金融文章中英文對照
在現代市場經濟中，金融的地位越來越突出，起着很重要的作用。下面是本站小編爲大家帶來了中英文對照的金融文章，歡迎大海閱讀!
金融時報雙語閱讀
China should let its currency rise. Such has been the desperate, decade-long complaint from the US and its politicians. China’s manipulation of its currency is a popular scapegoat both for the financial crisis and for the extinction of US manufacturing.
An appreciation is plainly in China’s urgent interests. And the rest of the world, including the US, is beginning to grasp that it has reason to fear the consequences if it does. On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, China’s authorities at one point allowed the renminbi to appreciate against the dollar by a greater percentage than in any two-day period since its managed rise first started in 2005. These moves remain tiny; but they combine with official criticism of the US, a growing need to combat Chinese inflation and much Chinese commentary favouring a change of policy to suggest that the renminbi may soon be allowed to take flight. A widening of its trading bands might be a first incremental step.
Unlike the first managed appreciation, from 2005 to 2008, the current “appreciation” has done nothing to help domestic inflation. By tying to the dollar, a currency sinking like a stone, the renminbi has depreciated against all currencies on a trade-weighted basis, JPMorgan data show. A drastic shift is needed. That will mean exporting its inflation. It also means buying fewer treasuries, or even selling some, which would in turn counteract any efforts at “quantitative easing” – buying bonds to keep US yields low.
The dollar would probably tumble, and treasury yields rise. Other effects are less clear. The Australian dollar, long a proxy for Chinese growth, might suffer if China slows, as might other commodity-driven currencies but much depends on China’s own decisions.
China’s external reserves are enough, even at current prices, to buy all the gold ever produced. It will be hard to shift policy without causing a big displacement elsewhere in the world. Correcting this global imbalance may be necessary but it will not be easy.
Lex專欄：美國擔心人民幣升值?
中國應該讓人民幣升值——美國及其政界人士爲此聲嘶力竭地抱怨了10年。從金融危機到美國製造業的衰亡，“中國操縱人民幣匯率”都是熱門的替罪羊。
人民幣升值顯然符合中國的利益。而包括美國在內的世界其它國家正開始意識到，它們有理由擔心人民幣升值的後果。本週三和週四，中國官方一度允許人民幣兌美元匯率以較大幅度上漲，漲幅超過2005年中國啓動匯改以來任何一個兩天期間。這些升值步伐仍是微小的;但它們與中國官方對美國的批評、中國日需迫切需要遏制通脹、以及中國近期出現的大量支持改變政策的言論相結合，似乎表明人民幣不久可能獲准大幅走高。擴大其交易區間也許是第一個漸進步驟。
與2005年至2008年第一輪有管理的升值不同，當前這一輪“升值”迄今無助於遏制國內通脹。摩根大通(JPMorgan)的數據顯示，與幣值直線下跌的美元掛鉤意味着，人民幣在貿易加權基礎上兌所有貨幣都貶值了。中國需要大幅度地轉變做法。那將意味着輸入中國的通脹。那還將意味着減少購買美國國債，甚至減持美國國債，從而抵消“定量寬鬆”(美國政府買入國債以壓低其收益率)的努力。
美元很可能大幅走低，美國國債收益率很可能上升。其它效應則不那麼明確。澳大利亞元長期是中國經濟增長的一個指標，如果中國增長放緩，澳元以及由大宗商品推動的其它一些貨幣可能走低，但很多事取決於中國自己的決策。
即便按當前價格計算，中國的外匯儲備也足夠買下人類有史以來開採的全部黃金。要轉變政策而不致對世界其它地方產生重大沖擊，是很難的。糾正這種全球失衡也許是必要的，但它不會是一件易事。
金融文章中英文對照篇2A precipitate, wrong and dangerous decision
The downgrade by Standard & Poor’s of US sovereign debt, from triple A to double A plus, was precipitate, wrong and dangerous.
At best, S&P showed a stunning ignorance and disregard for the potential consequences on a fragile global financial system. The rating agency chose to take this action after the worst week in US equity markets since 2008, a week which not only saw stocks fall sharply, but which also witnessed a dangerous escalation in the European debt crisis. The action was wholly unnecessary and the timing could not have been worse. Compounding this, the reasoning was poor and consequences, both short and long term, for the global financial system unpredictable.
It is unacceptable that privately owned, for-profit companies should have special, legally sanctioned status at the heart of the financial system to function as quasi-regulatory authorities whose opinions can determine what securities financial institutions can hold, how much capital they need, what the borrowing costs of every member of the system will be, all based on secret deliberations with no accountability.
The disastrously flawed ratings of these agencies were at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis and S&P’s action threatens to cause mayhem again by creating uncertainty about the ability of the US to function in its critical role in the financial system.
