perspective: 2025 Vol: 29 Issue: 1S
Sophie Muller, University of Heidelberg
Citation Information: Muller, S. (2025). How mark-to-market accounting affects asset valuation and market volatility. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 29(S1), 1-3.
Mark-to-market accounts, or fair value accounting, is a method of valuing assets and liabilities based on current market prices. While this approach aims to reflect real-time values, it also introduces potential volatility into financial statements, especially during market downturns or periods of economic uncertainty. This article explores the principles of mark-to-market accounting, its impact on asset valuation, and the role it plays in market volatility. By examining both the benefits and challenges associated with this method, we gain insight into how it affects stakeholders and financial stability. The article concludes with considerations for companies, regulators, and investors in managing the effects of fair value accounting.
Mark-to-Market Accounting, Asset Valuation, Market Volatility, Fair Value Accounting, Financial Statements, Economic Uncertainty.
Mark-to-market accounting, also known as fair value accounting, is a method that values assets and liabilities at their current market price rather than historical cost. This approach has become prevalent in financial reporting, especially for financial institutions that hold assets with market-based valuations ( Ball et al., 2012). However, while this method provides real-time information, it also contributes to market volatility, especially during economic downturns. Understanding how mark-to-market accounting influences asset valuation and market behavior is essential for investors, regulators, and companies alike ( Chen et al., 2013).
Mark-to-market accounting updates the valuation of assets and liabilities to reflect their current market value. Unlike historical cost accounting, which records assets at their original purchase price, mark-to-market aims to provide a more accurate picture of financial positions in the context of present-day conditions. This approach is especially relevant for assets that fluctuate with market conditions, such as securities, derivatives, and investment portfolios.
One primary benefit of mark-to-market accounting is increased transparency. By valuing assets at their current market price, financial statements offer a more realistic view of a company's financial health. This transparency can be beneficial for investors and stakeholders who require up-to-date information to make informed decisions. Moreover, mark-to-market accounting can reduce the risk of asset overvaluation by regularly adjusting asset values to market conditions.
While fair value accounting offers transparency, it can also introduce volatility to financial statements. During economic downturns, the market value of assets may decline sharply, resulting in significant write-downs that can affect a company's reported earnings. This volatility may not accurately reflect the long-term value of an asset, leading some critics to argue that mark-to-market accounting can distort financial results during periods of market stress.
Mark-to-market accounting directly impacts asset valuation by aligning it with real-time market conditions. However, when markets are volatile, this method can cause drastic fluctuations in asset values. For instance, during the 2008 financial crisis, many banks and financial institutions had to mark down asset values significantly, which contributed to financial instability. This approach underscores the sensitivity of asset valuation to market dynamics, particularly in the financial sector( Heaton et al., 2010).
Fair value accounting can exacerbate market volatility by creating a feedback loop between asset valuation and market sentiment. When asset prices decline, companies must mark down their values, which can trigger further selling and cause prices to fall even more. This cycle was evident during the financial crisis, as mark-to-market accounting forced institutions to recognize substantial losses, which in turn fueled more market instability. The inherent responsiveness of this method to market changes makes it a double-edged sword for financial stability.
The 2008 financial crisis provides a notable example of how mark-to-market accounting can influence financial stability. During the crisis, the value of mortgage-backed securities plummeted, leading banks to recognize enormous losses due to mark-to-market requirements. This, in turn, eroded investor confidence and intensified the market downturn. Although the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) relaxed certain mark-to-market requirements during the crisis, the episode highlighted the impact of fair value accounting on financial statements and market dynamics ( Epstein & Henderson, 2010).
Investors benefit from the transparency that mark-to-market accounting provides, as it allows them to assess a company's financial position based on current market conditions. However, the volatility associated with this approach can be challenging for investors focused on long-term stability. For value investors, mark-to-market swings can obscure the underlying worth of an asset, while more short-term oriented investors might view it as a tool for identifying profitable opportunities in dynamic markets( Correia et al., 2018).
Regulatory bodies play an important role in balancing the transparency and stability of financial reporting. In response to the challenges posed by mark-to-market accounting, regulators have implemented guidelines to mitigate extreme volatility in financial statements ( Francis, 2011). For example, during the 2008 crisis, the FASB allowed financial institutions to use alternative valuation methods temporarily ( Amel?Zadeh & Meeks, 2013). Regulators continue to assess the application of fair value accounting standards to ensure they promote both transparency and stability in financial markets.
Alternatives to mark-to-market accounting, such as amortized cost accounting or hybrid valuation models, have been suggested as ways to mitigate volatility. These alternatives use a blend of historical cost and fair value, allowing companies to smooth out valuations during periods of market instability ( Allen & Carletti, 2013). While these methods may reduce short-term volatility, they also sacrifice some of the transparency that mark-to-market accounting provides, posing a trade-off between stability and real-time accuracy.
Mark-to-market accounting significantly influences asset valuation and can contribute to market volatility, especially during periods of economic uncertainty. While it enhances transparency and aligns asset values with current market conditions, its sensitivity to price fluctuations can lead to drastic changes in financial statements that may not reflect the long-term value of an asset. Understanding the benefits and drawbacks of mark-to-market accounting is essential for investors, regulators, and companies as they seek a balance between financial transparency and stability. As financial markets evolve, continued dialogue around fair value accounting and its impact on market behaviour will be vital to fostering resilience in the global financial system health.
Allen, F., & Carletti, E. (2008). Should financial institutions mark to market?. Bank of France Financial Stability Review, 12, 1-6.
Amel?Zadeh, A., & Meeks, G. (2013). Bank failure, mark?to?market and the financial crisis. Abacus, 49(3), 308-339.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Ball, R., Jayaraman, S., & Shivakumar, L. (2012). Mark-to-market accounting and information asymmetry in banks. Chicago Booth Research Paper, (12-35).
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Chen, Y., Wang, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2019). Mark to market value at risk. Journal of Econometrics, 208(1), 299-321.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Correia, M., Kang, J., & Richardson, S. (2018). Asset volatility. Review of Accounting Studies, 23, 37-94.
Epstein, R. A., & Henderson, M. T. (2010). Do accounting rules matter-the dangerous allure of mark to market. J. Corp. L., 36, 513.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Francis, S. (2011). How to ‘mark-to-market’when there is no market. Journal of Derivatives & Hedge Funds, 17, 122-132.
Heaton, J. C., Lucas, D., & McDonald, R. L. (2010). Is mark-to-market accounting destabilizing? Analysis and implications for policy. Journal of Monetary Economics, 57(1), 64-75.