第十一章 金融危机Financial Crisis
2022年山东省潍坊市青州第五中学高二英语上学期期末试题含解析
2022年山东省潍坊市青州第五中学高二英语上学期期末试题含解析一、选择题1. Don’t take _____ for granted that he will keep his promise.A. oneB. itC. thisD. that参考答案：B【详解】考查it作形式宾语。
句意：不要想当然地认为他会信守诺言。
句中的“take sth. for granted”为固定搭配，意为“把……想当然”。
本句中的take缺少宾语，分析句子可知，that he will keep his promise 是其宾语，因此可以用it作形式主语，而真正的宾语是后2. What lessons China can draw from_______ financial crisis (金融危机) in theUnited States has become ________ hot topic in Chongqing.A. the；aB. a；aC. 不填；theD. the；不填参考答案：A略3. I went there yesterday_________ to see my uncle.A. specialB. especiallyC. speciallyD. especial参考答案：C4. He pretended to be French, but his German accent _______.A. gave him upB. gave him offC. gave him outD. gave him away参考答案：D5. It’s reported that global warming is heating the planet twice as quickly as _____ feared.A. extremelyB. previouslyC. preciouslyD. eventually参考答案：B6. What’s that actor _____that we saw in the film last night?A. calledB. is calledC.calling D. being called参考答案：D略7. I never thought of it before, _______ all that my parents had done for me for granted.A. takingB. takenC. to takeD. took参考答案：A略8. ——My daughter lived in France for five years and now she’s working in a foreign company.—— ______is no wonder that she speaks such excellent French.A. ItB. ThereC. thatD. This参考答案：A9. Nine in ten parents said there were significant differences in their approach to educating their children compared with _____ of their parents.A. thoseB. oneC. bothD. that参考答案：A略10. I could have been on time for the meeting，but I ________in mud beside a pool for over half an hour. A．got stuck B．have been stuckC．was stuck D．stuck参考答案：C11. Scientists say it will be five or six years _____ it is possible to test this medicine on human patients.A. beforeB. thatC. sinceD. when参考答案：A略12. Look! It’s so wet here. It _______ last night.A. couldn’t have rainedB. could rainC. mustn’t have rainedD. must have rained参考答案：D13. Everything ________, I’m sure I made the right decision.A. taken into considerationB. taking into considerationC. to take into considerationD. take into consideration参考答案：A14. People ________ better access to health care than they used to, and they are living longer as a resultA. will haveB. haveC. hadD. had had参考答案：B试题分析：句意：人们有着比过去更好的医疗保险，结果他们更长寿。
是什么造成了金融危 机？ 英汉双语
Describe the main factors that lie behind the Sub-Prime Crisis.What Caused The Financial Crisis?Financial crisis, also known as financial tsunami, refers to the dramatic deterioration of the financial indicators of a certain country or several countries and regions in the world. It can be classified as currency crisis, debt crisis, banking crisis, sub-loan crisis, etc. The feature of the crisis is that people are pessimistic about the economic future because of monetary depreciation occurring throughout the region. The causes for the crisis are complicated with multiple reasons, mainly from three aspects, i.e., the U.S. consumption habits of borrowing, the idea of free economic management, and the economic environment and specific policy instruments.I think we can sum up the cause of our current economic crisis in one word —GREED. Over the years, mortgage lenders were happy to lend money to people who couldn’t afford their mortgages. But they did it anyway because there was nothing to lose. These lenders were able to charge higher interest rates and make more money on sub-prime loans. If the borrowers default, they simply seized the house and put it back on the market. On top of that, they were able to pass the risk off to mortgage insurer or package thesemortgages as mortgage-backed securities. Easy money!and what went wrong with our financial system? The whole thing was one big scheme. Everything was great when houses were selling like hot cakes and their values go up every month. Lenders made it easier to borrow money, and the higher demand drove up house values. Higher house values means that lenders could lend out even bigger mortgages, and it also gave lenders some protection against foreclosures. All of this translates into more money for the lenders, insurers, and investors. Unfortunately, many borrowers got slammed when their adjustable mortgage finally adjusted. When too many of them couldn’t afford to make their payments, it causes these lenders to suffer from liquidity issue and to sit on more foreclosures than they could sell. Mortgage-backed securities became more risky and worth less causing investment firms like Lehman Brothers to suffer. Moreover, insurers like AIG who insured these bad mortgages also got in trouble.The scheme worked well, but it reverses course and is now coming back to hurt everyone with a vengeance.The subprime mortgage crisis is an ongoing financial crisis characterized by contracted liquidity in global credit markets and banking systems triggered by the failure of mortgage