There was no need for S&P to rush to judgment just days after a bruising political battle had secured a bipartisan agreement to raise the debt ceiling through the next election cycle and which initiated a process to begin to cut spending and address the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalances. Neither Fitch nor Moody’s saw any need to do so, indeed, Moody’s indicated that it saw the agreement as “a turning point in fiscal policy” and declared that a downgrade would be “premature”.
The decision is also wrong. First, it is incredible that S&P should think the US is less creditworthy now than two weeks ago, when an agreement to raise the debt ceiling had not been reached, both parties appeared intransigent and contingency plans were being considered that included prioritising payments or even declaring the debt ceiling null and void. In any event, an agreement was reached that assures the ability of the US to fund its operations through the next election and initiated a process to tackle the nation’s long-standing fiscal imbalances.
The debate on the debt ceiling, moreover, concentrated public attention on the deep fiscal imbalances in the US and changed the governing priorities to include steps to address the unsustainable trajectory of government spending. Now the debate is centred on whether revenue enhancement is needed. This is progress and should have counted for, not against, the triple A rating.
Second, S&P apparently gave little or no weight to the unique role the US plays in the global economy. The US is the world’s largest, most productive economy and the dollar remains the global reserve currency. The only possible alternative, the euro, is structurally flawed and is in what may turn out to be an existential crisis. Issuing its own currency means the US can settle its debts by printing more money if need be, so there is absolutely no question of its ability to pay. Third, the market says S&P is wrong. The US enjoys among the lowest interest rates in its history coincident with the highest deficits and a daunting long-term fiscal outlook. Yet when investors are looking for safe assets, they buy Treasuries. The US is borrowing at lower long-term rates than it did when it was running a budget surplus. In the 2008 crisis, investors flocked to Treasuries and the dollar because they sought the safest, most creditworthy assets in the world. S&P seems not to have noticed this.
The agency’s actions pose unpredictable and dangerous risks to the global economy. As Warren Buffett has noted, fear is contagious and spreads quickly; confidence is fragile and only returns gradually and over time. S&P’s actions can only undermine weak confidence and raise uncertainty. It has created what Keynes called irreducible uncertainty. We have no idea of the consequences of S&P deciding the risk-free assets issued by the country that occupies a unique place in the global economy may not be risk free after all.
One consequence we can all hope for is that Congress ends the oligopoly of Nationally Recognised Statistical Ratings Organisations before they contribute to or ignite another financial crisis. Even S&P agrees, stating to its credit that the regulatory reliance on ratings by NRSROs should end. By all means, let’s have S&P, Moody's and Fitch opine about creditworthiness. But let’s have them do it in a free competitive market and not via a legally-sanctioned oligopoly which effectively regulates without oversight or consequence.
Bill Miller is chief investment officer of Legg Mason Capital Management.
標普犯下大錯
