Battle comments on alternative to MTM

Last night, Brian Battle was interviewed for a MarketWatch article discussing the mark-to-market controversy: Mark-to-market rule compromise is on the way.

One alternative would be to allow banks to develop a model and analysis of what they believe their illiquid assets are worth and what they forecast the securities will be valued in the following quarter. In this approach, a bank must also explain the asset’s value if sold today, said Brian Battle, vice president at Performance Trust in Chicago.

One hypothetical scenario: A bank produces analysis and documentation that its asset is worth $80, its value will be $90 next quarter and it can get $50 in the market today. Analysts and investors would become more or less confident in a bank’s asset valuations, as it becomes clear whether or not they meet these estimates.

“Some banks will become known as sandbaggers while others would be perceived more favorably because they met their modeled forecasts,” Battle said.

Along with Battle’s proposed change, Ronald D. Orol lays out a few other alternatives to mark-to-market given the unlikeliness of complete elimination of the rule.