companies, investment firms and government sponsored enterprises which hadinvested heavily in subprime mortgages. The crisis, which has roots in the closing years of the 20th century but has become more apparent throughout 2007 and 2008, has passed through various stages exposing pervasive weaknesses in the global financial system and regulatory framework.The crisis began with the bursting of the United States housing bubble and high default rates on supbrise and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), beginning in approximately 2005–2006. For a number of years prior to that, declining lending standards, an increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms, and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher. Foreclosures accelerated in the United States in late 2006 and triggered a global financial crisis through 2007 and 2008. During 2007, nearly 1.3 million U.S. housing properties were subject to foreclosure activity, up 79% from2006.Major banks and other financial institutions around the world have reported losses of approximately US$435 billion as of 17 July 2008 The liquidity concerns drove central banks around the world to take action to provide funds to member banks to encourage lending to worthy borrowers and to restore faith in the commercial paper markets. The U.S. government also bailed out key financial institutions, assuming significant additional financial commitments.是什么造成了金融危机？金融危机，又称金融风暴，是指一个国家或几个国家与地区的金融指标的急剧恶化。
金融危机与货币危机、债务危机、银行危机货币危机
金融危机与货币危机、债务危机、银行危机金融危机金融危机(Financial Crisis)[编辑]什么是金融危机金融危机又称金融风暴，是指一个国家或几个国家与地区的全部或大部分金融指标(如：短期利率、货币资产、证券、房地产、土地(价格)、商业破产数和金融机构倒闭数)的急剧、短暂和超周期的恶化。
其特征是人们基于经济未来将更加悲观的预期，整个区域内货币币值出现幅度较大的贬值，经济总量与经济规模出现较大的损失，经济增长受到打击。
往往伴随着企业大量倒闭，失业率提高，社会普遍的经济萧条，甚至有些时候伴随着社会动荡或国家政治层面的动荡。
金融危机可以分为货币危机、债务危机、银行危机等类型。
近年来的金融危机越来越呈现出某种混合形式的危机。
亚洲金融危机发生于1997年7月，由泰国开始，之后进一步影响了邻近亚洲国家的货币，股票市场，和其它的资产价值。
此危机另一名称是亚洲金融风暴（常见于香港）。
印尼、韩国和泰国是受此金融风暴波及最严重的国家。
新加坡、马来西亚、菲律宾和香港也被波及。
中国大陆和台湾受影响程度相对较轻，但台湾却面临著“本土型金融风暴”的威胁。
日本则仍是处在泡沫经济崩溃后自身的长期经济困境中，受到此金融风暴的影响并不大。
[编辑]1997年亚洲金融危机概况1997年，泰国经济疲弱，许多东南亚国家如泰国、马来西亚和韩国等长期依赖中短期外资贷款维持国际收支平衡，汇率偏高并大多维持与美元或一揽子货币的固定汇率或联系汇率，这给国际投机资金提供了一个很好的捕猎机会。
由美国知名炒家索罗斯主导的量子基金乘势进军泰国，从大量卖空泰铢开始，迫使泰国放弃维持已久的与美元挂钩的固定汇率而实行自由浮动，从而引发了一场泰国金融市场前所未有的危机。
之后危机很快波及到所有东南亚实行货币自由兑换的国家和地区，香港的港元便成为亚洲最贵的货币。
1998年8月，量子基金和老虎基金开始炒卖港元，首先向银行借来大量港元在市场上抛售，换来美元借出以赚取利息，同时大量卖空港股期货。
考研英语二历年真题阅读与写作常见词汇及短语
merse 合
merger 合并 acquisition 收购
↑
↑
merge
acquire 收获，得到 inquire 询问 require 要求
↓
emerge 涌现，浮现（合并以后出来的东西）
emerging countries 新兴国家
emergence 涌现；出现
emergency 紧急情况
acquire 收获，得到
（对于 mortal 解释就是用生死来做个约定，但当今社会是法治社会，不能用真正的生死来做
个约定，因此只能用生命中最有价值的东西来做约定，比如将房子抵押出去来换贷款）
mortal combat 殊死搏斗
cheap mortgage 低息抵押贷款
2. 表示萧条的单词：recession、recede、depression、depress（○1 使萧条○2 使沮丧）、slump
stagnation 停滞
↑
stick 粘 例如：stick to 坚持
stick → struck
例如：get stuck 困住（2008 年联考）
shrug off the recession 摆脱经济萧条（2011 年英语二）
3 / 28
考研英语二历年真题阅读与写作常见词汇及短语
shrug 耸肩← shrink 缩
shake off 摆脱
表示颤抖的几个单词：shake、shiver、quake、quiver
3. 与经济复苏的有关的单词：
revival
recovery
upturn 的反义词：downturn 萧条
↑
↑
revive 复活（再次活过来） recover 康复，使…复苏
100年来世界经济金融危机的教训
100年来世界经济金融危机的教训作者：苏_小美知我者谓我心忧，不知我者谓我何求！—《诗经·国风》上篇：100年来世界经济金融危机的教训当前我国出现了外汇储备增大和流动性过剩，股市房市等资产价格上涨偏快，引起了人们对泡沫经济和经济风险的担忧。
为此，作者对比了20世纪以来世界上主要的经济金融危机，发现泡沫经济和外部冲击是危机的主因。
我希望能从这些教训中，得到必要的警示。
一、100年来经济金融危机的主因是泡沫经济和外部冲击经济危机（Economic Crisis）指市场经济发展过程中周期爆发的生产过剩危机。
自1825年英国爆发第一次经济危机以来，资本主义经济从未摆脱过经济危机的冲击。
主要表现：经济衰退、生产下降、商品过剩；企业倒闭、银行破产、失业及贫困剧增等。
第二次世界大战以后西方国家采取了宏观调节措施，试图“熨平”周期，经济危机的周期性特征已不明显。
金融危机（Financial Crisis）是指某国或地区的全部或部分金融指标(如利率、汇率、证券、地价、商业破产数和金融机构倒闭数)的急剧、短暂和超周期的恶化；金融危机又可分为货币危机、债务危机、银行危机等，但现在越来越呈现出混合形式的危机；如果金融危机蔓延到其他经济领域，引发企业大量倒闭、失业增多和经济萧条，则转化为经济危机甚至社会危机。
1552-1920年，欧洲大陆每十年左右爆发一次经济危机。
上世纪以来，世界上大的经济金融危机有20多次，比较著名的有1929年大危机、两次石油危机、拉美债务危机、东南亚金融危机、俄罗斯金融危机等，其原因除了二次世界大战、苏东体制转轨等特殊情况外，主要有两类：一是股市和房市泡沫经济形成及破灭，为10次，占40%；二是外部冲击，包括国际收支严重失衡、资本大量进出、汇率大幅波动和债务危机等，共15次，占60%。
许多发展中国家是外部冲击与泡沫经济因素交织在一起，加剧了经济的不稳定与风险。
1. 股市房市的泡沫形成与破裂泡沫经济（Bubble Economy）是指虚拟资本过度增长、相关交易持续膨胀，金融证券、地产价格飞涨，投机交易极为活跃，日益脱离实物资本的增长和实业部门的成长；泡沫经济寓于金融投机，造成社会经济的虚假繁荣，最后必定泡沫破灭，导致社会震荡，甚至经济崩溃(《辞海》的解释)。
the asian financial crisis(亚洲金融危机)()
IMF对危机的影响
1 IMF有利的影响
国际货币基金组织对发生金融危机国家的款项援助，缓 解了遭遇危机国家的金融、经济的进一步危机，在短时 间内对恢复投资者信心、稳定经济形势发挥了重要作用。
1997年，IMF向泰国提供172亿美元的贷款，向印尼 政府提供400亿美元的贷款。
流程
Introdction Analaysis
Reasons
Influence
IMF evaluation
分
析
导火索
泰铢盯住 美元，经常 账户逆差
经济衰退
经常账户 逆差
吸引外资
流入，利用 资本项目弥 补
国外资本 涌入
抑制投资 消费不足
货币紧缩 利率上升
资产价格 泡沫
银行巨额 不良资产
对世界经济的影响
1 对亚洲经济、社会及政治等方面的影响
首先,亚洲国家出现严重的经济衰退。 其次,亚洲国家的贫困现象加剧。 此外,危机国家还付出了社会动乱甚至政 治危机的沉重代价。
2 多数国家受影响,全球经济增长速度放慢
拉美国家受亚洲金融危机的影响日益明显。
美欧经济也难以独善其身。
其一,亚洲地区经济增长停滞或衰退,对外需求疲弱,必然导致其它国家, 特别是与该区贸易关系较密切的美国的出口减少,在该区投资的公司利 润下降,这些都直接影响到其它国家的经济增长。
国家的外债结构不合理。
在中期、短期债务较多的情况下，一旦外资流出超过外资流入，而本国的外汇储 备又不足以弥补其不足，这个国家的货币贬值便是不可避免的了。
2 内在基础性因素
透支性经济高增长和不良资产的膨胀。
金融危机名词解释
金融危机名词解释金融危机( financial crisis金融危机( financial crisis，简称financial crisis，又称作金融海啸或金融风暴)是指一个国家或地区的金融市场，因为过度金融交易(过度的贷款、证券借贷和透支)或金融资产价格暴跌，而引致大量的未偿还贷款或未偿还债券，或是社会的金融资产总额的减少，导致经济萎缩、景气衰退，甚至引发社会动乱的现象。
