The debate on bank reform has reached a curious moment. In one half of the conversation, regulators are discussing how to make banks safer for society. In the other half, equity investors are discussing how to make banks safer for their portfolios. If you put the two halves of the debate together, you soon realise that the regulatory conversation is topsy turvy – at least in one crucial respect.
有关银行改革的辩论进入了一个奇怪时刻。在辩论的一方,监管机构正在讨论如何让银行对社会更安全。在辩论的另一方,股市投资者正在讨论如何让银行对他们的投资组合更安全。如果你把这场辩论两方的观点综合在一起,你会很快意识到,有关监管的对话一片混乱,至少从一个关键的角度来看是如此。
The regulatory discussion generally presumes that “reasonable reform must leave banks intact. Breaking up too-big-to-fail lenders would do violence to the private sector; by contrast, demanding that banks raise extra capital is a market-friendly way to avoid taxpayer bailouts. But the actual conversation in the markets inverts this presumption. Among equity investors, breaking up banking behemoths is increasingly regarded as desirable; by contrast, boosting banks’ capital is anathema. If a “reasonable reform is one that goes with the grain of preferences in the market, busting up the banks may actually be more reasonable than forcing them to hold capital they absolutely do not want.
【分拆大银行】相关文章:
★ 手机到底有多脏?
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15