丹东对面的朝鲜照片:翻译达人帮我翻译篇文章吧~~谢谢~!!!全部家当奉上

来源:百度文库 编辑:中科新闻网 时间:2024/05/06 01:34:47
Bank (depository institutions) failures are widely perceived to have greater adverse effects on the economy and thus are considered more important than the failure of other types of business firms. In part, bank failures are viewed to be more damaging than other failures because of a fear that they may spread in domino fashion throughout the banking system, felling solvent as well as insolvent banks. [1] Thus, the failure of an individual bank introduces the possibility of systemwide failures or systemic risk. This perception is widespread. [2] It appears to exist in almost every country at almost every point in time regardless of the existing economic or political structure. As a result, bank failures have been and continue to be a major public policy concern in all countries and a major reason that banks are regulated more rigorously than other firms. [3]
Unfortunately, whether bank failures are or are not in fact more important than other failures, and I will argue in this paper that they are not, the prudential regulations imposed to prevent or mitigate the impact of such failures are frequently inefficient and counterproductive. Mark Flannery (1995) comes to a similar conclusion. The regulators have often increased both the probability of bank failure and the costs of such failures. In the process, the regulations have tended to socialize the costs of failure by shifting them from private depositors of the failed banks to general taxpayers.
In addition, the imposition of prudential regulations have identified banking as "unique," and at times have involved potential government financial assistance. This has often made it easier for governments to justify imposing other regulations that have primarily social and political objectives and are often in conflict with the objectives of the prudential regulations, e.g., credit allocation schemes. [4] However, the bulk of the evidence suggests that the greatest danger of systemic risk comes not from the damage that may be imposed on the economy from a series of bank failures, but from the damage that is imposed on the economy from the adverse effects of poor public policies adopted to prevent systemic risk. As a result, it can be argued that the poor performance of banking experienced in almost all countries in the last two decades reflects primarily regulatory or government failures, rather than market failures. Prevention of reoccurrences of the recent banking problems requires better developed and more incentive compatible and market assisted prudential regulation and reduced nonprudential regulations.

银行(托管机构)的失败已被广泛认为对经济的负面影响更大,因此被认为是失败大于其他类型的企业. 部分银行倒闭被认为是比其他更严重的失败,因为担心他们可能散布在整个银行体系的先进时尚、砍伐溶剂以及银行破产. [1]因此,如果有个别银行推出的系统故障或系统性风险的可能性. 这是普遍的看法. 2似乎存在着几乎每一个国家几乎每一个时刻,不论政治或经济的现有体制. 因此,银行倒闭已经并将继续成为重要的公共政策问题,各国的一个主要原因,银行比其他公司更严格规范. 3 不幸的是,无论是银行倒闭或实际上不大于其他故障,我会说,这份文件他们并不稳妥实施条例,以预防或减轻这种影响是失误频频,没有效果. MarkFlannery(1995)是一个类似结论. 监管机构往往更多银行倒闭的可能性,这种失败的代价. 在这个过程中,社会规则的成本往往不能把他们的私人存款的银行没有一般纳税人. 此外,实行审慎的金融法规确定了"独特",有时还可能涉及政府财政援助. 这往往更容易取得政府征收的其他规定,主要是社会和政治目标的冲突,往往与目标的审慎规定,例如贷款分配计划. [4]不过,大部分的证据显示,最危险的系统性风险不是来自损失,可对经济的一系列银行倒闭,但所造成的破坏,对经济造成的负面影响恶劣公共政策通过防止系统性风险. 因此,可以说,表现不佳的银行,几乎所有国家都经历了近20年,主要反映政府规章或失败,而非市场失灵. 防止重演最近开发银行的问题,需要更多更好的相容性,并协助市场及审慎监管规章nonprudential减少.