财新传媒
位置:博客 > 杨再平 > 若干金融问题华盛顿问答

若干金融问题华盛顿问答

 

5月中旬在美国华盛顿参加国际银行业联合会董事会期间,“提问与讨论环节”,我就若干金融问题分别询问几位重要嘉宾,他们都一一给予了回答。回国后,随行人员根据录音进行了认真整理,现以“若干金融问题华盛顿问答”为题挂网并附英文版,以飨博友。
 
                                         若干金融问题华盛顿问答(中文版)
 
             1、关于美国消费者金融保护局与其他监管机构关系
        问:作为金融危机之后成立的独立机构,美国消费者金融保护局(CFPB)与其他银行业监管机构之间的关系如何以及当双方目标存在冲突时,美国消费者金融保护局又是如何化解冲突的?
        美国消费者金融保护局(CFPB)监督、执法和公平借贷部副主任 Steven L. Antonakes先生答:这是一个很好的问题。一直以来,美国消费者金融保护局都全力构建并维系与其他银行业监管机构之间良好、稳固的工作关系。十分幸运的是,美国货币监理署(OCC)现在的负责人是我过去的老板,我们二者间已经建立了良好的工作关系。
        这里我想强调几点。在我的职业生涯中,我经历了两次银行业危机。第一次是在上世纪90年代初,另外一次则发生在2008-2009年。这两次银行业危机告诉银行业一个教训:缺乏良好的消费者关系,银行是很难持续盈利的。总体而言,我接触过的一些团队和管理层就能很好的兼顾二者,他们既能保障公司的财务实力,又能建立并维系持续、良好的消费者关系。
       此外,我们与金融监管机构保持常规的合作与往来。我们会与他们分享我们的检查程序及流程、培训资源等。我们开展检查时,不仅要求检查官们与其他银行业监管机构保持沟通与协调,还会培训他们如何审阅其他监管机构的检查报告。例如,我们到花旗银行开展检查工作时,我们会向银行业监管机构提供我们的检查报告供他们审阅并评论,同样地,他们也会与我们分享他们的检查报告。
       最后,对于那些面临重大财务挑战并对消费者保护工作的价值存在误解的金融机构,我们会重点了解他们的工作小组是如何开展消费者保护工作的。通过这一机会,双方可以更好的了解彼此的工作并可以有效的化解冲突。像任何关系一样,美国消费者金融保护局(CFPB)和银行业监管机构之间的关系会通过充分的沟通逐步改善。

 

2、关于美国量化宽松政策(QE)退出预期
       问:请问您对美国量化宽松政策(QE)今后的预期是什么?美联储今年会退出QE吗?如果退出,对美国银行业有何影响?
       美国银行家协会(ABA)总裁 Frank Kneating先生答:美联储现在已经启动了量化宽松政策(QE)的退出进程。问题的关键在于经济形势能否给予其充足的时间使其按计划逐步缓慢退出QE。美联储认为他们能够通过每月削减100亿美金的QE规模以逐步退出QE(本月QE规模是450亿美元,6月份将减至350亿美元,7月份将进一步减至250亿美元,之后按此规模逐月递减)。然而经济形势能否给予美联储足够的时间完成退出计划将是一个问题。市场对于利率的推动超出了美联储对利率的管控。美联储正在试图管控长期利率,在此之前它从未成功过,此次它能否取得成功将会是一个问题。
       今天上午, CNBC(美国NBC环球集团所持有的全球性财经有线电视卫星新闻台,是全球财经媒体中公认的佼佼者)有一篇文章报道说目前存在一种商业担忧:QE的退出将会带来较大的市场调整。这的确会让所有人感到害怕。美联储终究是一个政治机构。现在有许多关于美国可能会退出QE的报道,但是谁知道最终会怎样呢?至少通过我们与美联储主席耶伦的会议接触,耶伦和伯南克的风格很相似。是否退出QE事关重大。我们会密切关注电视新闻,看看是否会每月再削减100亿美金,或者50亿美金或是其他金额。美国还有一个群体抱怨说美联储的做法会断了年长公民的活路。年长者们负担不起生活成本,他们很多人在变卖房产和资产。无论美联储还是美国政党都不想看到这种局面,因为年长者有投票选举权。对于零利率,他们十分不满甚至感到愤怒。