標準普爾(Standard & Poor’s)將美國主權債務評級從AAA下調至AA+，是一個草率、錯誤而又危險的舉動。
說的輕一點，對於此舉可能給脆弱的全球金融體系造成的後果，標普表現出了驚人的無知與漠視。這家評級機構所選擇的時機，是在美國股市經歷了自2008年以來最糟糕的一週之後。那一週，不僅股市大跌，而且歐洲債務危機也出現了危險的升級。標普此舉完全不必要，時機的選擇也糟糕透頂。更可怕的是，其推理拙劣，而給全球金融體系所造成的結果(無論短期還是長期)是難以預測的。
以盈利爲目的的私有公司卻擁有法律認可的特殊地位，即處於金融體系的核心、發揮準監管機構的職能，這令人無法接受。這些準監管機構權勢熏天，他們的意見可以決定金融機構可持有何種證券、需要多少資本金、金融體系中的每個成員的借款成本應該是多少，而且所有這些依據的都是一些隱祕的考量，無需加以解釋說明。
這些機構給出的具有災難性缺陷的評級，正是2008年金融危機的罪魁禍首，而標普這次的行爲有可能會再次引發混亂，因爲它給美國扮演全球金融體系關鍵角色的能力帶來了不確定性。
標普根本沒有必要在這個時候匆忙做出判斷。僅僅數日之前，一場激烈的政治鬥爭剛剛推動兩黨達成了一項在下個選舉週期內提高債務上限的協議，並開啓了着手削減支出、解決美國長期財政失衡的進程。惠譽(Fitch)和穆迪(Moody’s)都沒有看出採取這種做法的任何必要，事實上，穆迪已表示，它認爲上述協議是“財政政策的轉折點”，並宣稱目前調降評級將“爲時過早”。
標普的決定也是錯誤的。首先，標普認爲眼下的美國比兩週前信譽度低，這令人難以置信。兩週前，提高債務上限的協議尚未達成，民主與共和兩黨看上去都沒有妥協的意願，有關優先支付哪些款項、甚至宣佈債務上限無效的應急方案已在考慮之中。不管怎麼說，兩黨目前已達成了一項協議，這確保了美國在下個選舉週期內爲其運行融資的能力，並開啓瞭解決該國由來已久的財政失衡的進程。
此外，圍繞債務上限的論戰，將公衆注意力集中到了美國的嚴重財政失衡上，改變了政府的優先事務排序，納入瞭解決不可持續的政府支出模式的步驟。如今，論戰主要集中到了是否需要增加收入這個問題上。這是一個進步，應該被認爲是對AAA評級有利、而非有害的因素。
第二，標普顯然幾乎(或壓根)沒有考慮美國在全球經濟中獨一無二的地位。美國是全球規模最大、生產力最高的經濟體，美元仍然是全球儲備貨幣。唯一可能的替代品歐元在結構上存在缺陷，而且正處於一場最終可能關係到其能否存在的危機之中。發行自己的貨幣，意味着如果有必要，美國可以通過印刷更多的貨幣來解決自己的債務，所以它的支付能力絕對不存在任何問題。
第三，市場也認爲標普的決定是錯誤的。目前，美國的利率水平處在歷史最低位，而赤字卻處於最高水平，長期財政前景不容樂觀。然而，當投資者想要購買安全資產時，他們還是會選擇美國國債。美國目前的長期借債利率低於預算盈餘時期的利率水平。2008年金融危機期間，投資者紛紛搶購美國國債和美元資產，因爲他們尋找的就是全球最安全、最可靠的資產。而標普似乎沒有注意到這一點。
標普的行爲對全球經濟構成了不可預測的極大威脅。沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)曾說過，恐懼是會傳染的，而且蔓延速度很快;而信心則十分脆弱，只能逐步、緩慢地恢復。標普的行爲只會損害市場本已脆弱的信心，並增加不確定性。這已經造成了凱恩斯所說的“不可減少的不確定性”。標普判定，由在全球經濟中佔據獨一無二地位的美國所發行的無風險資產，可能並不是真的沒有風險。對於這樣一個決定會帶來哪些後果，我們仍不得而知。
我們都希望看到的一個結果是，美國國會能夠在那幾家“全國認定的評級組織”(Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization)促成或引發下一場金融危機之前，終結它們的寡頭壟斷。甚至連標普也同意這一點——該公司值得讚許地表示，監管部門應該結束對這些機構評級的依賴。當然，我們應該讓標普、穆迪(Moody's)和惠譽(Fitch)繼續就信譽發表意見。但應該讓它們在一個自由競爭的市場發表意見，而不是憑藉獲得法律認可、實際上不受監督或不計後果的寡頭壟斷地位。
金融文章中英文對照篇3Banks often regard securitization as a balance sheet transformation tool. Traditionally mortgages are a bank's largest asset and also the least liquid. Securitization involves packaging similar assets such as mortgages and selling them to a trustee, either through the establishment of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) or corporate entity. Bonds are then issued (backed by the assets) by this corporate entity and sold to investors. This is done to generate additional funds for the bank and to manage the structure of the balance sheet. These additional funds can then be used for further lending, acquisitions, stock repurchases, etc.
銀行通常將資產證券化視爲資產負債表轉換工具。從傳統上看，貸款抵押是銀行的最大資產，也最不算是流動資產了。資產證券化就是通過成立一個特設載體(SPV)或公司實體來對類似資產比如抵押進行包裝，然後將其賣給某一託管人。然後公司實體會發行資產抵押債券，並賣給投資者。這樣做是爲了替銀行生成額外資金並對資產負債表的結構進行管理。然後這些額外資金被用於進一步的貸款、收購、股票回購等等。
金融文章中英文對照篇4The financial marke 0
The financial markets in China are still in their infancy, with many areas that do not have the legal framework required to begin operations. A financial market is a market created for the exchange of capital and debt. It includes the capital, money and stock markets. Financial markets have been developing throughout the world for hundreds of years and the pace of change brings new challenges for all participants. In many foreign countries, the financial markets have been focusing on regulation, risk management, customer service, improvement of efficiency, transparency, cost cutting, etc. It is safe to say, that the banks in China have made continuous developments in each of these areas.
中國的金融市場仍處於初期階段，許多地區沒有必要的法律體制就開始運作。金融市場是爲資金和貸款交易而設立的市場。它包括資金、貨幣和股票市場。金融市場在全球已經發展了數百年，其變化的速度之快給所有參與者帶來了新的挑戰。在國外許多國家，金融市場主要將重點放在調整、風險管理、消費者服務、提高效率、透明度、成本削減等方面。可以肯定地說，中國銀行在這些領域取得了持續的發展。
猜你喜歡：
1.關於中英對照短文
2.中英對照翻譯文章
3.勵志的英語文章帶翻譯
4.中英文對照小短文閱讀
5.中英文對照的文章
