银行挤兑专家：塞浦路斯计划真“荒唐”

    你要感谢塞浦路斯和欧洲的领导人们让我们7000亿美元的银行救助方案看起来很像样。

    银行和金融危机领域世界领先的专家菲利普•迪威格表示，对银行存款征税以帮助支付塞浦路斯银行救助计划的想法“荒唐透顶”。早在1983年，迪威格就与芝加哥大学（University of Chicago）经济学家道格•戴蒙德合著了一篇论文，探讨为什么会发生银行挤兑。时至今日，这篇论文依然是研究银行挤兑和一般金融危机领域最具影响力的论文之一，也是大多数经济课程的必选内容。

    目前在华盛顿大学（Washington University）任经济学教授的迪威格表示，以当地存款人为代价来救助塞浦路斯的计划弊大于利，可能会给早已陷入困境的欧洲银行业带来更大的压力。

    这项由欧洲监管机构和央行行长们提议的计划原拟对不足10万欧元的储蓄账户征税6.75%，对超过10万欧元的账户征税9.9%，以此帮助偿付救助该国银行业的100亿欧元款项。虽然方案在最后一刻增加了一个条款，“余额不足2万欧元的储蓄账户免于征税”，但它并不足以拯救这一计划。19日下午，拟议的存款税被塞浦路斯议会驳回。虽然这使得欧洲救助塞浦路斯的计划岌岌可危，但迪威格认为，如果能够坚持反对实施存款税，最终将是一件好事。

为什么你认为这个计划很“荒唐”？

    总体而言，它会给塞浦路斯和欧洲的银行体系带来很多伤害。这项提案也动摇了其他国家的储户信心，这很危险。欧洲其他国家尚未出现银行挤兑的唯一原因是，他们认为自己还有时间。最终这都将消失殆尽。

银行临时歇业不能阻止挤兑吗？

    银行临时歇业听上去好像是个办法，但事实上很有害。如果你告诉人们，他们不能拿回自己的钱了，经济要想重回正轨就会变得极其困难。我们在大萧条时期曾尝试过几次银行临时歇业，结果情况变得更糟糕了。设立储蓄保险的一个原因就是为了防止银行挤兑，但如果不能获得100%的保证，部分储蓄保险是无效的。如果一个人觉得可能会损失100%的存款，他会跑到银行挤兑。如果他认为会损失10%的存款，他同样还是会跑到银行挤兑。

但欧洲监管机构正在试图表明，它们打算对塞浦路斯实施的救助计划是一次性事件？

    如果这确实是一个细微、孤立且独特的问题，是一次性事件，不会再发生，为什么不直接出资救助，然后让这个国家慢慢来偿还？为什么要冒着可能损害其余欧洲银行体系的风险？

    因为欧洲监管机构真正想要阻止的是欧洲外围经济体依赖欧元，负债不断膨胀直到难再承受。

    You can thank Cyprus and Europe's leaders for making our $700 billion bank bailout look good.

    The plan to impose a tax on bank deposits to help pay for the bailout of Cypriot banks was "absurd," says Philip Dybvig, one of the world's leading economic experts on banks and financial crisis. Back in 1983, Dybvig co-authored, along with University of Chicago economist Doug Diamond, a paper on why bank runs happen. It has since become one of the most influential pieces of research on the topic and on financial crisis in general, and is a regular staple of most economics curriculums.

    Dybvig, who is now an economics professor at Washington University, says the plan to bailout Cyprus at the expense of local depositors would have done more harm than good and could have put more strain on the already troubled European banking sector.

    The plan, which was proposed by European regulators and central bankers, was originally to levy a 6.75% tax on deposits of less than €100,000 and 9.9% on anything above €100,000 to help pay for a €10 billion bailout of the country's banking sector. At the last minute, an exemption for accounts that had less €20,000 was added, but that wasn't enough to save the plan. On Tuesday afternoon, the proposed deposit tax was rejected by the Cypriot lawmakers. And even though that has thrown the European bailout of Cyprus into doubt, Dybvig thinks the rejection of the deposit tax, if it sticks, will end up being a good thing.

Why do you think the plan was absurd?

    It will do a lot of damage to the banking system both in Cyprus and Europe in general. The proposal also has to shake confidence of depositors in other countries, which is dangerous. The only reason people haven't run from their banks in other nations in Europe is that they think they have time. Eventually that runs out.

Won't the bank holiday stop that?

    Bank holidays have a fun sounding name, but they are really quite harmful. When you tell people they can't have their money, it makes it very hard for an economy to return to normal. We tried bank holidays a few times in the Great Depression and it only made things worse. One reason to have deposit insurance is to prevent bank runs, but partial deposit insurance is ineffective if it does not cover 100%. You will run on your bank if you think you will lose 100% of your deposits, and you will also run if you think you will lose 10%.

But European regulators are trying to send the signal that the bailout they proposed for Cyprus was going to be a one-time thing?

    If it's really a small, isolated, unique problem, a one-time thing, and won't happen again, why not do the just do the bailout and have the country pay for it over time? Why risk the potential damage to the rest of Europe's banking system?

    Well, because the real event that European regulators want to prevent, which appears not to be a one-off event, is periphery European nations living off the Euro and running up debt they can't afford.