金融危机会令到银行倒闭、财富大量蒸发、股票市场崩溃、企业大量破产或裁员、物价飞涨、经济衰退、社会动荡等等。
金融危机通常发生在经济过热或繁荣、利率上升的国家，例如美国、日本、中国等地方;而且它通常被认为与景气循环周期有关。
当人类的某种活动失去控制或管理不当时，将会出现投机过度的现象，造成资产的过度膨胀和人们实质收入的减少，这种通货膨胀或通货紧缩的时期就是经济衰退期，也可以说是金融危机期。
从一般的经济角度看，金融危机是指一个国家或地区的经济运行因金融市场的动荡、混乱，而对该国宏观经济运行和居民的正常生活、生产带来不利影响的事件，即金融领域的危机。
如果从政治的角度分析，它还是一种社会政治现象，是一种全局性的政治危机，即一个社会或者一个国家中影响其金融命脉的主要金融机构倒闭，并引发连锁反应，造成金融秩序的混乱，甚至导致政治的动荡。
金融危机的历史类型：(一)按照金融危机发生的原因可分为传统的金融危机和衍生的金融危机传统的金融危机即由银行信用危机所引起的危机。
这种危机的特点是规模比较大，因而破坏力也大，对整个经济发展产生严重的冲击。
衍生的金融危机又称为金融创新产生的危机，是指新技术革命引起金融业务日益复杂化和多样化，因而新的金融工具不断产生并得到广泛应用。
金融创新使金融风险进一步加大，因而引起了金融业的连锁性波动。
(1)直接金融市场。
资本市场是通过证券二级市场进行的间接融资的市场，也是风险最大的市场。
在美国，直接金融市场约占90%。
Financial crisis of 2007-2009金融危机 金融风暴 英文介绍
Financial crisis of 2007–2009From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is about background financial market events dating from July 2007. For the financial market conditions of 2008 and 2009, see Global financial crisis of 2008–2009. For an overview of all economic problems during the late 2000s, see Late 2000s recession.The financial crisis of 2007–2009 has been called the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression by leading economists,[1] with its global effects characterized by the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, substantial financial commitments incurred by governments, and a significant decline in economic activity.[2] Many causes have been proposed, with varying weight assigned by experts.[3] Both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration,[4] while significant risks remain for the world economy.[5] [edit] BackgroundThe immediate cause or trigger of the crisis was the bursting of the United States housing bubble which peaked in approximately 2005–2006.[6][7] High default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), began to increase quickly thereafter. An increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher.Share in GDP of U.S. financial sector since 1860.[8]In the years leading up to the start of the crisis in 2007, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds made it easier for the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates in the United States too low (by the Taylor rule) from 2002–2006 which contributed to easy credit conditions, leading to the United States housing bubble. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[9][10] As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financialFrom 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[25] This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation.[26] The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006.[27] This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners.[28] This may have also contributed to the deflating of the housing bubble, as asset prices generally move inversely to interest rates and it became riskier to speculate in housing.[29][30]U.S. Current Account or Trade DeficitIn 2005, Ben Bernanke addressed the implications of the USA's high and rising current account (trade) deficit, resulting from USA imports exceeding its exports.[31] Between 1996 and 2004, the USA current account deficit increased by $650 billion, from 1.5% to 5.8% of GDP. Financing these deficits required the USA to borrow large sums from abroad, much of it from countries running trade surpluses, mainly the emerging economies in Asia and oil-exporting nations. The balance of payments identity requires that a country (such as the USA) running a current account deficit also have a capital account (investment) surplus of the same amount. Hence large and growing amounts of foreign funds (capital) flowed into the USA to finance its imports. This created demand for various types of financial assets, raising the prices of those assets while lowering interest rates. Foreign investors had these funds to lend, either because they had very high personal savings rates (as high as 40% in China), or because of high oil prices. Bernanke referred to this as a "saving glut."[32] A "flood" of funds (capital or liquidity) reached the USA financial markets. Foreign governments supplied funds by purchasing USA Treasury bonds and thus avoided much of the direct impact of the crisis. USA households, on the other hand, used funds borrowed from foreigners to finance consumption or to bid up the prices of housing and financial assets. Financial institutions invested foreign funds in mortgage-backed securities. USA housing and financial assets dramatically declined in value after the housing bubble burst.[33][34][edit] Sub-prime lendingU.S. Subprime lending expanded dramatically 2004-2006In addition to easy credit conditions, there is evidence that both government and competitive pressures contributed to an increase in the amount of subprime lending during the years preceding the crisis. Major∙As early as 1997, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated.[citation needed] With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets,[62] the U.S. Congress and President allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.[63]Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" in early 2003.[64][65][edit] Increased debt burden or over-leveragingLeverage Ratios of Investment Banks Increased Significantly 2003-2007U.S. households and financial institutions became increasingly indebted or overleveraged during the years preceding the crisis. This increased their vulnerability to the collapse of the housing bubble and worsened the ensuing economic downturn. Key statistics include:∙USA household debt as a percentage of annual disposable personal income was 127% at the end of 2007, versus 77% in 1990.[66]∙U.S. home mortgage debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP) increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[67]∙In 1981, U.S. private debt was 123% of GDP; by the third quarter of 2008, it was 290%.[68]∙From 2004-07, the top five U.S. investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage (see diagram), which increased their vulnerability to a financial shock. These five institutions reported over $4.1 trillion in debt for fiscal year 2007, about 30% of USA nominal GDP for 2007. Lehman Brothers was liquidated, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch were sold at fire-sale prices, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley became commercial banks, subjecting themselves to more stringent regulation. With the exception of Lehman, these companies required or received government support.[69]∙Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two U.S. Government sponsored enterprises, owned or guaranteed nearly $5 trillion in mortgage obligations at the time they were placed into conservatorship by the U.S. government in September 2008.[70][71]These seven entities were highly leveraged and had $9 trillion in debt or guarantee obligations, an enormous concentration of risk, yet were not subject to the same regulation as depository banks.[edit] Financial innovation and complexityA protester on Wall Street in the wake of the AIG bonus payments controversy is interviewed by news media.The term financial innovation refers to the ongoing development of financial products designed to achieve particular client objectives, such as offsetting a particular risk exposure (such as the default of a borrower) or to assist with obtaining financing. Examples pertinent to this crisis included: the adjustable-rate mortgage; the bundling of subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) or collateralized debt obligations (CDO) for sale to investors, a type of securitization; and a form of credit insurance called credit default swaps(CDS). The usage of these products expanded dramatically in the years leading up to the crisis. These products vary in complexity and the ease with which they can be valued on the books of financial institutions.In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a "Giant Pool of Money" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with the MBS and CDO, which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable.[72]The CDO in particular enabled financial institutions to obtain investor funds to finance subprime and other lending, extending or increasing the housing bubble and generating large fees. A CDO essentially places cash payments from multiple mortgages or other debt obligations into a single pool, from which the cash is allocated to specific securities in a priority sequence. Those securities obtaining cash first received investment-grade ratings from rating agencies. Lower priority securities received cash thereafter, with lower credit ratings but theoretically a higher rate of return on the amount invested.[73][74]For a variety of reasons, market participants did not accurately measure the risk inherent with this innovation or understand its impact on the overall stability of the financial system.[75] For example, the pricing model for CDOs clearly did not reflect the level of risk they introduced into the system. The average recovery rate for "high quality" CDOs has been approximately 32 cents on the dollar, while the recovery rate for mezzanine CDO's has been approximately five cents for every dollar. These massive, practically unthinkable, losses have dramatically impacted the balance sheets of banks across the globe, leaving them with very little capital to continue operations.