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

N·格里高利·曼昆的博客

恒甫学社的学术性分支博客

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我
曼昆  

曼昆

网易考拉推荐

怎样对金融系统的资本进行重新调整  

2008-10-10 09:08:19|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

原文链接:How to Recapitalize the Financial System

目前在经济学家中都达成了一个共识,那就是当前金融系统并不仅仅需要注入流动性,而是需要重新调整资本。此次金融危机的实质就是许多公司认定房价不会下跌,而事实上,房价的跌幅却前所未有。目前这些金融企业因为资金匮乏导致了他们不能很好的起到金融中介的作用。

    (作为题外话,人们可能会问,这些公司为什么会如此愚蠢,肯定房价不会下跌呢?实际上,这是众多私人决策者受到了市场上众多国家政策制订者的误导,而对市场作出错误判断的结果。他们中的许多企业都倾向于对有问题的贷款者提供贷款,而不是资产状况以及信誉良好的金融企业。但目前不是重新问责的时候。我们必须正视当前所面对的困境。)

    当前的问题就在于,我们怎样让金融企业重新获得资金?理想化一点,如果存在很多巴菲特,他们能站出来解决问题并且对金融机构进行资本的重新调配,这将是很不错的事情。然而,此举根本来不及阻止巨大的经济下滑。

    一些经济学家曾经提出让这些金融机构通过私有渠道募集更多资本,但在此过程中政府能具体做些什么呢?目前来说,还不十分明确。作为一个合法的构想,这应该能够实现。金融监管当局很有可能会使金融机构发生扭曲。将此方法称为“托尼·瑟普拉诺(Tony Soprano)法”:目前你已经有一个完美的银行,我不允许任何因素对其造成破坏。

    其他一些经济学家曾经提出政府自身向金融机构注入资本,这将会引起几大问题。首先,对象是哪些金融机构?政府当然不愿意将纳税人的钱投掷于那些无力偿还并且还没有意识到自身破产问题的“僵尸”企业。其次,政府的购买价格是多少?第三,这看起来多少有点象社会主义的行为。难道我们真的想政府开始扮演着老大的角色持续操控着华尔街并且对资金来源进行分配吗?我很明确的表示:不愿意。

    目前有一种想法有可能会解决这些问题:让政府充当未来巴菲特的一个沉默伙伴。

    具体是这样运作的。当任何一个金融机构在一项交易中不吸引新的私有资本时,它将获得等量的公有资本。而纳税人作为私人投资者时,可以获得相同的条款。唯一的区别就在于政府在出售股票之前不具有投票权。

    该项计划可以解决三大问题。私有部门而绝非政府能够剔除掉僵尸企业,制订价格,实现对公司的控制。

    为什么那些资本化不足的企业能够获益更多呢?因为它们只需要从私有渠道募集一半的所需资金,这样一来,融资就变得更加得容易了。现实中并没有那么多的巴菲特,但政府可以通过充分调动其职能来扮演巴菲特的角色。

    我相信,财政部已经对这7000亿美元救市资金的用途慎之又慎,考虑周全。我建议财政部可以对此资金设置一个上限,比如按照先来先得的原则调配3000亿美元。设置上限的一个好处就在于它能鼓励金融机构在‘关门’之前迅速采取行动。考虑到破产速度之快,金融机构早一点获得资金,避免破产的胜算就更大。

原文链接:How to Recapitalize the Financial System 

以下是英文原文:

How to Recapitalize the Financial System

There is broad agreement among economists that what the financial system needs right now is not only an injection of liquidity but also a recapitalization. The essence of the current financial crisis is that many firms bet that housing prices would not fall; the prices fell nonetheless; and now these firms have too little capital to perform the crucial function of financial intermediation.

(As an aside, one might ask, why did these firms make such bad bets? Essentially, it was a result of poor judgment among various private decisionmakers, encouraged by equally poor judgment of various public policymakers, many of whom were more interested in promoting homeownership among questionable borrowers than in the preserving the safety and soundness of the financial system. But this is not the time for recriminations. We have to face up to the problem sitting in our laps.)

The question for the moment is, How can we get capital back into the financial system? Ideally, it would be great if more Warren Buffetts would step up to the plate and recapitalize financial firms with private money. Unfortunately, that might not happen fast enough to prevent a major economic downturn.

Some economists have proposed forcing these firms to go raise more capital from private sources. But how exactly can the government do that? It is not entirely clear how, as a legal matter, that can be accomplished. Perhaps regulators can twist the arms of the financial institutions. Call it the Tony Soprano approach. “Nice bank you have here. I wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to it.”

Other economists have suggested that the government inject capital itself. That raises several questions. First, which firms? The government does not want to put taxpayer money into “zombie” firms that are in fact deeply insolvent but have not yet recognized it. Second, at what price should the government buy in? Third, isn’t this, kind of, like socialism? That is, do we really want the government to start playing a large, continuing role running Wall Street and allocating capital resources? I certainly don't.

Here is an idea that might deal with these problems: The government can stand ready to be a silent partner to future Warren Buffetts.

It could work as follows. Whenever any financial institution attracts new private capital in an arms-length transaction, it can access an equal amount of public capital. The taxpayer would get the same terms as the private investor. The only difference is that government’s shares would be nonvoting until the government sold the shares at a later date.

This plan would solve the three problems. The private sector rather than the government would weed out the zombie firms. The private sector rather than the government would set the price. And the private sector rather than the government would exercise corporate control.

Why would an undercapitalized financial firm take advantage of this offer? Because it would need to raise only half as much capital from private sources, that financing should be easier to come by. With Warren Buffetts in scarce supply, the government can in effect replicate them, by pigging backing on what they do.

I believe that Treasury has the discretion to use some of the $700 billion recently approved by Congress to make these equity injections. I would recommend that the Treasury announce an upper limit, say, $300 billion, allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. The limit would encourage financial institutions to act quickly to get in before the door closed. Given how fast matters are deteriorating, the sooner capital gets back into the financial system, the better.

原文链接:http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-to-recapitalize-financial-system.html

  评论这张
 
阅读(12077)| 评论(23)
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