希拉里將如何監管華爾街 How Hillary Clinton Would Regulate Wall Street
Nothing exposes the chasm between the activist wing and the donor class of the DeMocratic Party like the regulation of Wall Street.
最能曝露民主黨行動主義者和捐款人階層之間鴻溝的東西，莫過於對華爾街的監管政策。
The desire to assail too-big-to-fail-banks energizes the left and has propelled Senator Elizabeth Warren and the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders. But some of the party’s most prodigious donors come from the financial industry and don’t much care for its vilification. And Bill Clinton’s administration oversaw the deregulation on Wall Street.
對“大到不能倒”的銀行施以痛擊的熱望激勵着左翼人士，推動了參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫(Elizabeth Warren)的行動，以及伯尼·桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)的總統競選。但是黨內不少大手筆的捐助者來自金融業，他們可不喜歡這種詆譭。而對華爾街管制的放鬆發生在比爾·克林頓(Bill Clinton)執政時期。
All that makes the question of how Hillary Clinton would regulate the financial sector a crucial test of her campaign to win the Democratic nomination. With a plan that is to be released Thursday, we get a first glimpse of how she walks that balance beam.
由於這些因素，希拉里·克林頓(Hillary Clinton)在監管金融機構上的主張對她的競選構成了重大考驗。從本週四公佈的一個計劃中，我們首次看到了她將採用何種方式來走這段平衡木。
The short version: Directionally, Mrs. Clinton favors more intensive regulation of Wall Street than what is in place now. Bank executives and lobbyists will find little to like in her plan. But her approach stops short of the wholesale breakup of too-big-to-fail banks favored by Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Warren. She would prefer instead to take the philosophical approach embodied in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act a few steps further.
簡而言之：在大方向上，克林頓傾向於對華爾街採取比現在進一步收緊的監管方式。銀行高管和遊說者不會喜歡她的計劃。但桑德斯和沃倫那種把“大到不能倒”的銀行大卸八塊的主張，也不是她的做法。克林頓希望沿用2010年多德-弗蘭克(Dodd-Frank)金融改革法案中體現的那種思路，在行動上向前推進幾步。
Mrs. Clinton proposes changes that would put stiff new costs on the largest banks and give regulators greater power to break up an institution they view as too sprawling and risky. But her plan does not envision a return to the era of the Glass-Steagall Act, the 1930s law requiring commercial banking and investment banking to remain separate. It was reversed by Congress during the Bill Clinton administration (an action that had less to do with the global financial crisis than many liberal activists would suggest).
克林頓的改革提議將給大銀行新增一些高昂的費用，並賦予監管機構更大的權力，讓他們可以拆分他們認爲過於龐大、風險太高的銀行。但她沒有打算恢復20世紀30年代的《格拉斯-斯蒂格爾法》(Glass-Steagall Act)。該法律要求商業銀行和投資銀行保持獨立，但在比爾·克林頓執政時期，它遭到國會更改（此舉與全球金融危機之間的關係，並不像自由派活動者所說的那麼大）。
Rather, her plan focuses on a series of changes to incentivize the biggest banks to shrink and simplify. It looks to reform markets that may be obscure to the general public but were actually key nodes in the 2008 global financial crisis. In particular, it concentrates on the multi-trillion dollar securities lending and repurchase market, which is a crucial piece of the world’s financial plumbing.
相反，她的計劃側重在一系列變化上，目的是激勵大銀行收縮規模和簡化業務。它試圖改革的這些市場可能對於一般民衆來說不太熟悉，但其實卻是2008年全球金融危機的關鍵節點。該計劃尤其聚焦在證券借貸和回購市場上，這個數萬億美元規模的市場是全球金融管道中的重要一環。
The Dodd-Frank law gave regulators a broad range of powers to oversee “systemically important” institutions. Combined with new international capital rules and more aggressive enforcement of corporate lawbreaking, it has made it more expensive than ever to be a sprawling global megabank. Giant banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup were left to decide on their own whether to respond to those costs by slimming down, such as by selling or shutting down business units.
多德-弗蘭克法案賦予監管機構更廣泛的權力，來監督“系統重要性”機構。再加上新的國際資本規定，以及針對公司違法行爲展開更積極的執法活動，大型全球性銀行巨頭現在的成本比以往任何時候都更加高昂。面對這樣的成本，像摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)和花旗集團(Citigroup)這樣的巨頭需要自己做出決定，是否要通過出售或關閉業務部門等方式來縮減規模。
If Mrs. Clinton is elected president and gets her way — some of her ideas could be executed through regulatory fiat, others would require legislation — the incentive to slim down would be that much greater.
如果克林頓當選總統，並且按這個計劃採取行動——她的一些想法可以通過監管法令來執行，另一些就需要進行立法——推動銀行縮減規模的力度就會加大到這種程度。
Here are the key elements of her plan.