 

3、关于美国多门银行监管体制
       问:与其它一些高度集中的单一银行业监管体系相比,比如英国、其他一些欧洲国家和中国,美国具有多个监管机构,这种体系的优势和劣势分别是什么?      
       美国货币监理署(OCC)副总检察官及国立银行首席检察官 John C. Lyons Jr.先生答:美国的“双轨制银行体制”已有150余年的历史,我们认为这种体系有助于创新。我们拥有7000多家银行,如此庞大的数量不仅利于创新,还提供了广阔的信贷市场。从监管角度,这对于联邦银行监管机构监管下的银行以及控股公司(即大型国民银行和银行控股公司)也是有益处的,因为监管机构需要权衡两套观点和意见。美国还成立了联邦存款保险公司(FDIC)负责接管倒闭银行或储蓄机构。我认为在美国这种银行体系下,多个监管机构需要综合考虑、讨论多样化的观点并最终达成一套标准。
      此外,巴塞尔协议新规为美国的监管方法带来了重要的变化,即对于流动性覆盖率有了明确、固定的监管标准。这在之前是没有过的,是全新的变化。我们对资本充足率有监管标准,但是一直比较低,通常由监管者们决定资本充足率的监管标准。这就意味着允许存在一定程度的“判断性因素”。我认为,当允许“判断性因素”存在时,多种观点总是比单一观点更好一些。简言之,美国这种监管体系有利于多样化观点的比较,并有利于创新。
缺点是这种体系给予“判断性因素”较大的灵活度和空间,而这就容易导致错误的判断和决策。在经济危机期间,货币政策比较激进时,做出正确的判断和决策尤其困难。

 

4、关于存款保险制度
        问:在中国,存款保险制度的相关工作正在进行中。目前,关于存款保险制度存在两种困扰及担忧。一是担心国家信用会消失。在中国,国家信用保护着我国的银行体系。因此很多人担心一旦存款保险制度开始实施,那么将以国家信用为基础的隐性存款保险制度,转换成以合同安排为基础的显性存款保险制度,国家信用就会消失。另一个担忧来自中小银行机构,他们担心存款保险制度的启动会导致中小银行存款的流失。比如说,如果存款保险额度设定为50万及以下人民币,那么50万以上的存款有可能会从中小银行向大银行转移。请问在美国的存款保险历史上是否也存在同样的担忧?另外存款保险制度是否仅能解决中小银行破产清算,而无法解决“大而不倒”?或者说对于中国的存款保险制度,您有什么建议?
       美国联邦存款保险公司(FDIC)主席Martin Gruenberg先生答:或许您已经知道,FDIC和中国人民银行建立了长期、友好的关系。中国人民银行已经在FDIC广泛学习交流多年。他们对我们的机构十分了解,可能比我们对自己的了解还要深。去年10月,FDIC去中国拜访了中国人民银行,我们和周小川行长、刘士余副行长等就存款保险制度、金融服务、金融稳定等议题进行了会谈。
       我认为在中国建立并管理存款保险制度以及相应的一些监管事项是一项十分具有挑战性的工作。我认为,中国可以向银行体系注入更多的市场化空间,事实上中国已经着手开始这样做了。此外,我认为利率市场化可以消除中小银行机构对于存款流失的一些担忧。建立一套积极的存款保险制度必须要全面考虑储户的期望以及反应。完善的存款保险制度应该能够为银行体系的储户提供绝对保障,并且必须能够得到储户们的支持。
       存款保险制度是中国金融改革中一项重要的工作和要素,FDIC真诚欢迎任何交流与沟通的机会。鉴于中国金融体系的重要性及作用,存款保险制度是十分有意义的一项工作。FDIC十分希望能与中国建立长期、持续的往来与交流,并能够提供帮助和支持。在去年十月份的拜访中,我们与中国人民银行签署了《关于合作、支援和跨境处置的谅解备忘录》,所以可以说我们已经与中国建立了长期关系。最后,我坚信中国建立存款保险制度意义重大。