[76]Another example relates to AIG, which insured obligations of various financial institutions through the usage of credit default swaps. The basic CDS transaction involved AIG receiving a premium in exchangefor a promise to pay money to party A in the event party B defaulted. However, AIG did not have the financial strength to support its many CDS commitments as the crisis progressed and was taken over by the government in September 2008. U.S. taxpayers provided over $180 billion in government support to AIG during 2008 and early 2009, through which the money flowed to various counterparties to CDS transactions, including many large global financial institutions.[77][78]The limitations of a widely-used financial model also were not properly understood.[79][80] This formula assumed that the price of CDS was correlated with and could predict the correct price of mortgage backed securities. Because it was highly tractable, it rapidly came to be used by a huge percentage of CDO and CDS investors, issuers, and rating agencies.[80] According to one article[80]: "Then the model fell apart. Cracks started appearing early on, when financial markets began behaving in ways that users of Li's formula hadn't expected. The cracks became full-fledged canyons in 2008—when ruptures in the financial system's foundation swallowed up trillions of dollars and put the survival of the global banking system in serious peril... Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees."As financial assets became more and more complex, and harder and harder to value, investors were reassured by the fact that both the international bond rating agencies and bank regulators, who came to rely on them, accepted as valid some complex mathematical models which theoretically showed the risks were much smaller than they actually proved to be in practice [81]. George Soros commented that "The super-boom got out of hand when the new products became so complicated that the authorities could no longer calculate the risks and started relying on the risk management methods of the banks themselves. Similarly, the rating agencies relied on the information provided by the originators of synthetic products. It was a shocking abdication of responsibility." [82]Certain financial innovation may also have the effect of circumventing regulations, such as off-balance sheet financing that affects the leverage or capital cushion reported by major banks. For example, Martin Wolf wrote in June 2009: "...an enormous part of what banks did in the early part of this decade – theoff-balance-sheet vehicles, the derivatives and the 'shadow banking system' itself – was to find a way round regulation."[83][edit] Boom and collapse of the shadow banking systemIn a June 2008 speech, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then President and CEO of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, placed significant blame for the freezing of credit markets on a "run" on the entities in the "parallel" banking system, also called the shadow banking system. These entities became critical to the credit markets underpinning the financial system, but were not subject to the same regulatory controls. Further, these entities were vulnerable because they borrowed short-term in liquid markets to purchase long-term, illiquid and risky assets. This meant that disruptions in credit markets would make them subject to rapid deleveraging, selling their long-term assets at depressed prices. He described the significance of these entities: "In early 2007, asset-backed commercial paper conduits, in structured investment vehicles, in auction-rate preferred securities, tender option bonds and variable rate demand notes, had a combined asset size of roughly $2.2 trillion. Assets financed overnight in triparty repo grew to $2.5 trillion. Assets held in hedge funds grew to roughly $1.8 trillion. The combined balance sheets of the then five major investment banks totaled $4 trillion. In comparison, the total assets of the top five bank holding companies in the United States at that point were just over $6 trillion, and total assets of the entire banking system were about $10 trillion." He stated that the "combined effect of these factors was a financial system vulnerable to self-reinforcing asset price and credit cycles."[12]2007 bank run on Northern Rock, a UK bankOne of the first victims was Northern Rock, a medium-sized British bank.[98] The highly leveraged nature of its business led the bank to request security from the Bank of England. This in turn led to investor panic and a bank run in mid-September 2007. Calls by Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable to nationalise the institution were initially ignored; in February 2008, however, the British government (having failed to find a private sector buyer) relented, and the bank was taken into public hands. Northern Rock's problems proved to be an early indication of the troubles that would soon befall other banks and financial institutions.Initially the companies affected were those directly involved in home construction and mortgage lending such as Northern Rock and Countrywide Financial, as they could no longer obtain financing through the credit markets. Over 100 mortgage lenders went bankrupt during 2007 and 2008. Concerns that investment bank Bear Stearns would collapse in March 2008 resulted in its fire-sale to JP Morgan Chase. The crisis hit its peak in September and October 2008. Several major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover. These included Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.