Artheu Levitt, former chair of the SEC recently testified to Congress and vigorously defended mark-to- market.
Statement of Arthur Levitt, former Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
Before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
March 26, 2009
Regulation needs to match the market action. If an entity is engaged in trading securities, it should be regulated as a securities firm. If an entity takes deposits and holds loans to maturity, it should be regulated as a depository bank. Moreover, regulation and regulatory agencies must be suited to the markets they seek to oversee. Regulation is not one size fits all.
Accounting standards serve a critical purpose by making information accessible and comprehensible in a consistent way. I understand that the mere mention of accounting can make the mind wander, but accounting is the foundation of our financial system. Under no circumstances should accounting standards be changed to suit the momentary needs of market participants. That principle supports mark‐to‐market accounting, which should not be suspended under any condition.
The proper role of a securities regulator is to be the guardian of capital markets. There is an inherent tension at times between securities regulators and banking supervisors. That tension is to be expected and even desired. But under no circumstance should the securities regulator be subsumed – if your goal is to restore investor confidence, you must embolden those who protect capital markets from abuse. You must fund them appropriately, give them the legal tools they need to protect investors, and, most of all, hold them accountable, so that they enforce the laws you write.
And finally, all regulatory reforms and improvements must be done in a coordinated and systemic way. The work of regulation is rarely done well in a piecemeal fashion. Rather, your focus should be to create a system of rules that comprise a complete approach, where each part complements the other, and to do it all at once.
Mark to market or fair value standards should not be suspended under any circumstance. Some have come forward and suggested that these are unusual times, and we need to make concessions in our accounting standards to help us through it. But if we obscure investor understanding of the value of assets currently held by banking institutions, we would exacerbate the crisis, and hurt investors in the bargain. Unfortunately, recent steps taken by the FASB, at the behest of some politicians, weaken fair value accounting.
Those who argue for a suspension of mark‐to‐market accounting argue this would punish risk‐taking. I strongly disagree. Our goal should be to make sure risk can be priced accurately.
Failure to account for risk, and failure to present it in a consistent way, makes it impossible to price it, and therefore to manage it. And so any effort that seeks to shield investors from understanding risk profiles of individual banks would, I believe, be a mistake, and contribute to greater systemic risk.
I would add that mark‐to‐market accounting has important value for internal management of risk within a firm. Mark‐to‐market informs investment bank senior managers of trading performance, asset prices, and risk factor volatilities. It supports profit and loss processes and hedge performance analyses, facilitates the generation and validation of risk metrics, and enables a controlled environment for risk‐taking. If treated seriously by management, mark‐to‐market is a force for internal discipline and risk management, not much different than a focus on internal controls. Yes, valuing illiquid or complex structured products is difficult. But that doesn’t mean the work should not be done. I would argue that it has to be done, both inside the firm and by those outside it, to reduce risk throughout our system.
And so I agree with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the heads of the major accounting firms, that the maintenance of mark‐to‐market standards is essential.
Supporting all these activities will require an appropriately funded, staffed and empowered SEC. Under the previous administration, SEC funding and staffing either stayed flat or dropped in significant areas – enforcement staff dropped 11 percent from 2005 to 2008, for example. We have seen that regulators are often overmatched, both in staffing and in their capacity to use and deploy technology, and they can’t even meet even a modest calendar of regular inspections of securities firms. Clearly, if we are to empower the SEC to oversee the activities of municipal bond firms and hedge funds, we will need to create not only a stronger agency, but one which has an adequate and dedicated revenue stream, just as the Federal Reserve does.
My final recommendation relates to something you must not do. Under no condition should the SEC lose any of its current regulatory responsibilities. As the primary guardian of capital markets, the SEC is considered the leading investor representative and advocate. Any regulatory change you make that reduces the responsibility or authority of the SEC will be viewed as a reduction in investor protections. That view will be correct, because no agency has the culture, institutional knowledge, staff, and mission as the SEC to protect investors.
These actions would affirm the core principles which served the nation’s financial markets so well, from 1933 to 1999 – regulation meeting the realities of the market, accounting standards upheld and strengthened, regulators charged with serving as the guardians of capital markets, and a systemic approach to regulation. The resulting regulatory structure would be flexible enough to meet the needs of today’s market, and would create a far more effective screen for potential systemic risks throughout the marketplace.
Financial innovations would continue to be developed, but under a more watchful eye from regulators, who would be able to track their growth and follow potential exposure.
Whole swaths of the shadow markets would be exposed to the sunlight of oversight, without compromising the freedom investors have in choosing their financial managers and the risks they are willing to bear.
Most importantly, these measures would help restore investor confidence by putting in place a strong regulatory structure, enforcing rules equally and consistently, and making sure those rules serve to protect investors from fraud, misinformation, and outright abuse.
These outcomes won’t come without a price to those who think only of their own self-interest. As we have seen in the debate over mark- to-market accounting rules, there will be strong critics of strong, consistent regulatory structure. The self-interested have reasons of their own to void mark-to-market accounting, but that does not make them good reasons for all of us. Someone must be the guardian of the capital market structure, and someone must think of the greater good. That is why this committee must draw on its heritage of setting aside partisanship and the concerns of those with single interests, and maintain a common front to favor the rights of the investor, whose confidence will determine the health of our markets, our economy, and ultimately, our nation.