btcschellingpt on Nostr: Mark to market .. or not For those of you old enough to remember, that time after the ...
Mark to market .. or not
For those of you old enough to remember, that time after the GFC from 2007/2008 when house prices tanked were tough for many, dire for many and tragic for too many: jobs lost, income lost, homes lost, families torn asunder, suicides and misery ..
An avoidable cyclone of financial fuckery wrought on the plebs ..
What did the banks do? Well, they watched the property market like everyone else, and for everyone that owed them money .. they had the comfort of a security of a mortgage over their customers home ..
Many who lost their jobs had to eventually sell their houses .. at a loss .. and in the worst case that sale didn't cover the outstanding mortgage 😬 .. some declared bankruptcy, some shouldered the debt .. tragic
However .. for those who by hook or by crook (job or savings) continued to pay their monthly mortgage to the bank, the bank consequently gave zero fucks. They did NOT care that the EUR500k mortgage was now secured by a EUR300k property .. as long as those sweet monthly payments kept rolling in ..
So this idea of "loss" (or gain for that matter), is only one that is remotely relevant at a time when you sell .. which is traditionally when the asset is repriced/revalued/"marked to market"
Which brings us to debt:
So if you hold debt, then as long as you can service it, no problem. If you're "over your skis", or your circumstances change (and you can't), or you're a leveraged degenerate, then margin calls on assets that ARE dynamically marked to market are going to plague your sleep
Been thinking a lot about the *choice* of when security holders mark assets to market lately ;-)
For those of you old enough to remember, that time after the GFC from 2007/2008 when house prices tanked were tough for many, dire for many and tragic for too many: jobs lost, income lost, homes lost, families torn asunder, suicides and misery ..
An avoidable cyclone of financial fuckery wrought on the plebs ..
What did the banks do? Well, they watched the property market like everyone else, and for everyone that owed them money .. they had the comfort of a security of a mortgage over their customers home ..
Many who lost their jobs had to eventually sell their houses .. at a loss .. and in the worst case that sale didn't cover the outstanding mortgage 😬 .. some declared bankruptcy, some shouldered the debt .. tragic
However .. for those who by hook or by crook (job or savings) continued to pay their monthly mortgage to the bank, the bank consequently gave zero fucks. They did NOT care that the EUR500k mortgage was now secured by a EUR300k property .. as long as those sweet monthly payments kept rolling in ..
So this idea of "loss" (or gain for that matter), is only one that is remotely relevant at a time when you sell .. which is traditionally when the asset is repriced/revalued/"marked to market"
Which brings us to debt:
So if you hold debt, then as long as you can service it, no problem. If you're "over your skis", or your circumstances change (and you can't), or you're a leveraged degenerate, then margin calls on assets that ARE dynamically marked to market are going to plague your sleep
Been thinking a lot about the *choice* of when security holders mark assets to market lately ;-)