英国为何应圈护零售银行业

The costs imposed by the financial crises that hit western economies in 2007 have been enormous. UK gross domestic product is nearly a fifth smaller than if long-term pre-crisis growth trends had continued. The costs also include huge rises in public debt. In the UK the increase, as a direct and indirect result of the crisis, will be close to 50 per cent of GDP.

2007年重创西方经济的金融危机造成的代价是巨大的。目前英国国内生产总值(GDP)相比危机前的长期增长趋势线少了近五分之一。代价还包括公共债务的大幅攀升。在英国，危机直接和间接造成的公共债务增加相当于GDP的近一半。

This is the fourth most costly fiscal event of the past 225 years, after the wars with post-revolutionary France and the first and second world wars. Mismanaged finance imposes fiscal costs that are not far short of world wars.

这是过去225年来代价第四高昂的财政事件，仅次于法国大革命后的英法战争、一战和二战。金融管理不善造成的财政代价，并不比世界大战带来的损失少很多。

This is the background against which to judge predictable complaints that the post-crisis regulatory regime is too onerous and will prevent banks supporting the economy as well as they did when creating the crisis. In the UK particularly strong complaints are directed at the plan to ringfence retail banking from other activities. They often come from people connected to banking. But they would complain, wouldn’t they?

这就是评判一些可预见的抱怨的背景，这些抱怨称，后危机时代的监管制度负担过重，将阻止银行像危机之前那样出色地支持经济。在英国，抱怨尤其强烈的是针对将零售银行业“圈护”(ringfence)起来、与其他活动隔离的计划。这些抱怨往往来自与银行业相关的人士。但这些人当然会抱怨，难道不是吗？

Ringfencing retail banking was one of the proposals of the Independent Commission on Banking, established by the UK government in 2010 (I was a member). The commission’s terms of reference required it to make UK banks safer without undermining global competitiveness. The ICB’s package of proposals also included greater “loss absorbency” — more funding by equity and debt that is readily convertible into equity.

对零售银行实施圈护是银行业独立委员会（Independent Commission on Banking，简称：ICB）提出的建议之一，该委员会由英国政府在2010年建立（我是其中的成员）。ICB的权限要求它在不影响英国银行全球竞争力的情况下使它们更安全。ICB的一揽子提案还包括更强的“亏损吸收能力”——更多股权筹资以及更多随时可转换为股权的债务。

Martin Taylor, former Barclays chief executive, member of the ICB and now Bank of England Financial Policy Committee member, has powerfully elucidated the logic behind ringfencing. It had, he notes, three chief goals.

巴克莱(Barclays)前首席执行官、ICB前成员、现在是英国央行(Bank of England)金融政策委员会成员的马丁•泰勒(Martin Taylor)，有力地阐明了实施圈护背后的逻辑。他指出，这样做有三个主要目标。

First, it was designed to make resolution of a failing bank easier by allowing the authorities to pluck out the most critical parts of the business. Second, “As long as governments stood behind a bank’s domestic business . . . and as long as that domestic business was mixed in with the investment bank . . . then effectively the taxpayer had no choice but to stand behind the investment bank too.” The ringfence was designed to subvert this “irresponsible business model”.

首先，它旨在通过允许当局挑出业务中最关键的部分，使破产银行的清盘更加容易。第二，“只要政府支持一家银行的国内业务……只要该行的国内业务与投行业务混合在一起……那么纳税人实际上就别无选择，只能也支持投行那一块。”圈护旨在颠覆这种“不负责任的业务模式”。

Finally, removing the implicit subsidy would make banking as a whole safer. Given the consequences of pre-crisis risk-taking, that had to be desirable.