以下是她計劃中的幾個要素。
A new “risk fee” on the largest financial firms. The biggest banks, insurers and other mega-financial firms already face greater oversight than their smaller rivals under the Dodd-Frank Act. Mrs. Clinton proposes taking that notion a step further by requiring a significant new fee, payable to the United States Treasury, for those very large firms that are potentially risky. Interestingly, its level is not determined by the size of a firm per se, but by the amount it relies upon volatile short-term funding to finance its operations.
向大型金融機構收取新的“風險費”。多德-弗蘭克法案已經讓大型的銀行、保險等金融機構面臨着比中小型競爭對手更多的監督。克林頓提議在這方面更進一步，要求金融巨頭向美國財政部支付大筆新增費用，因爲這些巨頭存在潛在風險。有趣的是，費用標準不是由公司本身的規模決定的，而是取決於公司依賴多少不穩定的短期資金來運轉。
So, for example, Wells Fargo has about twice the assets of Goldman Sachs, but primarily funds itself with bank deposits and engages in relatively plain consumer and business lending. A more complex firm like Goldman, which relies more heavily on fast-moving capital markets for funding, would thus have more to fear from the risk fee.
例如，富國銀行(Wells Fargo)的資產大約是高盛(Goldman Sachs)的兩倍，但主要通過銀行存款運轉，提供相對簡單的消費者和企業貸款。像高盛這樣比較複雜的公司嚴重依賴快速發展的資本市場運轉，因此更害怕繳納風險費。
Mrs. Clinton’s proposal does not detail the exact scale or structure of the fee, which would require legislation. She envisions it as being substantial enough to have a meaningful impact on banks’ decision making. In other words: billions, not millions, of dollars.
克林頓的提議沒有詳細說明風險費的精確數額和構成，這需要通過立法確定。按照她的預想，數額要足以對銀行的決策產生重要影響。換句話說：會是數以十億美元計，而不是數百萬美元。
Give regulators more power to break up financial firms. For all the discussion of whether to break up the too-big-to-fail banks in recent years, the actual legal tools that regulators have to do so are limited. Mrs. Clinton proposes granting regulators more explicit power to demand a firm downsize or break up. A campaign fact sheet adds that Mrs. Clinton “would appoint regulators who would both use these new authorities and the substantial authorities they already have to hold firms accountable.”
賦予監管機構更多拆分金融公司的權力。近年來就拆分“大到不能倒”的銀行有很多討論，但監管機構實際能夠利用以達到上述目標的法律手段很有限。克林頓提議給予監管機構更爲明確的權力，用以要求公司縮小規模或進行拆分。一份競選情況通報還提到，克林頓“會指定監管機構，它們會通過行使新權力及已經擁有的大量權力來追究公司的責任。”
Dodd-Frank requires that major banks prepare “living wills” that describe the legal details of how they would be unwound in the event of a failure. But this proposed legislation would instead grant regulators more power to determine that, for example, a bank that had repeated major ethics scandals might just be too sprawling and complex to manage and therefore could endanger financial stability.
多德-弗蘭克法案要求大型銀行準備“生前遺囑”，說明有關破產時如何拆分的法律細節。但這項立法提案會給予監管機構更多做出判斷的權力，例如，判定一家多次陷入重大操守醜聞的銀行可能過於龐大和複雜，難以控制，因此可能會危及金融穩定。
Regulate “shadow banking” more intensively. While the public debate about financial reform has concentrated on the too-big-to-fail banks, in many ways a bigger driver of the 2008 financial crisis was the “shadow banking” sector — segments of the financial system that resemble banks in important ways but are not regulated like them. It includes money market mutual funds, hedge funds and some parts of the insurance industry.
加強對“影子銀行”的管理。雖然有關金融改革的公開辯論主要圍繞“大到不能倒”的銀行展開，但從很多方面來看，2008金融危機的主要推動力是“影子銀行”——該金融系統領域在一些重要方面與銀行類似，但沒有受到與它們類似的監管。它主要包括金融市場共同基金、對衝基金及部分保險業。
Her plans for addressing risks in those segments of the shadow banking system are still relatively vague, but she has more specifics on the securities lending and repurchase system, which was a key channel through which the failure of Lehman Brothers and near-failure of the insurer A.I.G. endangered the global financial system in 2008.
克林頓有關解決影子銀行系統領域的風險的計劃仍舊相對模糊，但有關證券借貸及回購制度的計劃比較明確，2008年，雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)的破產和保險公司美國國際集團(AIG)的幾近破產，正是通過這一關鍵途徑危及全球金融體系。
Mrs. Clinton calls for new international rules governing disclosure, margin and collateral requirements to try to make a failure of one global bank or insurer less likely to endanger the entire world economy. These are changes that are likely to take place through regulatory action rather than legislation.
克林頓要求出臺新的國際規定，管理公司披露、保證金和抵押要求，設法降低全球銀行或保險公司的破產危及全球經濟的可能性。與立法相比，這些變化更有可能通過監管行動實現。
With the first Democratic debate taking place next week, the stage is set for financial reform to be a major area where Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders can clash.
民主黨的第一輪辯論將於下週開始，屆時金融改革將成爲克林頓和桑德斯的一個主要辯論話題。
