研究稱量化寬鬆絕非大銀行福利

If there’s one thing that both the left and right in America can agree on, it’s that the U.S. government is the thrall of Wall Street, handing out freebies to big banks whenever it gets the chance. And the king of all Wall Street welfare, according to these critics, is quantitative easing. Take, for instance, libertarian magazine Reason excoriation of central bank bond purchases back in 2012, when the current program was announced:

如果美國左翼和右翼人士能就某個問題達成共識的話，那就是美國政府成了華爾街的奴隸，一有可能就會爲大型銀行發放免費福利。這些批評人士認爲，華爾街享受的所有福利中，要以量化寬鬆（QE）爲首。舉例來說，現行QE方案在2012年出臺時，自由派雜誌《Reason》就對美國央行購買債券的行爲作出了猛烈抨擊：

“Quantitative easing … is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy.”

“量化寬鬆……從根本上講是一種倒退的再分配方案，它提升了那些金融業人士或者有房一族的富裕水平，卻幾乎沒有把財富傳導給經濟的剩餘部分。”

These sentiments were echoed by left-leaning publications like The Daily Kos, which referred to QE as “corporate welfare” for big banks. But a new study released Wednesday by the International Monetary Fund, which the authors claim is “the first to provide a comprehensive assessment of unconventional monetary policies on the soundness of the banking sector,” argues that quantitative easing likely hurt the profits of banks, if it had any effect at all on their bottom lines.

這樣的情緒也出現在了左翼媒體，比如博客網站The Daily Kos，它將QE稱爲大銀行的“公司福利”。但國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）上週三公佈的新報告指出，如果說QE對銀行利潤有什麼影響的話，那也是不利影響。這篇報告的作者稱，這是“首次就非常規貨幣政策對銀行業健康的影響進行綜合評估”。

The paper shows that while the QE program reduced banks funding costs and increased the value of some bank assets it hurt banks’ profitability by lowering the amount of interest these firms could charge on a range of products. The fact that Fed actions to reduce long-term interest rates has led to a flattening of the yield curve has made it particularly difficult for financial institutions to make money when the business of banks, put simply, is borrowing short-term and lending long-term.

該報告顯示，雖然QE降低了銀行的融資成本並提高了某些銀行的資產價值，但它降低了一系列產品爲銀行提供的利息，從而削弱了銀行的盈利能力。美聯儲（Fed）下調長期利率讓收益率曲線趨平，簡單來說，這使金融機構通過借短放長盈利變得格外困難。

On the other side of the coin, however, the IMF study did find that QE has encouraged banks to increase their risk taking because low interest rates make it easy for banks to avoid removing toxic assets on their balance sheets. According to the report’s authors, “When interests rates are very low, banks can rollover existing loans or even extend new loans to nonviable firms at nearly zero cost.”

但另一方面，IMF的研究也確實發現，QE鼓勵了銀行承擔更多風險，原因是低利率可以讓它們很容易避免把不良資產納入資產負債表。該報告的作者指出：“利率非常低時，銀行可以用接近於零的成本將現有貸款展期，甚至向無法存續的公司發放新的貸款。”

This makes sense. What is the point of lowering interest rates if not to motivate lenders to take risks they otherwise wouldn’t have taken? If you believe that a central bank ought to manage interests rates and institute policies that balance promoting growth and limiting risk, well, QE is a natural extension of that principle.

這合情合理。在貸款機構不願意承擔風險的情況下，如果不是爲了給它們提供這樣做的動力，否則爲什麼要降低利率呢？如果大家相信中央銀行應該控制利率，而且它所制定的政策應該在促進增長和限制風險之間達到平衡，QE就是這項政策的自然延伸。

The Fed has several tools at its disposal to rein in risk—like its stress tests, the review of large banks’ “living will” plans, and other regulations—so it can accept that QE might increase risk taking as long as it also boosts growth, particularly at a time when there is a lot of slack in the economy.

在限制風險方面，美聯儲有多種方法，比如壓力測試，審覈大銀行的“生前遺囑”計劃，以及其他監管手段。因此，只要QE能促進經濟增長，美聯儲就可以接受它也許會帶來更多風險的事實，特別是在經濟十分不景氣的情況下。