限時公開
檢舉內容
SVB出事了：大到不能倒？

活躍格鬥士

劉仕傑

發佈於胖犬的新聞英文筆記

2023/03/19閱讀時間約 17 分鐘

⭐️ 本文為訂閱專屬文章，於早鳥期間限時公開免費閱讀。

⭐️ 4/11 前訂閱《胖犬的新聞英文筆記》享早鳥最低 5 折優惠（首月僅 $99 元）！一週一篇新聞英文，帶你學會專業英文的論述及分析能力。

市場紀律與國家介入的兩難

本週胖犬精選華爾街日報對 SVB 事件的報導，為大家精選財政領域的重點關鍵字，並逐段分析背後的語意，最後以英文短評我對本次事件的看法。

新聞主標

Why Top Washington Officials Chose to Rescue SVB, Signature Depositors

新聞副標

Jerome Powell, Janet Yellen, others come to terms to prevent systemwide panic

新聞連結

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-top-washington-officials-agreed-to-a-bank-rescue-ef489db8?st=sup1fyaojgcsazf

胖犬導讀

Too big to fail?

矽谷銀行（Silicon Valley Bank）前陣子爆發擠兌危機，美國政府決定出手相救。

SVB危機究竟是個案，還是系統性危機的導火線？美國政府該不該出手？還是要讓市場法則決定SVB的去留？

有人說，銀行本來就會倒。這說法真實嗎？

上述問題近期引發了熱烈討論，目前看來危機還沒正式落幕。

胖犬認為，SVB個案的本質可以解讀成為「市場紀律」（market discipline）與「國家介入」（state intervention）的兩難。

一方面，銀行必須為自己的投資決定負責（以本個案而言，SVB投資大量美國國債），另一方面，美國長期的寬鬆貨幣政策似乎也難辭其咎。

美國政府選擇出手，似乎因為別無選擇。演變成金融危機當然是美國銀行監管機關最不想看到的事，但如果「寵壞」銀行，長期而言真的是好事嗎？

胖犬沒有標準答案，也歡迎大家留下自己想法。

WSJ這篇報導，著重側寫拜登政府內部在SVB事件始末的危機處理過程，非常詳實，也很精彩。

對了，為何我用了「國家介入」（state intervention）一詞，而非「政府介入」（government intervention）？因為 state 與 government 的意涵不盡相同。

在SVB個案中，我認為有趣的分析層次是「國家」與「市場」的關係。

最後來個小小的英文分享。

幾年前有一本書在談金融危機，作者是Andrew Ross Sorkin，書名是：

Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System--and Themselves

大到不能倒（too big to fail，TBTF）是在談銀行危機或金融危機時，常被引用的概念。這次隨著SVB與瑞士信貸（Credit Suisse ）相繼爆雷，TBTF又被熱烈討論。

問題是：銀行究竟要多大，才能適用too big to fail呢？

這個問題，恐怕短期內不會有答案。

關鍵字&段落分析

“For more than a decade after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, Washington’s regulatory watchdogs sought to ensure that they would never again face fraught weekend deliberations about propping up the financial system from a bank failure.”

regulatory watchdog：字面翻譯是「（銀行）監理看門狗」，在此指四個人（不是狗）：

Federal Reserve Chair （美國聯準會主席）Jerome Powell
Treasury Secretary （美國財政部長）Janet Yellen
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman （美國聯邦存款保險公司主席，FDIC）Martin Gruenberg
White House National Economic Council director （白宮國家經濟委員會主任）Lael Brainard

prop up是撐起來或挽救的意思，propping up the financial system from a bank failure意思是「將財政體系從銀行失靈中撐一把」

“For the nation’s top economic officials—Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Martin Gruenberg and White House National Economic Council director Lael Brainard—the challenge boiled down to a single decision: whether to employ a federal law allowing a “systemic risk exception” permitting the FDIC to guarantee deposits beyond the $250,000 limit per customer.”

這一段是全文的核心：上述四人是否應該引用聯邦法律適用系統性危機例外情形，以便讓美國聯邦存款保險公司保證每一位存款戶都能拿回自己存款，且不受25萬美元的上限？

“It was the most powerful tool at their disposal to stop panicked households and businesses from pulling deposits from those and other banks.”

at their disposal意思是「他們手上可使用的」，所以這一段前半句是「他們手上能使用的最有力工具」。

“This account of the internal deliberations over deposit coverage, based on interviews with people involved, many of whom declined to be identified, shows how the supervisors came to a decision they had hoped to avoid.”

