金曲獎

治癒系部落客 櫻花妹 ECFA 蔡依林 京都 

紐時閱讀：Which Companies Are Too Big to Fail? 哪些公司大到不能倒﹖ Which Companies Are Too Big to Fail? 哪些公司大到不能倒﹖ 原文出處： http://city.udn.com/50132/3040435By Nelson D. Schwartz Is the definition of companies that are “too big to fail” getting broader? Or are some industries simply more important than others? 難不成，公司「大到不能倒」的定義愈來愈寬？抑或，美國的某些產業硬是比別的來得重要？ The bailout of American International Group, the insurance giant, is the third time this year, after the seizure of the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rescue of Bear Stearns, that Washington has intervened to prevent a financial collapse. 房地產抵押貸款融資機構「房利美」和「房地美」被接管，是華府當局為防止金融體系全面崩盤，繼拯救貝爾斯登公司之後，今年內第二度出手干預。 Now, troubled automakers in the United States are also looking for help, in the form of loans to finance the development of new energy-efficient cars. 如今，面臨困境的美國汽車製造業也來尋求援助，盼以貸款方式，資助開發新節能汽車。 Until now, the bailout efforts have largely been reactive, with Washington throwing lifelines over the last decade to businesses in the airline and insurance industries and, more recently, those on Wall Street. 截至目前為止，紓困方案大多屬於被動回應。在過去十年間，華府只拋救生繩給航空和保險業者，直到最近，紓困對象才出現華爾街的金融業者。 Now, many in the financial industry say a more formal debate is needed to set criteria to guide decisions on future requests for help from individual companies or industries. For example, should a large airline be allowed to fail while an automaker is bailed out? 現在，許多金融業者說，有必要舉辦更正式的辯論以制定標準，指導未來接到個別公司或產業的紓困要求時如何決策。比如說，是否該讓某家大型航空公司倒閉，卻為某家汽車廠商紓困？ “This presents a very important policy question that people are going to be grappling with for a long time,” said Robert E. Rubin, who was Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and is now a senior adviser at Citigroup. “Bear was not too big to fail; it was too interconnected. Fannie and Freddie are both.” 「這凸顯出一個非常重要的政策問題，人們勢須苦思良久，」柯林頓政府的財政部長，目前擔任花旗集團資深顧問的羅伯特‧魯賓說道。「貝爾斯登並非規模太大，不能倒；而是因為牽連太廣。房利美和房地美則兩者兼具。」 Hard choices have been made in the past – the once-powerful American steel industry was allowed to shrink to a shadow of its former self. 過去也做過困難的抉擇－袖手任由曾盛極一時的美國鋼鐵業大大萎縮。 When Washington did come to the rescue, the overall risk to the economy was considered greater than the downside of providing help – what economists call “moral hazard,” referring to the risk that helping a faltering company will only encourage others to take even greater risks on the assumption that the government will always be there to provide a backstop. 一般認為，華府當局一旦出手相救，整體經濟承受的風險，遠比提供援助的後遺症來得大-此即經濟學家所謂的「道德風險」，亦即政府幫助瀕臨倒閉的企業，只會鼓勵其他公司去冒更大的風險，因為他們認為反正有政府出面，當他們的靠山。 Mr. Rubin said that the moral hazard problem was “extremely important.” But with Fannie’s and Freddie’s shareholders practically wiped out, “the principle has been upheld,” he added. 魯賓說，道德風險的問題「極為重要」。不過，由於房利美和房地美的股東實際上已血本無歸，「這個原則仍告確立，」他又說。 Even supporters of the rescue plan say the move raises bigger questions. 房利美和房地美屬於特例，因為它們和聯邦政府淵源甚深，不過，即便支持救援計畫的人也說，這項措施暴露出更大的問題。 “Do we live in a market economy or not?” said Jonathan Koppell, director of the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance at Yale. “If we do, it seems companies have to be allowed to fail. If we say companies can’t fail because they’re too big or the consequences are too great, we have something else.” 「我們到底算不算生活在市場經濟體？」耶魯大學「密爾斯坦公司治理與效能中心」主任岳納珊‧柯培爾說。「如果算，那麼該倒的公司似乎就該讓它倒。如果我們說，這些公司不能倒，因為他們規模太大，抑或後果太嚴重，那我們就不是市場經濟體。」 Popular sentiment seems to be swinging in this direction. Just this week the Lehman Brothers investment bank went to bankruptcy after the federal government refused a bailout. Henry M. Paulson Jr., the treasury secretary, commented on Monday that it was not appropriate to put taxpayer money at risk to bailout Lehman. Merrill Lynch avoided Lehman’s fate only by agreeing to be taken over by Bank of America for $50 billion. 社會輿論似乎朝這個方向傾斜。本周，雷曼兄弟投資銀行在聯邦政府拒絕紓困後，宣告破產。財政部長寶森周一（15日）評論，為了替雷曼紓困而讓納稅人的錢蒙受風險，是不恰當的。美林就因為同意讓美國銀行以500億美元購併，才免於步上雷曼後塵。 On Tuesday, the United States Federal Reserve reversed course and agreed to an $85 billion bailout of A.I.G. What frightened officials was A.I.G.’s role as an enormous provider of esoteric financial insurance contracts to investors who bought complex debt securities. They effectively required A.I.G. to cover losses suffered by the buyers in the event the securities defaulted. It meant A.I.G. was potentially responsible for billions of dollar’s worth of risky securities that were once considered safe. 周二（16日），美國聯邦準備理事會態度180度大轉變，改為同意提供850億美元為美國國際集團（AIG）紓困。令聯邦官員害怕的，是投資人購入高額的複合債券，而AIG所扮演的角色，正是這些玄秘難懂的金融保險合約提供者。 Foreign policy considerations are also driving the deal to help Fannie and Freddie. A substantial portion of their debt is held by central banks in Asia as well as by private financial institutions in Europe . 這些合約規定，一旦債券無法清償，AIG就必須承擔投資人全部的損失。也就是說，那些高達數十億美元，一度被認為安全無虞的風險債券，AIG必須概括承受。 A default, Mr. Koppell said, “would make foreign governments scream that they thought they were doing business with the U.S.A. and would undermine their faith in America as a borrower.” 政府出手救房利美和房地美，背後有外交政策考量。兩房的債權，有相當大的部分握在亞洲各國央行和歐洲民間金融機構手中。一旦無法履約償還，柯培爾說，「外國政府勢必高聲吶喊：他們以為是和美國政府在做生意。他們對美國這個借款人的信心，會大打折扣。」Richard C. Breeden, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a key architect of the savings and loan bailout under President George H. W. Bush, said the criteria for a bailout should be whether “the failure of a particular company will cause a ripple effect and otherwise healthy institutions will be forced into insolvency, affecting the overall economy.” 證券交易委員會前主席，同時也是老布希總統時代儲貸紓困方案設計人理察‧布利登說，紓困與否，條件應視「某一特定公司的倒閉，是否會造成漣漪效應，使原本體質健全的機構被迫宣告破產，影響整個經濟。」 關鍵字句 作者提出「哪家公司大到不能倒」（Which companies are too big to fail?），這個大哉問（grand question），顯然對美國政府堅守原則（stick to the principle），坐視雷曼兄弟投資銀行破產（files for bankruptcy / drive into insolvency）的作法，頗為肯定。不過，美國政府後來卻又礙於市場及輿論壓力，出爾反爾（goes back on one's words /eat one's words），改變要AIG 自力救濟（to survive on its own） 的決定，宣布同意以850 億美元貸款接管（bailout / take over）AIG，讓這個大哉問的答案，從nope 變成yep。 ...too big to fail 是常見的句型...太...以致不...，加問號改成疑問句後，具有否定的效果，相當於no...is too...to。沒有人是無可取代的，可寫成No one is irreplaceable，亦可作No one is too omnipotent / great to be replaced。 ...allowed to shrink to a shadow of its former self 依字面應譯為：縮成自己從前的影子，只剩影子就表示外強中乾；She is only a shadow of her former self. 指她已經不如往日那麼風光。 ...the downside of providing help出手相助的負面效應，upside 與downside 可純指向上或下的走勢（upward / downward trend），如價格漲跌，亦可做積極/消極（positive /negative） 解，如a young man with lots of upside 或the downside of fame。 原文參照：http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/business/09big.html 2008-09-23/聯合報/G5版/UNITED DAILY NEWS 蔡繼光 原文請見9月23日紐時周報七版上

3