[99]See also: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac[edit] Credit markets and the shadow banking systemTED spread and components during 2008During September 2008, the crisis hits its most critical stage. There was the equivalent of a bank run on the money market mutual funds, which frequently invest in commercial paper issued by corporations to fund their operations and payrolls. Withdrawal from money markets were $144.5 billion during one week, versus $7.1 billion the week prior. This interrupted the ability of corporations to rollover (replace) their short-term debt. The U.S. government responded by extending insurance for money market accounts analogous to bank deposit insurance via a temporary guarantee[100] and with Federal Reserve programs to purchase commercial paper. The TED spread, an indicator of perceived credit risk in the general economy, spiked up in July 2007, remained volatile for a year, then spiked even higher in September 2008,[101] reaching a record 4.65% on October 10, 2008.In a dramatic meeting on September 18, 2008 Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke met with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout. Bernanke reportedly tells them: "If we don't do this, we may not have an economy on Monday."[102] The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act also called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is signed into law on October 3, 2008.[103]Economist Paul Krugman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explain the credit crisis via the implosion of the shadow banking system, which had grown to nearly equal the importance of the traditional commercial banking sector as described above. Without the ability to obtain investor funds in exchange for most types of mortgage-backed securities or asset-backed commercial paper, investment banks and other entities in the shadow banking system could not provide funds to mortgage firms and other corporations.[12][58]This meant that nearly one-third of the U.S. lending mechanism was frozen and continued to be frozen into June 2009.[104] According to the Brookings Institution, the traditional banking system does not have the capital to close this gap as of June 2009: "It would take a number of years of strong profits to generate sufficient capital to support that additional lending volume." The authors also indicate that some forms of securitization are "likely to vanish forever, having been an artifact of excessively loose credit conditions." While traditional banks have raised their lending standards, it was the collapse of the shadow banking system that is the primary cause of the reduction in funds available for borrowing.[105][edit] Wealth effectsThere is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth. By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45 percent from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22 percent, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[106]Further, U.S. homeowners had extracted significant equity in their homes in the years leading up to the crisis, which they could no longer do once housing prices collapsed. Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion over the period.[16][107][108] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[109]To offset this decline in consumption and lending capacity, the U.S. government and U.S. Federal Reserve have committed $13.9 trillion, of which $6.8 trillion has been invested or spent, as of June 2009.[110] In effect, the Fed has gone from being the "lender of last resort" to the "lender of only resort" for a significant portion of the economy. In some cases the Fed can now be considered the "buyer of last resort."The New York City headquarters of Lehman Brothers.Economist Dean Baker explained the reduction in the availability of credit this way:"Yes, consumers and businesses can't get credit as easily as they could a year ago. There is a really good reason for tighter credit. Tens of millions of homeowners who had substantial equity in their homes two years ago have little or nothing today. Businesses are facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. This matters for credit decisions. A homeowner with equity in her home is very unlikely to default on a car loan or credit card debt. They will draw on this equity rather than lose their car and/or have