financial markets received the welcome news that investor Warren Buffett, acting through Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., is planning to invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs.  The proposal, coupled with an additional capital raise by Goldman Sachs announced today, is being seen as a favorable indication of faith in the viability of the country’s financial system.”

 

2.   “This CDS [credit default swaps] market has been the fastest growing derivatives market worldwide in the last two years.  The sellers of CDS protection are often Insurance companies, and the risk of loss to sellers (in the event reference indebtedness is not repaid in accordance with its terms) increases exponentially.  This arguably increases systemic risk to the financial markets.”

September 29, 2008, Update: The Global Credit Crisis and the US Government’s Response

1.    “…concerns of Main Street bankers in smaller communities who are expressing anxiety at recent market turmoil, and communicating to their legislative representatives the fear that the Wall Street upheaval may result in contagion by smaller market participants in communities and industries throughout the US.  Indeed, legitimate fears exist, given European market developments, that such systemic breakdowns will accelerate beyond the shores of America to Europe and Asia, as well.”

 

2.   “Only one certainty remains: both the regulatory and the market landscape will be a radically different one in the months to come.  While once-hallowed institutions meet their demise by restructuring, liquidation, acquisition or bankruptcy, governmental authorities across the globe are calling for a new system of financial regulation amidst frank acknowledgements….that the old regulatory regimes are obsolete.”

October 1, 1008, The Global Credit Crisis and the Global Response

1.    “In the regulatory area, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced additional guidance on market-to-market accounting standards, in an effort to address concerns about the implementation of this regime and its impact on the financial services industry.  It is expected that this topic will be one of extended debate in weeks to come, as the goals advanced by such accounting treatment, providing for greater clarity and transparency in the valuation of assets, are outweighed by the difficulties of determining accurate values at times when market prices for such assets may be impossible to obtain in a deteriorating market.”

 

Posted in Financial Crisis | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »