2023年经济学人 丢失的五千亿美元(1)

（单词翻译）

 

 

    Finance & economics

    财经版块

    The missing half-trillion

    丢失的五千亿美元

    How the Federal Reserve drained the America's banks of deposits.

    美联储如何抽走了美国银行的存款。

    It is easy to understand how money gets destroyed in a traditional bank run.

    不难理解，在传统的银行挤兑中，资金是如何被摧毁的。

    Picture the men in top hats yelling at clerks in “Mary Poppins”.

    想象一下《玛丽·波平斯》中戴着高礼帽的男人对银行职员大喊大叫的情景。

    The crowds want their cash and bank tellers¹ are trying to provide it.

    一群人想要取出现金，银行出纳员正努力提供现金。

    But when customers flee, staff cannot satisfy all comers before the institution topples.

    但当客户纷纷逃离时，员工不可能满足前来取钱的所有人，然后银行倒闭了。

    The remaining debts (which, for banks, include deposits) are wiped out.

    剩余的债务(对于银行来说，其中包括存款)被一笔勾销。

    This is not what happens in the digital age.

    这不是数字时代发生的事情。

    The depositors fleeing Silicon² Valley Bank (SVB) did not ask for notes and coins.

    逃离硅谷银行的储户没有索要纸币和硬币。

    They wanted their balances wired elsewhere.

    他们想把余额汇到别处去。

    Nor were deposits written off when the bank went under.

    当银行倒闭时，存款也没有被注销。

    Instead, regulators promised to make SVB’s clients whole.

    相反，监管机构承诺要让硅谷银行的客户完好无损。

    Although the failure of the institution was bad news for shareholders³, it should not have reduced the aggregate⁴ amount of deposits in the banking⁵ system.

    虽然该机构的倒闭对股东来说是个坏消息，但它不应该减少银行体系的存款总量。

    The odd thing is that deposits in American banks are nevertheless falling.

    奇怪的是，美国银行的存款数额却在下降。

    Over the past year those in commercial banks have sunk by half a trillion dollars, a drop of nearly 3%.

    在过去的一年里，商业银行的存款减少了5000亿美元，降幅接近3%。

    This makes the financial system more fragile, since banks must shrink to repay their deposits.

    这使得金融体系更加脆弱，因为银行必须收缩规模才能偿还存款。

    Where is the money going?

    钱都到哪里去了呢？

    The answer starts with money-market funds, low-risk investment vehicles that buy short-term government and corporate⁶ debt.

    答案从货币市场基金开始，货币市场基金是购买短期政府和公司债券的低风险投资工具。

    These saw inflows of $121bn last week as SVB failed.

    上周，随着硅谷银行倒闭，这些基金的资金流入达到1210亿美元。

    However money does not actually enter such vehicles, for they are unable to take deposits.

    然而，资金实际上并不会进入这类工具，因为它们无法承接存款。

    Instead, cash that leaves a bank for a money-market fund is credited to the fund’s bank account, from which it is used to purchase the commercial paper or short-term debt in which the fund invests.

    相反，从银行流向货币市场基金的现金被记入该基金的银行账户，用于购买该基金投资的商业票据或短期债券。

    When the fund uses money in this way, it flows to the bank account of whichever institution sells the asset.

    当基金以这种方式使用资金时，资金会流入任何出售资产的机构的银行账户。

    Inflows to money-market funds should thus shuffle⁷ deposits around the banking system, rather than force them out of it.

    因此，流入货币市场基金的资金应该会在银行系统中转移存款，而不是迫使存款离开银行系统。

    And that is what used to happen.

    这就是过去常发生的情况。

    Yet there is one obscure way in which money-market funds may suck deposits from the banking system:

    然而，有一种隐蔽的方式可以让货币市场基金从银行系统中吸走存款：

    the Federal Reserve’s reverse-repo facility, which was introduced in 2013.

    2013年推出的美联储逆回购工具。

    The scheme was a seemingly innocuous change to the financial system’s plumbing⁸ that may, a decade later, be having a profoundly destabilising impact on banks.

    该计划看似无伤大雅地改变了金融体系的管道，10年后却可能会对银行产生深远的破坏稳定的影响。

    In a usual repo transaction a bank borrows from competitors or the central bank and deposits collateral⁹ in exchange.

    在通常的回购交易中，银行向竞争对手或央行借款，并存入抵押品作为交换。

    A reverse repo does the opposite.

    逆回购正好相反。

    A shadow bank, such as a money-market fund, instructs its custodian¹⁰ bank to deposit reserves at the Fed in return for securities.

    影子银行，如货币市场基金，指示其托管银行将准备金存入美联储，以换取证券。

    The scheme was meant to aid the Fed’s exit from ultra-low rates by putting a floor on the cost of borrowing in the interbank market.

    该计划旨在通过为银行间的借贷成本设定下限，从而帮助美联储退出超低利率。

    After all, why would a bank or shadow bank ever lend to its peers at a lower rate than is available from the Fed?

    毕竟，一家银行或影子银行为什么要以低于美联储提供的利率而向同行放贷呢？