Galloism wrote:Um, no, it isn't. Not at all. Not in any way whatsoever.
The method of mark to market accounting was nonetheless used by Enron or Arthur Anderson to "cook the books" for Enron's financial statements. If Mark to Market's flaws are too many, I can't trust it compared to historical cost accounting.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... n-scandal/
In general, mark-to-market accounting runs the risk of being inaccurate. The market value of something at any given time may not reflect the true worth of an asset. If its undervalued, all is usually well. But if its overvalued and really worthless, it means huge trouble and lots of people losing money once the world finds out.