Talk:Mark-to-market accounting/Archive 1

Merge
Made a quick start on the merge. --/Mat 19:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mark to Model
I also like this write-up as a good clear introduction. My one quibble is that it contrasts "mark to market" against "mark to model" without expanding on that at all. In wikipedia the term "mark to model" just redirects back here. It might be nice to have someone expand just a bit on what we mean here by "model" (i.e. the analysts have an economic model that they use to value a security based on various numerical data plus assumptions about the future.) Birdbrainscan 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a layman, i.e. someone with business and investment experience, but no formal or academic accounting experience or training. From that perspective, I disagree with most of the reviewers. I believe the fundamental explanatory discussion presented is clumsy, poorly thought through, tautological, and from the pen of someone without good basic teaching skills. Jargon and technical terms are used with no explanation of their meanings. The writer assumes existing understandings which a layperson wouldn't have. From there, he/she builds the article; hence, is is not comprehensible to someone not already familiar with mark-to-market accounting. Someone with a broader and deeper understanding of mark-to-market should edit the basic article for those of us who don't already know what it means. L. Mason 17 June 2009

Marking-to-Market an OTC Derivatives Position
I have a question that I think should be covered in the "Marking-to-Market a Derivatives Position" section (because it relates to the on-going credit crisis):

If a counterparty defaults in marking-to-market an OTC derivative what happens? There is no exchange / clearing house to close and substitute for the counterparty's position. What does that mean in terms of credit risk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.16.157 (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A Reference for use in the article
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28389/pub_detail.asp 12.230.130.27 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"toxic"??? seems POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.46.100 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Further information required
Further informaiton on the international accounting standards for this subject (e.g. work by IASB) is required. Charlie Rao

60.242.193.89 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental accounting concept called "prudence", ie profits are not taken until realised. This applies to inventory or any other assets that are bought for resale. (Revaluation of assets are allowed if they were not bought for trading, such as land & buildings, and do not pass through the income statement.) I think the article should clarify the relationship between "mark to market" and the concept of prudence. JMcC (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Back in the 1930's
Mark to Market existed in the 1930's. This should be in the article as part of the history section. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)