雙語閱讀｜美聯儲加息的同時竟補貼銀行120億？！

EVERY time the Federal Reserve has raised rates since the financial crisis, as it did on March 15th, it has done so in part by increasing 「Interest On Excess Reserves」 (IOER). This obscure policy rate is surprisingly controversial. Jeb Hensarling, the Republican chair of the congressional committee that oversees the Fed, has called it a 「subsidy」 to some of the largest banks in America.

金融危機爆發之後，美聯儲每次上調利率，比如3月15日的加息，都包含超額準備金率（IOER）的上調。這一政策性利率雖然鮮為人知，卻引發了大的爭議。負責監管美聯儲的眾議院金融服務委員會主席，共和黨人傑布•亨薩靈(Jeb Hensarling)將這一利率稱為對美國大銀行的一種「補貼」。

To understand the argument, consider the Fed』s year-end financial statement. In 2016 it earned $111.1bn in interest income on its vast portfolio of securities. But it also paid JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and other mostly big banks $12bn in interest on excess cash deposited at regional Federal Reserve banks. Such IOER payments are both woefully unpopular and critical to the Fed』s monetary policy.

要了解此言背後的含義，首先看一下美聯儲每年年末發布的財政報告。2016年，美聯儲依靠各項證券投資盈利1,111億美元，可支付給摩根大通（ JPMorgan Chase）、富國銀行（Wells Fargo）等大銀行存在各地方聯邦儲備銀行的超額準備金利息也高達120億美元。這些巨額的超額準備金利息一方面飽受抨擊，另一方面卻對美聯儲的貨幣政策至關重要。

Over a decade ago, to give the Fed better control of short-term interest rates, Congress authorised it to pay interest on funds in excess of those banks need to meet reserve requirements. The policy was first used during the financial crisis in 2008. But today, IOER is the Fed』s primary monetary-policy tool, essential to its setting of the Federal Funds rate.

十多年前，為了更好得控制短期利率的波動，國會同意美聯儲對銀行實際準備金超過法定準備金的部分支付利息。這一政策最早於2008年金融危機期間使用。如今，超額準備金率成為美聯儲貨幣政策中的重要一部分，也是調節存款利率的重要工具。

IOER has drawn fierce flak from Congress. If banks can park their money at the Fed, they seem to have less incentive to lend to firms and consumers. About half of all excess reserves are held by America』s 25 largest banks, with a third, to Congress』s horror, held by foreign banks. The two groups earn roughly 85% of the Fed』s interest payment.

但是，超額準備金率受到了國會的猛烈抨擊。國會認為，如果銀行可以把錢存到美聯儲來賺利息，那麼，他們為企業和消費者提供貸款的積極性就會減弱。有近一半的超額準備金來自美國的25家大銀行，另外約三分之一來自國外銀行（令國會尤其擔憂）。美聯儲的高額利息支出約85%是付給這兩大團體的。

Many analysts argue that these interest payments—amounting to less than 2% of the banks』 total income—are in fact trivial. They claim banks would rather earn higher returns elsewhere, and that the real winner from the current arrangement is the government. The excess reserves help finance the Fed』s $4.5trn balance-sheet, which generated almost eight times more income for the Treasury in 2016 than was paid out in interest.

然而，許多分析人士認為，這筆利息收入對銀行來說連總收入的2%都不到，實在是微乎其微。銀行如果把錢用在其他方面可以獲得更多收益，因此，這一政策的最大贏家其實是政府：超額準備金充盈了美聯儲4.5兆的資產負債表，僅2016年為財政部創造的收入就比利息支出高出將近七倍。

This debate is likely to intensify. American banks hold over $2.1trn in excess reserves. As rates rise, the cost of paying interest on them will climb—to $27bn this year, according to Fed projections and $50bn by 2019 (see chart). That may be too much. Mark Calabria of the Cato Institute, a think-tank, says that anything that can be tagged as 「paying banks $50bn a year not to lend」 will be 「politically unsustainable」.

有關超額準備金率的爭議可能會繼續激化。美國各銀行持有的超額準備金超過2.1兆美元，隨著加息的步伐，支付給各銀行的利息也會不斷攀升——據美聯儲估計，今年的超額準備金利息可能高達270億美元，到2019年將增至500億美元，那就太多了。智庫加圖研究所(CATO Institute)的馬克•卡拉布里亞（ Mark Calabria）表示，任何提議一旦被貼上「每年支付銀行500億而不是借」的標籤，在政治上都是得不到支持的。

Meddling with the arrangement might cost even more. Without IOER, banks would try to lend their excess reserves to each other, so short-term interest rates would collapse. To keep control of monetary policy—and avert a surge in inflation—the Fed would have to sell assets rapidly to withdraw reserves from the system. The disruption, a recent analysis concluded, could prove 「extremely costly to taxpayers」.

要改變這一政策可能要耗費更多。如果取消超額準備金率，會導致銀行間互借超額準備金，進而引發短期利率暴跌。而為了維持貨幣政策的穩定，避免激化通貨膨脹，美聯儲會迅速出售資產以收迴流通市場中的準備金。最近的一篇分析文章認為，如果發生這種情況，將會」對納稅人造成巨大損失「。

翻吧