I'm not sure that the "mark to market" rules are correct in the goal of fairly valuing assets, especially if there is no active market existing that can place a value on those assets.
second, if a co. isn't seeking to trade those assets, why should they be forced to take a near term view of what those assets would bring (with the commensurate write down) rather than the historical value that could very well be acheived when the decision to sell is made?
the rule has resulted in overreaction by the investment community.
that being said, fasb should not be subject to political interference.
|