Photo Credit: Doug Waldron
-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Before I write this evening, I would like to point out what is going on with Horsehead Holdings [ZINCQ]. There was an article in the New York Times on it recently. It's an interesting situation where an equity committee exists in a bankruptcy, largely because the management team looks like it is not trying to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate, but is perhaps instead trying to sell the company off to creditors cheaply in an effort to receive a benefit later from the new owners. Worth a look, because if the equity committee wins, it will be unusual, and if the debtors win, it very well may take value that legitimately belonged to the equity.
That said, I don't have a strong opinion because I don't have enough data. But I will be watching.
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I received a letter from a reader yesterday on a related topic from my most recent article. Here it is:
Hi David,
First of all, it's nice to find you (and Ed Yardeni and Mohamed El-Erian) working when most analysts seem to be at the beach. That said, a question:
In early '09, as you will recall, the big banks were begging for relief from mark-to-market accounting for their holdings of mortgage-backed securities, on the grounds that these securities weren't trading at all.
“Ridiculous!” said Jeremy Grantham. “Put 2 percent of your holding out to auction and you will learn its market value quick enough.”
At the time, I thought Grantham had a fair point. Now I'm not so sure.
What was your view on that issue? John Hussman has said repeatedly that it was the FASB's relaxation of the mark-to-market rules that set off the dramatic resurgence in stock prices that we have seen (and which he deplores).
Was the FASB's change of policy warranted, under the circumstances?
And should the mark-to-market rule now be restored?