a default placed on their credit record. On the other hand, a homeowner who has no equity is a serious default risk. In the case of businesses, their creditworthiness depends on their future profits. Profit prospects look much worse in November 2008 than they did in November 2007 (of course, to clear-eyed analysts, they didn't look too good a year ago either). While many banks are obviously at the brink, consumers and businesses would be facing a much harder time getting credit right now even if the financial system were rock solid. The problem with the economy is the loss of close to $6 trillion in housing wealth and an even larger amount of stock wealth. Economists, economic policy makers and economic reporters virtually all missed the housing bubble on the way up. If they still can't notice its impact as the collapse of the bubble throws into the worst recession in the post-war era, then they are in the wrong profession."[111]At the heart of the portfolios of many of these institutions were investments whose assets had been derived from bundled home mortgages. Exposure to these mortgage-backed securities, or to the credit derivatives used to insure them against failure, caused the collapse or takeover of several key firms such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, and HBOS.[112][113][114][edit] Global contagionThe crisis rapidly developed and spread into a global economic shock, resulting in a number of European bank failures, declines in various stock indexes, and large reductions in the market value of equities[115] and commodities.[116] Moreover, the de-leveraging of financial institutions, as assets were sold to pay back obligations that could not be refinanced in frozen credit markets, further accelerated the liquidity crisis and caused a decrease in international trade.World political leaders, national ministers of finance and central bank directors coordinated theirefforts[117] to reduce fears, but the crisis continued. At the end of October 2008 a currency crisis developed, with investors transferring vast capital resources into stronger currencies such as the yen, the dollar and the Swiss franc, leading many emergent economies to seek aid from the International Monetary Fund.[118][119][edit] Effects on the global economy[edit] Official economic projectionsOn November 3, 2008, the EU-commission at Brussels predicted for 2009 an extremely weak growth of GDP, by 0.1 percent, for the countries of the Euro zone (France, Germany, Italy, etc.) and even negative number for the UK (-1.0 percent), Ireland and Spain. On November 6, the IMF at Washington, D.C., launched numbers predicting a worldwide recession by -0.3 percent for 2009, averaged over the developed economies. On the same day, the Bank of England and the Central Bank for the Euro zone, respectively, reduced their interest rates from 4.5 percent down to three percent, and from 3.75 percent down to 3.25 percent. Economically, mainly the car industry seems to be involved. As a consequence, starting from November 2008, several countries launched large "help packages" for their economies.The U.S. Federal Reserve Open Market Committee release in June 2009 stated: "...the pace of economic contraction is slowing. Conditions in financial markets have generally improved in recent months. Household spending has shown further signs of stabilizing but remains constrained by ongoing job losses, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Businesses are cutting back on fixed investment and staffing but appear to be making progress in bringing inventory stocks into better alignment with sales. Although economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time, the Committee continues to anticipate that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, fiscal and monetary stimulus, and market forces will contribute to a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth in a context of price stability."[136] Economic projections from the Federal Reserve and Reserve Bank Presidents include a return to typical growth levels (GDP) of 2-3% in 2010; an unemployment plateau in 2009 and 2010 around 10% with moderation in 2011; and inflation that remains at typical levels around 1-2%.[137][edit] Responses to financial crisis[edit] Emergency and short-term responsesMain article: Subprime mortgage crisis#ResponsesThe U.S. Federal Reserve and central banks around the world have taken steps to expand money supplies to avoid the risk of a deflationary spiral, in which lower wages and higher unemployment lead to aself-reinforcing decline in global consumption. In addition, governments have enacted large fiscal stimulus packages, by borrowing and spending to offset the reduction in private sector demand caused by the crisis. The U.S. executed two stimulus packages, totaling nearly $1 trillion during 2008 and 2009.