研究称量化宽松绝非大银行福利

    如果美国左翼和右翼人士能就某个问题达成共识的话，那就是美国政府成了华尔街的奴隶，一有可能就会为大型银行发放免费福利。这些批评人士认为，华尔街享受的所有福利中，要以量化宽松（QE）为首。举例来说，现行QE方案在2012年出台时，自由派杂志《Reason》就对美国央行购买债券的行为作出了猛烈抨击：

    “量化宽松……从根本上讲是一种倒退的再分配方案，它提升了那些金融业人士或者有房一族的富裕水平，却几乎没有把财富传导给经济的剩余部分。”

    这样的情绪也出现在了左翼媒体，比如博客网站The Daily Kos，它将QE称为大银行的“公司福利”。但国际货币基金组织（IMF）上周三公布的新报告指出，如果说QE对银行利润有什么影响的话，那也是不利影响。这篇报告的作者称，这是“首次就非常规货币政策对银行业健康的影响进行综合评估”。

    该报告显示，虽然QE降低了银行的融资成本并提高了某些银行的资产价值，但它降低了一系列产品为银行提供的利息，从而削弱了银行的盈利能力。美联储（Fed）下调长期利率让收益率曲线趋平，简单来说，这使金融机构通过借短放长盈利变得格外困难。

    但另一方面，IMF的研究也确实发现，QE鼓励了银行承担更多风险，原因是低利率可以让它们很容易避免把不良资产纳入资产负债表。该报告的作者指出：“利率非常低时，银行可以用接近于零的成本将现有贷款展期，甚至向无法存续的公司发放新的贷款。”

    这合情合理。在贷款机构不愿意承担风险的情况下，如果不是为了给它们提供这样做的动力，否则为什么要降低利率呢？如果大家相信中央银行应该控制利率，而且它所制定的政策应该在促进增长和限制风险之间达到平衡，QE就是这项政策的自然延伸。

    在限制风险方面，美联储有多种方法，比如压力测试，审核大银行的“生前遗嘱”计划，以及其他监管手段。因此，只要QE能促进经济增长，美联储就可以接受它也许会带来更多风险的事实，特别是在经济十分不景气的情况下。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie

    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:

    “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.”

    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.

    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.

    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.”

    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.

    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.