A further objection is that we are now able to resolve troubled banks easily by convertingloss-absorbing debt into equity or even winding them up. Improvements have indeed beenmade. But the idea that these processes would work smoothly if a crisis again engulfed thesystem is unproven, if not optimistic. Ringfencing would at least give any future governmentmore options.
还有一个反对意见是,我们现在能够通过将吸收亏损的债务转化成股权,或者甚至对其清盘,很容易地清算陷入困境的银行。确实取得了一些进步。但是,那种认为如果危机再次席卷这一体系,这些过程将顺利运转的想法并未被证实,如果还算不上过于乐观的话。圈护至少将给未来的政府更多选项。
If anything is to be reconsidered it is not ringfencing but the UK’s bank levy, which is simply aheavy tax. I would have no objection to making the boundary of the ringfence more flexiblefor retail banks in return for higher equity capital. More broadly, if the capital of banks weregreatly increased, the case for ringfencing would weaken. But that is not where we now are. Soignore the whingeing.
如果有任何事需要被重新考虑的话,那不是圈护政策,而是英国的银行征费,它就是一项沉重的税种。我不反对让零售银行的圈护范围变得更加灵活,以换取更高的股权资本。更广义上说,如果银行的资本大大增加,圈护的理由将被削弱。但这不是我们现在面临的问题。所以,别在意这些抱怨。
【英国为何应圈护零售银行业】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15