双语阅读｜美联储加息的同时竟补贴银行120亿？！
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.
金融危机爆发之后，美联储每次上调利率，比如3月15日的加息，都包含超额准备金率（IOER）的上调。这一政策性利率虽然鲜为人知，却引发了大的争议。负责监管美联储的众议院金融服务委员会主席，共和党人杰布•亨萨灵(Jeb Hensarling)将这一利率称为对美国大银行的一种“补贴”。
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.
要了解此言背后的含义，首先看一下美联储每年年末发布的财政报告。2016年，美联储依靠各项证券投资盈利1,111亿美元，可支付给摩根大通（ JPMorgan Chase）、富国银行（Wells Fargo）等大银行存在各地方联邦储备银行的超额准备金利息也高达120亿美元。这些巨额的超额准备金利息一方面饱受抨击，另一方面却对美联储的货币政策至关重要。
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，为了更好得控制短期利率的波动，国会同意美联储对银行实际准备金超过法定准备金的部分支付利息。这一政策最早于2008年金融危机期间使用。如今，超额准备金率成为美联储货币政策中的重要一部分，也是调节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，超额准备金率受到了国会的猛烈抨击。国会认为，如果银行可以把钱存到美联储来赚利息，那么，他们为企业和消费者提供贷款的积极性就会减弱。有近一半的超额准备金来自美国的25家大银行，另外约三分之一来自国外银行（令国会尤其担忧）。美联储的高额利息支出约85%是付给这两大团体的。
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，许多分析人士认为，这笔利息收入对银行来说连总收入的2%都不到，实在是微乎其微。银行如果把钱用在其他方面可以获得更多收益，因此，这一政策的最大赢家其实是政府：超额准备金充盈了美联储4.5兆的资产负债表，仅2016年为财政部创造的收入就比利息支出高出将近七倍。
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”.
有关超额准备金率的争议可能会继续激化。美国各银行持有的超额准备金超过2.1兆美元，随着加息的步伐，支付给各银行的利息也会不断攀升——据美联储估计，今年的超额准备金利息可能高达270亿美元，到2019年将增至500亿美元，那就太多了。智库加图研究所(CATO Institute)的马克•卡拉布里亚（ Mark Calabria）表示，任何提议一旦被贴上“每年支付银行500亿而不是借”的标签，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”.
要改变这一政策可能要耗费更多。如果取消超额准备金率，会导致银行间互借超额准备金，进而引发短期利率暴跌。而为了维持货币政策的稳定，避免激化通货膨胀，美联储会迅速出售资产以收回流通市场中的准备金。最近的一篇分析文章认为，如果发生这种情况，将会”对纳税人造成巨大损失“。
编译：张朦晰
审校：Monkeyblue
编辑：翻吧君