Commentary on the economy, the markets, and business

Mark-to-market's strange accounting benefits for Citi and BofA

On Friday I noted that Citigroup wouldn't have reported a profit if it hadn't been for a $2.5 billion derivatives valuation adjustment "mainly due to the widening of Citi's CDS spreads." Citi's CDS spreads widen when traders think Citi is more likely to default. So basically, Citi was able to report a profit because fears grew that it would go under. Weird, huh?

Today, Alea notes, Bank of America joined in the weirdness with "$2.2 billion in gains related to mark-to-market adjustments on certain Merrill Lynch structured notes as a result of credit spreads widening." This didn't make the different between profit and loss—BofA reported net income of $4.2 billion. But it does point out again that bank earnings reports have become very strange things. As commenter sulliclm explained, with reference to Citi's earnings:

Basically this is the side of mark to market accounting that nobody talks about. FAS 157 (the accounting term for mark to market accounting) applies to both assets and liabilities. So for Citigroup and other banks, they have to mark their liabilities to fair value, and in the case of their own debt (or in this case liabilities on derivative positions), they have to consider their own default potential as a component of fair value. So the more likely it becomes that Citi will default on their debt/swaps, the less those instruments are worth to the investors that hold them. Therefore the accounting guidance says that Citi should reduce the value of the liabilities on their books, and they book this reduction as a gain through the income statement. As an auditor I find the guidance to be ridiculous, but its the rule so companies are following it ...

There's a great passage in Jamie Dimon's letter to shareholders on this practice, "The theory is interesting, but, in practice, it is absurd. Taken to the extreme, if a company is on its way to bankruptcy, it will be booking huge profits on its own outstanding debt, right up until it actually declares bankruptcy–at which point it doesn't matter."

In fact, Lehman Brothers booked repeated debt valuation gains as it went down last year—although they weren't big enough to offset its other losses. And it seems clear that there really is something screwy about mark-to-market accounting that goes beyond the simple fact that markets are volatile.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (2)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    Tell me, are Citi and BoA marking their other bits to market? Wasn't the last MtM fuss about banks not having to mark assets to market so as to avoid large sudden write downs? So are they getting to pick which assets get marked to market?
    This all seems very odd
    Also, if they pick and choose, doesn't this influence their tax exposure? and thus the money they are giving to the government who, err, gave them a load of money quite recently.
    Curiouser and Curiouser.

  • 2

    It seems to me that the more pressing question here is thus:
    .
    Why is the CDS contract, as used as a means for hedging liability, even subjected to mark-to-market rules, especially considering the fact that a hedge CDS is effectively an insurance policy? Insurance policies are not subjected to to mark-to-market, so why a hedge CDS?
    .
    It seems to me that the regulators were not thinking when they wrote the rules.

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Curious Capitalist Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's The Curious Capitalist in your inbox and never miss a day.

Quotes of the Day »

Get & Share
PETER H. SCHULTZ, professor of geological sciences at Brown University and co-investigator of the mission that said it found water on the moon Friday

Stay Connected with TIME.com