Others say the ring­fence will force UK banks abroad. Reference is made to announcementsthat HSBC is reconsidering its UK domicile. HSBC might indeed wish to escape the costly (andhard to justify) levy on bank balance sheets introduced in 2011. But it cannot escape theringfence by leaving since its UK retail bank must remain subject to UK law. Thus, the ringfencecannot be a justification for doing so.
还有人说,圈护要求将迫使英国的银行迁往海外。他们提到汇丰(HSBC)宣布重新考虑总部选址。汇丰可能的确希望逃避2011年出台的针对银行资产负债表的高额(且很难证明合理)征费。但它无法通过搬迁总部来逃避圈护,因为英国的零售银行仍必须遵守英国法律。因此,圈护不能成为这样做的理由。
A more powerful argument is that the loss absorbency of banks is now such that theadditional safety provided by ringfencing is redundant. One response is that theinternationally agreed levels of loss absorbency is in line with the proposals of the ICB. Theother is that banks remain highly leveraged. Last year the ratio of total assets to equity of UKbanks was between 20 and 30 to one. It would take modest losses to wipe out these banks’equity.
更有力的论据是,如今银行的亏损吸收能力已经相当大,圈护所提供的额外安全度是冗余的。对此的回应之一是,国际间同意的亏损吸收能力水平与ICB的建议相符。另一个回应是,英国的银行仍保持着高杠杆率。去年,英国各银行总资产与股本的比率介于20至30比1之间。不需要发生太大的亏损,就会抹掉这些银行的股本。
【英国为何应圈护零售银行业】相关文章:
★ 银行业应简单至上
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15