 

5、关于美国“不良资产救助计划”
   

问:1)“不良资产救助计划”是否盈利?2)通过“不良资产救助计划”,一些大型的金融机构得到了政府的救助资金,也经历了所谓的“国有化”。现在是什么情况?这些机构是否已经偿还了救助资金并完成了“去国有化”呢? 3) 鉴于“不良资产救助计划”是一个临时性的项目,那么当它的使命完成之后会有什么安排呢?    

美国不良资产救助计划(TRAP)特别督察长Christy Romero女士答:“不良资产救助计划”是为了救助而不是为了盈利。目前,据估计已有大约400亿美金的损失。可能某些机构赎回股权时会向政府交纳一定红利,但其实这并非真正的盈利。这只是投资所得的股息和利息收入,而这些不能算作盈利,这是承担风险的回报而已。在执行“不良资产救助计划”时,保尔森和伯南克为深陷财务困境的机构通过投资的方式提供救助资金,但是他们的本意并非是为了实现“国有化”。得到救助的机构随后逐步赎回根据“不良资产救助计划”所出售的优先股、普通股,例如通用汽车(GM)和通用汽车财务公司。目前,通用汽车的救助资金已经收回,美国国际集团(AIG)还在逐步赎回普通股的进程中,通用汽车财务公司还未退出“不良资产救助计划”。               
   

从目前看来,“不良资产救助计划“至少会持续到2021年年底。 美国国会对该项目的定位不仅仅是救助银行,还包括一些其他行业及项目,目前还有大约140家银行及一些住房项目未完全退出。这些项目至少会持续到2021年12月,有可能还会到2022年。

 

6、关于互联网金融
     问:在中国,互联网金融成为当下热议的话题,然而我发现在美国或其他国家并非如此。我甚至无法查询到关于互联网金融的英文定义或解释。我想知道您作为国际金融协会(IIF)的总裁,对中国的互联网金融有什么观点?      
    国际金融协会(IIF)总裁Timothy Adams先生答:中国互联网金融的发展态势的确让人惊叹,他们吸收了大量的存款。中国人民银行的周小川行长表示,互联网银行需从银监会申请牌照。事实上,中国的互联网金融发展表明金融创新正在推进。无论称其为银行还是非银行或是限制其发展,互联网金融创新都是中国金融创新很重要的一部分。我听到中国工商银行、中国农业银行等其他机构表示互联网金融给他们带来了竞争性挑战。我还听有些人说事实上中国人民银行愿意让互联网金融至少为四大国有银行带来竞争性压力和挑战,刺激四大国有银行为他们作为银行理应服务到的更多行业提供资金和融资支持。            

 

Q&A Session of 38th IBFed Board Meeting
                                

 

I. the relationship between Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) and Banking Regulation Authorities
 

Question:As an independent agency after crisis, what’s the relationship between Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) and Banking Regulation Authority? If there are some conflicts between CFPB’s target and Regulation Authority’s target, how do you work out conflicts?                                                                 
 

Answered by Steven L. Antonakes, Deputy Director, and Associate Director for Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection(CFPB): It’s a great question and it’s the question we need to answer all the time. Building and maintaining a strong working relationship with other Banking Regulation Authority is something what we strive to do.   Fortunately for me, at this moment time, the gentleman in charge of Office of Comptroller of Currency (OCC) is my former boss. So we have a strong working relationship between each other for many  years. However,  I’ll mention a couple of things. I have experienced 2 different banking crises in my career. The first crisis is in early 90s and the other is more recent crisis. A lesson for me in both of those is that it’s hard and unsustainable to both make money and not treat your customers well.Generally speaking, in my experience some management teams and some managing directors are generally quite good in both in terms of   financial strength of organization and ensuring a lasting and appropriate customer relationship as well.
 

