《多德-弗蘭克法》爭議為何如此之大？
上周，在美國財(cái)經(jīng)新聞?lì)l道CNBC上被問及《多德-弗蘭克法》(Dodd-Frank Act)的缺陷時(shí)，杰布•亨薩林(Jeb Hensarling)毫不客氣。
“It clogs the arteries of capitalism in our system. It hurts working people. It hurts consumers. It needs to go,” said the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, about the signature piece of financial regulation of the Obama era.
對(duì)于奧巴馬時(shí)代的標(biāo)志性金融法規(guī)，這位眾議院金融服務(wù)委員會(huì)(House Financial Services Committee)主席表示：“它在我們的體系中堵塞了資本主義的動(dòng)脈，傷害了工薪階層，傷害了消費(fèi)者。它需要廢止。”
“You can’t get a healthy economy as long as you have Dodd-Frank on the books.”
“只要《多德-弗蘭克法》還在生效，就不可能擁有健康的經(jīng)濟(jì)。”
The Republican from Texas is expected to present an alternative set of rules in coming days, one that could undo many of the reforms put in place seven years ago.
這位來自德克薩斯州的共和黨人預(yù)計(jì)會(huì)在今后幾天提出一套替代規(guī)則，可能會(huì)逆轉(zhuǎn)七年前出臺(tái)的許多改革措施。
But is he right? Did the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in July 2010, go too far by preventing banks from lending?
但是，他的看法到底對(duì)不對(duì)?2010年7月通過的《多德-弗蘭克華爾街改革和消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法》(Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)，是否走得太遠(yuǎn)，阻止了銀行放貸?
The headline data do not suggest that loans are too hard to obtain. Figures from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation show that gross loans across the US’s commercial banks have grown pretty steadily for at least three years, spread across all categories except home-equity lines of credit and loans to other banks.
整體數(shù)據(jù)并未顯示貸款難以獲得。美國聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)蓄保險(xiǎn)公司(Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，至少在三年期間，全美商業(yè)銀行的總放貸規(guī)模穩(wěn)步增長;除房屋凈值信用額度和銀行間放貸以外，增長勢(shì)頭涵蓋所有類別。
Loans were relatively flat between 2010 and 2012 but the overall stock has risen from about $7.5tn to $9.24tn since then. That is about 6 per cent a year, roughly twice the nominal growth rate of the economy.
2010年到2012年期間貸款規(guī)模相對(duì)持平，但是自那以來貸款規(guī)模已從大約7.5萬億美元增至9.24萬億美元。這相當(dāng)于每年增長6%左右，是美國經(jīng)濟(jì)名義增長率的大約兩倍。
“We’re up like everyone else,” said Wells Fargo’s finance chief John Shrewsberry at a conference in Miami last week, noting loan growth of 7 per cent last year.
富國銀行(Wells Fargo)財(cái)務(wù)總監(jiān)約翰•施魯斯伯里(John Shrewsberry)上周在邁阿密的一個(gè)會(huì)議上表示：“我行像其他銀行一樣出現(xiàn)增長。”他指出，去年該行貸款增長了7%。
“Loan growth remains robust,” said Marianne Lake, his counterpart at JPMorgan Chase, while presenting record annual net income of $24.7bn last month.
摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)財(cái)務(wù)總監(jiān)瑪麗安•雷克(Marianne Lake)在上月報(bào)告該行實(shí)現(xiàn)247億美元?jiǎng)?chuàng)紀(jì)錄年度凈利潤時(shí)表示：“貸款增長保持穩(wěn)健。”
Beyond the headlines, there are signs that certain segments have been squeezed.
而在整體數(shù)據(jù)之外，有跡象表明某些領(lǐng)域的業(yè)務(wù)受到了擠壓。
In products such as credit cards and personal loans, for example, analysts say activity has been damped by fear of censure by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB was one of the agencies spawned by Dodd-Frank; it enforces 19 federal consumer protection statutes covering everything from home finance to student loans, credit cards and banking practices.
比如，分析師們表示，對(duì)美國消費(fèi)者金融保護(hù)局(US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)打擊的擔(dān)憂，抑制著信用卡和個(gè)人貸款等產(chǎn)品的業(yè)務(wù)活動(dòng)。消費(fèi)者金融保護(hù)局是《多德-弗蘭克法》催生的機(jī)構(gòu)之一，負(fù)責(zé)執(zhí)行19項(xiàng)聯(lián)邦消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法規(guī)——從住房金融到學(xué)生貸款，從信用卡到銀行業(yè)務(wù)實(shí)踐。
Dodd-Frank ordered the agency to look out for “unfair, deceptive or abusive” practices in any financial product or service offered to a consumer.
《多德-弗蘭克法》要求該局監(jiān)管面向消費(fèi)者提供的金融產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)，打擊“不公、欺騙或?yàn)E用”行為。
That may have caused banks to be wary of customers on low incomes and with thin credit files, says Justin Schardin, director of financial regulatory reform at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He cites a study last year showing that customers with non-prime credit scores were awarded less than one-fifth of new credit-card accounts in 2015, down from 29 per cent in 2007.
兩黨政策中心(Bipartisan Policy Center)金融監(jiān)管改革部門主任賈斯廷•沙爾丁(Justin Schardin)表示，這可能導(dǎo)致了銀行對(duì)低收入和信貸歷史較短的客戶抱有戒心。他提到，去年的一項(xiàng)研究顯示，2015年次級(jí)信用分?jǐn)?shù)的客戶獲準(zhǔn)開設(shè)的新信用卡賬戶在此類賬戶總數(shù)中的占比不到五分之一，低于2007年的29%。
In residential mortgages, too, banks and lobby groups complain about the new requirement to determine that the consumer has a “reasonable ability” to repay the loan, based on credit history, income, obligations, debt-to-income ratio, employment status and other information. That has caused a pile-up of paperwork.