[138] This credit freeze brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse. The response of the USA Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and other central banks was immediate and dramatic. During the last quarter of 2008, these central banks purchased US$2.5 trillion of government debt and troubled private assets from banks. This was the largest liquidity injection into the credit market, and the largest monetary policy action, in world history. The governments of European nations and the USA also raised the capital of their national banking systems by $1.5 trillion, by purchasing newly issued preferred stock in their major banks.[99]Governments have also bailed-out a variety of firms as discussed above, incurring large financial obligations. To date, various U.S. government agencies have committed or spent trillions of dollars in loans, asset purchases, guarantees, and direct spending. For a summary of U.S. government financial commitments and investments related to the crisis, see CNN - Bailout Scorecard.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
经济学院
货
第十一章 金融危机
币
银
行
学
第二节 金融危机生成原因
三、新一代金融危机模型 资产泡沫化” 1. “资产泡沫化”模型 2. “道德风险”危机模型 道德风险” 3. “外资诱导型”货币危机模型 外资诱导型” 4. 金融恐慌模型 5. “孪生危机”模型 孪生危机”
经济学院
货
币
银
行
学
第十一章 金融危机 第三节 金融危机的国际传染
经济学院
货
第十一章 金融危机
币
银
行
学
第二节 金融危机生成原因
二、金融危机的第二代模型 – 1.早期模型 早期模型 – 假设政府的非线性政策行为表现为 ： 未发生投机冲击时 ， 国内信贷增长率 假设政府的非线性政策行为表现为：未发生投机冲击时， 发生投机冲击后，国内信贷以更高的比率µ 增长， 为µ0，发生投机冲击后，国内信贷以更高的比率 1增长，于是产生了两条影 子汇率线，出现了下列4种情况： 如图11 11子汇率线，出现了下列4种情况： （如图11-2） 1) d < d B， 投机者冲击只会导致资本损失，因此不存在冲击动机 投机者冲击只会导致资本损失， 2) d = d B 投机者冲击会使影子汇率从C跳到B，投机者无利润，也无 ，投机者冲击会使影子汇率从C跳到B 投机者无利润， 损失，可以有B 两个均衡点； 损失，可以有B、C两个均衡点； 3) d B < d < d A 若投机者资本雄厚，冲击规模足以使经济发生变化， ， 投机者资本雄厚，冲击规模足以使经济发生变化， 经济将处于冲击均衡，若市场上只有资本较少的外汇交易商， 经济将处于冲击均衡，若市场上只有资本较少的外汇交易商，且他 们的预期和行为不协调统一， 们的预期和行为不协调统一，其冲击规模不足以将经济从无冲击均 衡推动到冲击均衡，此时就会出现多重均衡； 衡推动到冲击均衡，此时就会出现多重均衡； 4) d > d
经济学院
货
第十一章 金融危机
币
银
行
学
第二节 金融危机生成原因
•
第二代模型解释危机发生的机制时，基于三个因素： 第二代模型解释危机发生的机制时，基于三个因素： 存在促使政府捍卫固定汇率的动机； 1. 存在促使政府捍卫固定汇率的动机； 存在促使政府放弃固定汇率的动机； 2. 存在促使政府放弃固定汇率的动机； 3. 市场对贬值的预期最终导致政府放弃固定汇率。 市场对贬值的预期最终导致政府放弃固定汇率。 事实上，政府是否捍卫固定汇率取决于对上述(1)、(2)两因 事实上，政府是否捍卫固定汇率取决于对上述(1)、(2)两因 (1) 素的权衡。但是，当市场预期(或怀疑)汇率贬值时， 素的权衡。但是，当市场预期(或怀疑)汇率贬值时，捍卫固定 汇率的成本将大大增加，最终促使政府放弃固定汇率机制。 汇率的成本将大大增加，最终促使政府放弃固定汇率机制。
第十一章 金融危机 Financial Crisis
河北大学 金 融 系
货
币
银
行
学
第十一章 金融危机
第一节 金融危机概述 第二节 金融危机生成原因 第三节 金融危机的国际传染 第四节 金融危机的预警与防范 第五节 金融危机治理
经济学院
货
币
银
行
学
第十一章 金融危机
• 学习目的与要求： 学习目的与要求：
+ r − p * − s = −a(i*)
经济学院
货
第十一章 金融危机
币
银
行
学
第二节 金融危机生成原因
2.投机性冲击时机的确定。 投机性冲击时机的确定。 – “影子汇率” ：即指储备耗尽、基础货币的紧缩等于冲击的本币价值时所产生的 影子汇率” 即指储备耗尽、 s 浮动汇率， ~ 表示，它随着基本经济因素（以D为例）的恶化而上升。 表示，它随着基本经济因素（ 为例）的恶化而上升。 浮动汇率，用 – 冲击后，影子汇率与国内信贷的线性关系为： 冲击后，影子汇率与国内信贷的线性关系为： ~ 整理后得： 整理后得：s = αµ + d (图11-1) 图 – 当投机冲击发生时： 当投机冲击发生时： • （1）由于外汇储备陡然枯竭，基础货币供给也相应减少，并且减少的数量恰 由于外汇储备陡然枯竭，基础货币供给也相应减少， 好等于外汇储备的损失额； 好等于外汇储备的损失额； • （ 2 ） 由于国内利率提高 ， 货币需求也相应减少 ， 货币市场均衡变为 ∆ r = 由于国内利率提高， 货币需求也相应减少， 货币市场均衡变为∆ aµ ， 又 由 于 d t = d 0 + µ t ， rt = r0 − µ t ， 在 冲 击 时 刻 T,r=0, 由 此 T,r=0 所以冲击发生时刻： 所以冲击发生时刻： − ∆ r = r 0 − µ t = αµ T = ( r 0 − αµ ) / µ t ， 可见，初始外汇储蓄 0越多，国内信贷增长速度 可见，初始外汇储蓄r 越多， µ越慢。 越慢。 越慢
经济学院
货
第十一章 金融危机
币
银
行
学
第二节 金融危机生成原因
3.简单评价 简单评价 – 第二代模型与第一代模型有两点不同之处： 第二代模型与第一代模型有两点不同之处： 其强调了危机的“自促成”性质， 1) 其强调了危机的“自促成”性质，强调了经济主体的主 观预期对危机的关键作用； 观预期对危机的关键作用； 模型强调了危机的随机性和不可预测性， 2) 模型强调了危机的随机性和不可预测性，在不存在危机 必然性的环境中会突然爆发危机，危机是不可预期的。 必然性的环境中会突然爆发危机，危机是不可预期的。 – – 第二代模型较好地解释了所谓的“欧洲型货币危机”（如 第二代模型较好地解释了所谓的“欧洲型货币危机” 1992-1993年欧洲货币危机 年欧洲货币危机） 1992-1993年欧洲货币危机） 第一代模型和第二代模型的共同缺陷是以经常账户的分析为主， 第一代模型和第二代模型的共同缺陷是以经常账户的分析为主， 忽视了资本账户。 忽视了资本账户。
d − ~ = − a~ (r = 0,设 i* = s s p
*
= 0)
经济学院
货
第十一章 金融危机
币
银
行
学
第二节 金融危机生成原因
3．简单评价 – 第一代模型较好地解释了70-80年代的货币危机，即所谓 第一代模型较好地解释了70 80年代的货币危机 70- 年代的货币危机， 拉美型”货币危机，如墨西哥1973 1982危机 1973—1982危机、 的“拉美型”货币危机，如墨西哥1973 1982危机、阿 根廷1978 198l危机。 1978—198 根廷1978 198l危机。 – 该模型的优点 – 该模型的缺点
经济学院
货
第十一章 金融危机
币
银
第一节
行
学
金融危机概述
当代金融危机的特点 1. 金融危机具有广泛的传染性 2. 金融危机的生成具有潜伏性 3. 金融危机爆发具有内源性 4. 金融危机爆发的频繁性 5. 金融危机后果的严重性
经济学院
货
币
银
行
学
第十一章 金融危机 第二节 金融危机生成原因
一、金融危机的第一代模型 – 1.基本模型 基本模型 • 假设条件 • 国内货币市场的均衡条件： 国内货币市场的均衡条件：
A
，固定汇率遭受冲击。 固定汇率遭受冲击。
经济学院
货
第十一章 金融危机
币
银
行
学
第二节 金融危机生成原因
2.近期模型 近期模型 – 最具代表性的是奥伯斯法尔德(1994)建立的金融危机模型。 最具代表性的是奥伯斯法尔德(1994)建立的金融危机模型。 – 当一国政府的政策并无扩张性时，私人部门对货币贬值的预期会给政 当一国政府的政策并无扩张性时， 府增加压力，使政府处于困境。这种预期反映在利率、 府增加压力，使政府处于困境。这种预期反映在利率、劳动合同和其 他价格决定当中， 他价格决定当中，即存在要求提高利率和提高工资的压力和通货膨胀 预期的压力。 预期的压力。如果政府维持固定汇率就牺牲了短期经济的柔性和长期 信用之间的平衡。 信用之间的平衡。 – 贬值预期可以自发引起贬值，即投机性冲击会“自我实现”。如果私 贬值预期可以自发引起贬值，即投机性冲击会“自我实现” 人部门预期贬值，明智的政府最好选择贬值； 人部门预期贬值，明智的政府最好选择贬值；如果私人部门没有预期 贬值，政府就什么也不需要做。因此这时存在由预期决定的多重均衡。 贬值，政府就什么也不需要做。因此这时存在由预期决定的多重均衡。
第十一章 金融危机 第一节 金融危机概述
经济学院
货
第十一章 金融危机
币
银
第一节
行
学
金融危机概述
二、金融危机的分类 1.以金融危机的影响地域来划分 以金融危机的影响地域来划分 1) 国内金融危机 2) 区域金融危机 3) 世界金融危机（全球金融危机） 世界金融危机（全球金融危机） 2.以金融危机的性质、内容来划分 以金融危机的性质、 以金融危机的性质 1) 货币市场危机 2) 资本市场危机 3) 金融机构危机（银行业危机） 金融机构危机（银行业危机） 4) 综合金融危机：表现为上述几种危机的混合体 综合金融危机： 3.以金融危机的影响程度来划分 以金融危机的影响程度来划分 1) 系统性金融危机 2) 非系统性金融危机