Besides, we work with financial regulators regularly. We share examination procedures, share training resources and we actually require when we do our exams not only to coordinate with those regulators but we actually train our examiners to review one or another. So we conduct exams, taking Citi bank for example, we provide exam report to bank regulators for their review and comment and likewise they provide their report to us.
 

The last point is we go to some financial institutions with significant financial challenges and misunderstanding the value of customer protection to learn how their working groups do the consumer protection work. There are opportunities for both to know what each other do and work out conflicts. I’d like to say like any relationship, the relationship between us will get better over time and gets better if you have strong communication.      "          
           

 

II. Expectation on US’s QE policy
 

Question:What’s your expectation on US’s QE policy? Will it get out this year? If so, what’s the impact on your banking sector?
 

Answered by Frank Kneating, President&CEO, American Bankers Association(ABA): Right now, it seems that the Fed is already starting to fade it out. The question is whether the economy will give them as much time as they want. They think they can do it by cutting down 10 billion dollars of QE every month ($45 billion right now, $35 billion next month, $25 billion, and so forth). The question is whether the economy could allow as much as time for the Fed to slowly get out QE? The market will drive the interest rate faster than the Fed could control. The Feds is trying to do something that it’s never successfully done in the past, which is controlling long-term interest rate. The question is whether they are able to do it.
 

This morning, there was one article reported by CNBC online (one of our business TV channels) that said the business fear is that once the QE is completed, there will be a major market correction. That frightens everybody. The Federal Reserve is a political body. A lot of articles like that may say maybe we are out of QE. But who knows?
 

Janet Yellen appears to be, at least through our meeting with her, very much like Mr. Ben Bernanke. This is important for us to do this. We’ll watch the TV to see whether we should cut down another 10 billion a month, 5, or whatever. But there is a very noisy and inappropriate group in US saying that what you are doing is killing senior citizens. The elders can’t afford to live. They are selling their home and assets.  The Feds     doesn’t want this and the political class does neither because senior citizen vote.  They are very angry about zero interest."           
 

III. the US’S  multiple regulatory authorities
 

Question:Compared with other countries with single or higly centralized banking regulation authority such as UK, other European Countries and also China, what advantages and disadvantages do you think your country’s “multiple regulatory authorities” have?
 

Answered by John C. Lyons Jr., Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief National Bank Examiner, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency(OCC): "*US has a dual banking system for 150 years and we think what it does is to fertilize innovation.We have more than 7000 banks and we think the large number of banks stimulates not only innovation but provides great access to credit and great access to debts. From the regulatory standpoint, there are benefits for federal regulated banks and all holding companies, i.e. all large national banks and banks holding companies because there are 2 sets of eyes and opinions that supervising institutions need to reconcile. We get FDIC in large banks’ resolution authority. I think it’s the diversity of opinion that multiple regulators bring to table and agree on one set of standards. 
 

I think it’s important in US, for vey much pinciple-based approach supervision which is Basel will a little bit be changed because we are coming into a fix standard for liquidity ratio. We never get liquidity ratio before. It’s new.We have capital ratio but it has always been very low. Supervisors decided how much it needs to be. So there is judgement allowed. I think when judgement is allowed, you are better off with multiple opinions than you are just with single opinion.So it gets diversity defending and innovation opportunity.
 

The downside is that because we give so much felxibility to judgement, people will make mistakes. It’s especially difficult during the crisis when the monetary policy is very aggressive.
 

 

IV. Deposit Insurance System
 

Question:In China, the deposit insurance arrangement is just under way. There are two concerns about this. One is that state credit will disappear if the deposit insurance arrangement starts. I mean  behind China banking system, national/ state credit protects our banking system. So many counterparts worry that once the deposit insurance system starts, perhaps the national/state credit will disappear. Another concern is that some small and medium banking institutions (SMBs) worry that if deposit insurance system starts, their deposit will move out. For example, deposits of RMB 500, 000 or below will be insured while deposits of above RMB 500,000 will move out. So Many SMBs are vey worried that their deposit will move away.  I wonder whether the same concerns also exist in US’s deposit insurance history? And another relative question is whether the deposit insurance arrangement could only resolve SMBs but could not resolve “too big to fail”? Any advice for China? 
 