就住房抵押貸款而言，銀行和游說團(tuán)體也抱怨稱，新規(guī)要求綜合考慮消費(fèi)者的信貸歷史、收入、現(xiàn)有償付義務(wù)、債務(wù)/收入比率、就業(yè)狀況以及其他信息，以確定其是否有“合理能力”償還貸款。這導(dǎo)致了一大堆的文書工作。
“You used to walk out with a folder; now you walk out with a binder,” says Sushil Patel, Dallas-based president of State Bank of Texas, which has just broken through the $1bn-in-assets barrier by buying a bust bank in Chicago.
德克薩斯州立銀行(State Bank of Texas)常駐達(dá)拉斯的總裁蘇希爾•帕特爾(Sushil Patel)表示：“你過去帶一個(gè)文件夾就能出門，現(xiàn)在你得帶一個(gè)活頁夾。”該行通過收購芝加哥一家破產(chǎn)銀行，跨過了10億美元資產(chǎn)門檻。
But Laurie Goodman, co-director of the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute, a liberal think-tank, argues that other factors have had a greater effect.
但是，自由派智庫“城市研究所”(Urban Institute)住房金融政策中心(Housing Finance Policy Center)聯(lián)席主任勞麗•古德曼(Laurie Goodman)辯稱，其他因素產(chǎn)生了更大的影響。
Credit remains “extremely tight”, she says, because lenders are worried by the representations and warranties they need to make to Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored mortgage buyer, and the high cost of servicing delinquent loans, among other factors. None of that was in Dodd-Frank.
她表示，信貸依然“極度偏緊”，因?yàn)楦縻y行對(duì)多個(gè)因素感到擔(dān)憂，包括它們需要向政府支持的抵押貸款買家——房利美(Fannie Mae)做出的陳述和保證，以及承擔(dān)不良貸款的高昂成本。所有這些都與《多德-弗蘭克法》無關(guān)。
Small-business lending is a mixed picture too. Non-mortgage loans of less than $1m to non-farm businesses peaked at $375bn in 2007, according to FDIC data, and have since fallen to $284bn.
面向小企業(yè)的放貸也是好壞參半。聯(lián)邦存款保險(xiǎn)公司的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，向非農(nóng)企業(yè)發(fā)放的100萬美元以下的非抵押貸款在2007年達(dá)到3750億美元的峰值，現(xiàn)已下降至2840億美元。
To Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a centre-right think-tank, that is a sign of the extra burdens of compliance.
在中右翼智庫“美國行動(dòng)論壇”(American Action Forum)的總裁道格拉斯•霍爾茨-埃金(Douglas Holtz-Eakin)看來，這是合規(guī)帶來額外負(fù)擔(dān)的一個(gè)跡象。
But other analysts say it is hard to disentangle Dodd-Frank effects from extra caution as banks rebuilt capital; a relatively sluggish economy; and competition from a host of nonbank platforms. Some note that the main piece of Dodd-Frank targeting small-business loans ― which requires banks to collect and report more data ― has yet to take effect.
但是其他分析師表示，很難區(qū)分《多德-弗蘭克法》與其它因素(銀行重建資本期間的格外謹(jǐn)慎;相對(duì)疲弱的經(jīng)濟(jì);以及各種非銀行平臺(tái)的競(jìng)爭)之間的影響。一些人指出，該法針對(duì)小企業(yè)貸款的主要內(nèi)容——要求銀行收集和報(bào)告更多數(shù)據(jù)——迄今并未生效。
Even if the evidence of Dodd-Frank hurting bank lending is unpersuasive, says Michael Barr, a professor at the University of Michigan, that will not stop Republicans determined to unwind it.
密歇根大學(xué)(University of Michigan)教授邁克爾•巴爾(Michael Barr)表示，即便該法妨礙銀行放貸的證據(jù)缺乏說服力，那也阻止不了共和黨人廢止它的決心。
Mr Barr, who helped craft Dodd-Frank while at Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department from 2009 to 2010, says talk of helping banks write more loans is a ruse to win support for a package of reforms that favours Wall Street more than Main Street.
從2009年至2010年，巴爾在蒂姆•蓋特納(Tim Geithner)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的財(cái)政部工作期間，幫助設(shè)計(jì)了《多德-弗蘭克法》。他說，幫助銀行發(fā)放更多貸款的言論是一種策略，目的是贏得對(duì)一攬子改革方案的支持，這些改革有利于華爾街，而非普通民眾。
He notes that lobbyists are already talking about scrapping the Volcker ban on proprietary trading, and abolishing the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which was supposed to monitor risks developing outside the deposit-taking banks.
他指出，游說人士已經(jīng)在談?wù)搹U除當(dāng)年沃爾克提出的自營交易禁令，并撤銷金融穩(wěn)定監(jiān)督委員會(huì)(Financial Stability Oversight Council)，后者的職責(zé)是監(jiān)督存款類銀行以外蓄積的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
None of this has much to do with easing the flow of credit.
這一切都與釋放信貸流動(dòng)沒有多大關(guān)系。
Mr Hensarling’s Dodd-Frank alternative, known in its first iteration as the Financial Choice Act, is unlikely to bring “changes for the better for the country”, he says.
巴爾稱，亨薩林提出的多德-弗蘭克替代規(guī)則——其初版被稱為《金融選擇法案》(Financial Choice Act)——不太可能帶來“讓國家更美好的變化”。
“We really run a risk of rolling back the clock to the eve of the financial crisis and doing it all over again.”
“我們真的面臨著回到金融危機(jī)前夕、重蹈覆轍的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。”
