注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

保罗·克鲁格曼 中文博客

授权网易博客进行中文翻译并推广

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

美国经济学家

2008年诺贝尔经济学奖得主。 美國經濟學家及紐約時報的專欄作家,普林斯頓大學經濟系教授,是新凱恩斯主義经济学派代表。1953年出生美國紐約,约翰·F·肯尼迪高中毕业。1974年就讀耶鲁大學,1977年在麻省理工學院取得博士學位,受到经济学家诺德豪斯的注意。畢業後先後於耶鲁大学、麻省理工及史丹福大學任教。2000年起,成為普林斯頓大學經濟系教授。

文章分类
网易考拉推荐

克鲁格曼:摆脱阴影(2)   

2009-07-03 10:36:44|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

The Obama plan does this by giving the Federal Reserve the power to regulate any large financial institution it deems “systemically important” — that is, able to create havoc if it fails — whether or not that institution is a traditional bank. Such institutions would be required to hold relatively large amounts of capital to cover possible losses, relatively large amounts of cash to cover possible demands from creditors, and so on.

根据奥巴马的改革计划,美联储被授权监管任何“具有系统性重要意义的”大型金融机构,不论该机构是否是传统意义上的银行。这些机构将被要求持有相对大量的资本金以弥补可能的损失,以及数额较大的现金以应付债权人可能的要求。

And the government would have the authority to seize such institutions if they appear insolvent — the kind of power that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation already has with regard to traditional banks, but that has been lacking with regard to institutions like Lehman or A.I.G.

如果这些机构看上去资不抵债,政府有关予以没收。对于传统的银行,美联储已经具有这种权力,但对雷曼兄弟和美国国际集团这样的机构却没有这种权力。

Good stuff. But what about the broader problem of financial excess?

这是非常好的事情。但关于金融过度的更广泛的问题又该怎样处置?

President Obama’s speech outlining the financial plan described the underlying problem very well. Wall Street developed a “culture of irresponsibility,” the president said. Lenders didn’t hold on to their loans, but instead sold them off to be repackaged into securities, which in turn were sold to investors who didn’t understand what they were buying. “Meanwhile,” he said, “executive compensation — unmoored from long-term performance or even reality — rewarded recklessness rather than responsibility.”

奥巴马在讲话中对此问题作了很好的描述。他说,华尔街催生了一种“不负责任的文化”。银行不是持有贷款,而是将这些贷款打包成证券,然后出售给投资者,但投资者往往不清楚承担的风险有多大。同时,高管薪酬并不是以长期业绩甚至事实为基础,是对高管鲁莽行为的奖励。

 Unfortunately, the plan as released doesn’t live up to the diagnosis.

不幸的是,改革方案并未采取相应的对策。

True, the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency would help control abusive lending. And the proposal that lenders be required to hold on to 5 percent of their loans, rather than selling everything off to be repackaged, would provide some incentive to lend responsibly.

诚然,提议新建的消费者金融保护局将有助于控制过度贷款。另外,政府要求银行需持有5%的贷款而不是全部打包出售,将为负责任的放贷提供一定的激励。 但是百分之五并不足以阻止风险过高的放贷行为。

But 5 percent isn’t enough to deter much risky lending, given the huge rewards to financial executives who book short-term profits. So what should be done about those rewards?

但是,考虑到给予金融经理们巨额的报酬,5%的比例不足以防止风险很高的借贷, 金融经理们是按照短期利润拿报酬的。因此,如何解决巨额回报的问题?

Tellingly, the administration’s executive summary of its proposals highlights “compensation practices” as a key cause of the crisis, but then fails to say anything about addressing those practices. The long-form version says more, but what it says — “Federal regulators should issue standards and guidelines to better align executive compensation practices of financial firms with long-term shareholder value” — is a description of what should happen, rather than a plan to make it happen.

政府指出了金融业高管“薪酬惯例”是危机爆发的一个重要原因,但没有说明如何解决这一问题。“联邦监管机构应该发布规范和指导方针,以便更好地改革金融机构的高管薪酬规则,使其与长期股东价值一致”——说明了该怎样做,但没有说明如何做。

Furthermore, the plan says very little of substance about reforming the rating agencies, whose willingness to give a seal of approval to dubious securities played an important role in creating the mess we’re in.

此外,政府的改革方案几乎未提到评级机构的监管改革,而评级机构对高风险证券的正面评级在危机发生过程中也发挥了重要作用。 

In short, Mr. Obama has a clear vision of what went wrong, but aside from regulating shadow banking — no small thing, to be sure — his plan basically punts on the question of how to keep it from happening all over again, pushing the hard decisions off to future regulators.

简而言之,奥巴马清楚认识到出了什么差错,但除了监管影子银行外(当然,这一点肯定也不是小事一桩),该方案在如何防止此类事情上又踢了一个空球,他的计划基本上将艰难的决定推给了将来的监管者。

I’m aware of the political realities: getting financial reform through Congress won’t be easy. And even as it stands the Obama plan would be a lot better than nothing.

我明白当前的政治现实:要国会通过金融改革将不是一件容易的事情。但是即便不加改动,奥巴马的方案总比没有什么也不做要好得多。

But to live up to its own analysis, the Obama administration needs to come down harder on the rating agencies and, even more important, get much more specific about reforming the way bankers are paid.

然而,要对得起自己的分析,奥巴马政府应该对评级机构更加严厉,虽然更重要的是采取更加具体的措施改革银行家的分配方式。

 

 

 

  评论这张
 
阅读(913)| 评论(5)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017