2. 考研
  3. European regulators have contributed to their banks’ decline, in two ways. First, they are specifying how much banks can pay in

European regulators have contributed to their banks’ decline, in two ways. First, they are specifying how much banks can pay in

admin2018-03-01  49
问题     European regulators have contributed to their banks’ decline, in two ways. First, they are specifying how much banks can pay in bonuses relative to base pay. Second, they are trying to force banks to hold more capital and to make it easier to allow them to fail by, for instance, separating their retail deposits from their wholesale businesses.
    The first approach is foolish. It will drive up the fixed costs of Europe’s banks and reduce their flexibility to cut expenses in downturns (低迷时期). They will therefore struggle to compete in America or fast-growing Asian markets with foreign rivals that have the freedom to pay the going rate. The second approach is sensible. Switzerland and Britain are making progress in ending the implicit taxpayer subsidy that supports banks that are too big to fail. The collapse of Ireland’s economy is warning enough of what happens when governments feel compelled to help out banks that weaken their economies.
    Some European bankers argue that the continent needs investment-banking champions. Yet it is not obvious that European firms or taxpayers gain from having national banks that are good at packaging and selling American subprime loans (次级贷款). Indeed, it is American taxpayers and investors who should worry about the dominance of a few Wall Street firms. They bear the main risk of future bail-outs (紧急援助). They would benefit from greater competition in investment banking. IPO fees are much higher in America than elsewhere, mainly because the market is dominated by a few big investment banks.
    Wall Street’s new titans say they are already penalised by new international rules that insist they have somewhat bigger capital buffers (缓冲) than smaller banks because they pose a greater risk to economies if they fail. Yet the huge economies of scale and implicit subsidies from being too big to fail more than offset (抵销) the cost of the buffers. Increasing the capital surcharges for big banks would do more for the stability of the financial system than the thicket of Dodd-Frank rules ever will. Five years on from the frightening summer of 2008, America’s big banks are back, and that is a good thing. But there are still things that could make Wall Street safer.
Compared with small banks, larger ones have bigger capital buffers because ______.
选项 A、they will threaten the economies if they go bankrupt
B、the government pays more attention to larger banks
C、larger banks have more fund than smaller ones
D、they can do more for the country’s economy
答案A
解析 根据题干中的“small banks”，“capital buffers”等词定位到第四段首句：...they have somewhat bigger capital buffers than smaller banks because they pose a greater risk to economies if they fail. 答案就在because后面，即“they pose a greater risk to economies if they fail”与选项A表述相符。其中“pose a greater risk to economies”=“threaten the economies”；“fail=go bankrupt”。综上所述，选项A为正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/DEX7FFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)