Mark-to-market
The value of an asset by reference to its market price — ie what folks are prepared to pay for it. Popular amongst derivatives folk. Good pragmatic, non-dogmatic stuff. You will find all kinds of chat about bids and offers, reference market-makers and so on.
There the temptation might be to mark-to-model — cue much jiggery pokery and opacity, because you value your positions based on what your clever models — the same ones that did all that lovely backtesting — tell you. But Models don’t always behave themselves, do they. Especially when they’ve been ginned up by self-interested credit derivative structurers or fanciful Enron employees.
Mark-to-market has its drawbacks, especially in illiquid contracts or for speculative new business lines for which there isn't yet a market. This did not stop Enron recognising $110 million of estimated profits from a 20-year deal with Blockbuster Video[1] for on-demand entertainment to various U.S. cities by notwithstanding dubious technical viability and no evidence of market demand[2]. When the network failed to work, Blockbuster withdrew from the contract. Enron continued to recognize future profits, even though the deal resulted in a loss.
See also
- The Enron ron
- Models.Behaving.Badly — book review