最后，取消隐性补贴将使银行业整体更加安全。考虑到危机前冒险行为产生的后果，这一点必定是可取的。

The ICB did not recommend full separation between retail and investment banking because it saw the advantages of diversified risks. But it was also aware that balance sheets of UK banks were five times GDP, far higher than in comparable countries. The UK had to limit its exposure. Critics make a number of objections. One is that there is no reason to suppose investment banking is riskier than retail banking. That is true. The ICB did not think otherwise. But retail banking is surely more indispensable.

ICB并未建议将零售银行业和投行业完全分离，因为它看到了风险分散化的优势。但它也意识到，英国各银行的资产负债表总规模达到国内生产总值(GDP)的5倍，远高于其他可比国家。英国作为一个国家必须限制自己的敞口。批评者提出许多反对意见。其中之一是，没有理由假设投行业比零售银行业务风险更高。这话没错。ICB也这样认为。但零售银行业无疑是更加不可或缺的。

Another gripe is that the ringfence makes British banks uncompetitive in global banking. But if other governments wish to subsidise investment banking, that is their choice; it is not an argument for the UK to do so, too.

也有人抱怨称，圈护政策使英国的银行在全球银行业失去竞争力。但是，如果其他国家的政府希望补贴投行，那是他们的选择；这不是英国也要这样做的理由。

Others say the ring­fence will force UK banks abroad. Reference is made to announcements that HSBC is reconsidering its UK domicile. HSBC might indeed wish to escape the costly (and hard to justify) levy on bank balance sheets introduced in 2011. But it cannot escape the ringfence by leaving since its UK retail bank must remain subject to UK law. Thus, the ringfence cannot be a justification for doing so.

还有人说，圈护要求将迫使英国的银行迁往海外。他们提到汇丰(HSBC)宣布重新考虑总部选址。汇丰可能的确希望逃避2011年出台的针对银行资产负债表的高额（且很难证明合理）征费。但它无法通过搬迁总部来逃避圈护，因为英国的零售银行仍必须遵守英国法律。因此，圈护不能成为这样做的理由。

A more powerful argument is that the loss absorbency of banks is now such that the additional safety provided by ringfencing is redundant. One response is that the internationally agreed levels of loss absorbency is in line with the proposals of the ICB. The other is that banks remain highly leveraged. Last year the ratio of total assets to equity of UK banks was between 20 and 30 to one. It would take modest losses to wipe out these banks’ equity.

更有力的论据是，如今银行的亏损吸收能力已经相当大，圈护所提供的额外安全度是冗余的。对此的回应之一是，国际间同意的亏损吸收能力水平与ICB的建议相符。另一个回应是，英国的银行仍保持着高杠杆率。去年，英国各银行总资产与股本的比率介于20至30比1之间。不需要发生太大的亏损，就会抹掉这些银行的股本。

A further objection is that we are now able to resolve troubled banks easily by converting loss-absorbing debt into equity or even winding them up. Improvements have indeed been made. But the idea that these processes would work smoothly if a crisis again engulfed the system is unproven, if not optimistic. Ringfencing would at least give any future government more options.

还有一个反对意见是，我们现在能够通过将吸收亏损的债务转化成股权，或者甚至对其清盘，很容易地清算陷入困境的银行。确实取得了一些进步。但是，那种认为如果危机再次席卷这一体系，这些过程将顺利运转的想法并未被证实，如果还算不上过于乐观的话。圈护至少将给未来的政府更多选项。

If anything is to be reconsidered it is not ringfencing but the UK’s bank levy, which is simply a heavy tax. I would have no objection to making the boundary of the ringfence more flexible for retail banks in return for higher equity capital. More broadly, if the capital of banks were greatly increased, the case for ringfencing would weaken. But that is not where we now are. So ignore the whingeing.

如果有任何事需要被重新考虑的话，那不是圈护政策，而是英国的银行征费，它就是一项沉重的税种。我不反对让零售银行的圈护范围变得更加灵活，以换取更高的股权资本。更广义上说，如果银行的资本大大增加，圈护的理由将被削弱。但这不是我们现在面临的问题。所以，别在意这些抱怨。