评论
打印
Carping about the TARP
对救援计划吹毛求疵
Congress wrangles over how best to avoid financial Armageddon
美国国会争论如何最大程度地避免金融灾难
IF ONLY, America’s financial authorities must feel, they could gag congressmen as easily as they have muzzled short-sellers. Financial markets around the world were choppy this week as Republicans and Democrats wrangled over the $700 billion rescue plan for Wall Street proposed last week by Hank Paulson, America's treasury secretary.
美国金融监管者肯定感觉到，如果他们能像让卖空者闭嘴那样容易就能堵住国会议员们的嘴该多好呀！美国财长保尔森上周向国会提交了一份7000亿美元的华尔街救援计划。本周的世界金融市场随着美国共和民主两党对此提案的争论不休而起伏动荡。
One fear is that Mr Paulson’s troubled asset relief programme (TARP) will be blocked on Capitol Hill. That is possibly overdone: the risk of being blamed for plunging the world’s greatest economy into financial ruin is a good incentive for all sides to reach a compromise. Of more concern is that the plan, if it were approved, would neither shore up the financial system nor save the American economy. On that point there is room for argument, and hence for more uncertainty in the markets.
其中一个担心便是保尔森的问题资产救援计划会在国会山受阻。这也许有些夸张了：因为承担将世界最大经济体拖入金融废墟责任的风险显然会使两党达成妥协。另一个更大的担心是，即是这项计划被通过，如果它不能支撑美国金融体系并保住美国经济怎么办。从这个角度来说的话，救援计划中的项目还有值得讨论的地方。因此，市场还会有更多的不确定性。
Mr Paulson’s plan is to use public money to buy assets from banks whose value has slumped with every lurch downwards in America’s housing market and which have been shunned by the private sector. With a floor put under the value of those instruments it should be easier for banks to raise capital. Without capital, and amid relentless write-downs on those toxic assets, banks would have to curtail lending, causing a massive credit drought in America. That would not only further batter the housing market. It might also push companies into bankruptcy, too, causing mayhem in the $62 trillion market for credit derivatives.
保尔森的计划是使用公共资金来购买银行的不良资产。这些资产由于美国房地产市场的大幅下跌而严重缩水，私人资本对此也无人问津。由于救援计划给了这些票据 一个最低保障价值，银行就更容易筹得资金。如果没有资金，而且处于残酷的不良资产减记的情况下，银行便会减少贷款，从而使美国陷入全面的严重的信贷干涸 期。这不仅会更加打击房地产市场，而且还会将公司逼向倒闭，给62万亿美元的衍生品市场的带来严重冲击。
“Despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and other agencies, global financial markets remain under extraordinary stress,” Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, said in prepared remarks for a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday September 23rd. “Action by Congress is urgently required to stabilise the situation and avert what otherwise could be very serious consequences for our financial markets and for our economy.”
“尽管美联储，财政部和其他机构都在努力，世界金融市场依然处于非常巨大的压力之下，”美联储主席伯南克在周二（9月23日）参议院银行委员会的听证会上如是说，“迫切需要国会采取行动来稳定局面，并保护金融市场和美国经济免遭严重后果。”
Few dispute the potential threat; the demise of a 75-year-old investment-banking model on Wall Street in just a few days shows the financial system to be vulnerable. But there is plenty for everyone to dislike about aspects of Mr Paulson’s plan. It could safeguard irresponsible bankers’ jobs, while doing little to stop troubled mortgage debtors from being thrown out of their homes. It seeks to invest massive power in a treasury secretary with a lifelong loyalty to Wall Street. The banks with the worst assets (ie, those which have made the worst decisions) could receive the most help. Most disturbing, the taxpayer will be funding an enormous, ill-defined programme, without any stipulation as yet that the banks who orchestrated the mess will pay a penalty.
几乎没人对潜在的威胁产生质疑。华尔街上有75年历史的投资银行模式在几天内的迅速死亡显示了金融体系的脆弱不堪。但是对每个人来说，保尔森计划都有不招 人喜欢的地方。这个计划会保住不负责任银行家的工作，但是对于即将赶出家门的，陷入困境的抵押贷款者却没啥帮助。这项计划试图将巨大的权力赋予一个毕生都 对华尔街忠诚的财政部长。那些拥有最糟糕资产的银行（即是做过最差决策的银行）会得到最大的帮助。最令人烦恼的是，纳税人的钱会来支援一个巨大的，不明朗 的计划，而且没有任何约束规定，就像到目前为止对于造成这场危机的银行没有任何处罚一样