Answered by Martin Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): As you may know, we have a long and good relationship with People’s Bank of China (PBoC). They’ve studied in FDIC extensively for a number of years. They understand our organization a thousand times better than we know about ourself.  In last October, we’ve paid a visit to PBOC and we have a discussion with Mr. Zhou, Mr. Liu and a number of staff of PBoC in terms of Deposit Insurance System, financial service, financial stability and other topics in  China.                                                                                                               

I think to set up and manage Deposit Insurance System as well as related some regulation matters are very challenging. I think as part of China’s efforts, more market space could be moved for banking system in China. And my understanding is that de-control of interest rates could release some concerns of smaller institutions about loss of deposits. Putting in place a positive deposit insurance system must take depositors’ expectations and reactions into full consideration. Deposit Insurance System should provide absolute guarantees for depositors in banking system and must get depositors’ support.                                                                                                                          

Deposit Insurance System will be a very significant element in terms of China’s financial reform, which is a great challenge for China to take. We really welcome the opportunities of exchanges and communications. We think it’s very meaningful given the importance of China’s financial system and the role it plays. And FDIC hopes to be helpful by ongoing engagements with China. As part of that visit, FDIC has signed pages of MOU with PBOC in terms of not only deposit insurance but also cross-border resolution, etc. So we have built a long-standing relationship with China. I believe the establishment of deposit insurance system in China will be very significant.            
 

V. the Troubled Asset Relief Programs (TRAP)
 

Question:1)Does your program (TRAP) make profits or not?2) Through your program, some significant financial institutions experience nationalization of ownership? How about current situation? Has the de-nationalization is already finished?3) SinceTRAP is a temporary program, what’s the futute of TRAP after the mission is finished?                  
 

Answered by Christy Romero, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Programs (TRAP): No profits. There is a loss of estimated 40 billion dollars right now.  It was not done for profits while it’s done for rescue.  Maybe there is a profit for certain institutions. But it’s not really profits.You invest and then get paid dividends and interests. But dividents and interests are not profits. It’s payment for taking on risks.            
 

Particularly when the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and Feds Chairman Mr. Ben Bernanke invested, they did not want nationalization. These institutions invest by taking back preferred stock as opposed to common stock. But then they started taking common stock like in General Motors (GM) and GM’s Finance Company. General Motors just got out.  AIG is buying back common stocks.  GM’s finance firm is still in TRAP.
 

At this point, it looks like this program will go out until the end of Dec 2021 at least. There are still 140 banks and also some housing support programs because the Congress said you can’t just bail out the banks.So those programs will go out until Dec 2021 at the minimum, probably 2022.          
 

VI. Internet Finance
 

Question:In China, discussion about the topic of Internet Finance is very hot but it’s not so much in USA or other countries. I even couldn’t find the specific definition for Internet Finance in English literature. I wonder as the President and CEO of Institute of International Finance, what’s your opinion on so hot internet finance in China but not so much in other western world?
 

Answered by Timothy Adams, President and CEO, Institute of International Finance(IIF): All of above it, it’s a real wake of call for me. They are deposits taking institutions.  In Beijing, governor Zhou of PBOC said that CBRC need give banking licence. But in fact the real innovation is going on here. In fact we may see the most innovation coming out of China is from Internet Banking, whatever it is a bank or not a bank or how you restrict it. I certainly hear from ICBC, ABC and others who see it as a competitive threat.In fact some people told me that they knew PBOC and others, they want it to be a competitive threat at least for Big 4 institutions to try to provide funding and financing to sectors to which they think they banks necessarily need to serve.



推荐 0