新聞英文中，善用文法修辭來延伸語意是一個重要的技巧。

以這句來說，based on interviews with people involved先修飾最前面的This account of the internal deliberations over deposit coverage，然後再用many of whom declined to be identified來修飾based on interviews with people involved。

閱讀的順序是：

Ａ這篇報導針對存款保障的內部研議過程（主詞）
Ｂ針對相關涉入人士的訪談所做成的報導（修飾）
Ｃ許多涉入人士不願具名（修飾）
Ｄ顯示出監督者如何做了一個他們一直想避免的決定（主要子句）

這也是閱讀新聞英文的趣味。整段的主要動詞（shows）要一直讀到最後才會出現，但即便在主要子句中又再度用了一個小子句（they had hoped to avoid）來修飾。

“Mr. Gruenberg was initially reluctant to use the exception that would let his agency expand deposit insurance.”

這一段呼應前面所說，美國政府究竟該不該出手？而FDIC主席Gruenberg一開始是持保留意見的（reluctant），也就是說原本FDIC不願以例外情形來對待SVB案例，因為這牽涉到是否要保障每一位存款戶超過25萬美元。

“Many of the questions the supervisors faced over the weekend about the broadened use of deposit guarantees remain unanswered: Was backstopping two banks’ depositors enough to stop an exodus from other small- and medium-size banks? Would the public expect the backstop to be extended to others—and would that require taxpayer money?”

questions remain unanswered是常用的修辭，可翻成「未竟回答的疑問」。

stop an exodus from other small- and medium-size banks 意思是「停止資金從其他中小企業銀行出走」，exodus 語出聖經「出埃及記」，在此指「大規模出走或離開」。

would that require taxpayer money? 這句不難理解，意思是「會花到納稅人的錢嗎？」放在本文脈絡，意思是，拜登政府決定出手拯救SVB，但，是用誰的錢來救呢？

我覺得這個問題可以再做一點延伸。

大家還記得我上面說的「市場紀律」（market discipline）與「國家介入」（state intervention）的兩難嗎？

如果國家決定「銀行大到不能倒」，那市場機制還適用在銀行業嗎？

私人銀行的投資出現問題，為何是用納稅人的錢（國家力量）來拯救呢？

這其實是一個嚴肅的提問。

“You now really have this issue of the government being the ultimate protector of all deposits,” said Thomas Hoenig, former FDIC vice chairman. “What you’ve done with very good intentions is you’ve removed market discipline as a preventative to unsafe and unsound practices.”

這句講得真好。

說白話，就是「政府原本是好意出手相救，但實際上卻是將市場紀律移除，而市場紀律是為了預防不安全及不良措施」。

再回到我們剛剛的討論。如果私人銀行投資不善或是未能預見投資危機，那為何政府要出手拯救呢？如果政府救了這一回，那日後其他銀行是否無需為自身投資不善來負責呢？

“Signature’s problems were critical to regulators who were worried that panic was spreading. By Saturday, the regulators were seeing signs of large deposit outflows from fewer than 20 midsize banks, whose share prices had also been tumbling, a person familiar with the matter said. That convinced the group that the crisis was systemic and required urgent intervention.”

從這一段可以看出，Signature銀行的狀況讓監理官員相信，危機正在蔓延，不到二十間的中型銀行出現擠兌。

重點字來了。美國政府官員就此判斷，這是一個系統性（systemic）危機，不再只是單純個案。

“Regulators had considered telling uninsured depositors that they could access at least 50% of their deposits as early as Monday, but after Signature’s failure and other stresses became clear, they decided that would be insufficient. By Saturday morning, Ms. Yellen had concluded that a blanket guarantee of SVB bank deposits would be needed.”

一開始美國監理官員曾考慮保障SVB存款戶50%的存款，但他們很快發現這樣做並不夠。最後財政部長葉倫決定保障SVB存款戶的全數存款，也就是包裹式的保證（a blanket guarantee）。

“This time around, leaders of the big banks such as JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon were in contact with regulators. But when the FDIC held its auction of SVB, the big banks didn’t bid. PNC Financial Services Group Inc. considered making an offer on SVB, but its interest depended on government support that regulators couldn’t offer at the time, according to people familiar with the discussions. No other serious parties emerged.”

其實一開始拜登政府還有考慮其他選項，也就是問問有沒有大型銀行願意買下SVB。唯一曾表示有興趣的是PNC，但後來也無疾而終。

By Sunday afternoon, the four top overseers concluded that they had no choice but to invoke the systemic-risk exception and promise all depositors they would be able to access their money at SVB and Signature.

結論是，四大官員無其他選擇，只好啟用系統性危機例外原則，承諾SVB及Signature兩間銀行的存款戶能夠全數領回他們的存款。

胖犬短評

A great story on SVB's liquidity crisis and the decision-making process of the Biden administration.

This is a typical dilemma between market discipline and state intervention when similar bank failure occurs.

The regulatory role played by the government should be careful not to easily cross the line of the market rule. Otherwise banks would have been pampered.