近些年出现了大量公私合营(private/public partnerships)的案例，而美国政府即将着手创立这种合营关系的另一典范：私人部门获取利润，而公共部门承担风险。一个本应坚持自由市场原则的政府对联邦住宅抵押贷款公司（Freddie Mac，简称：房地美）与联邦国民抵押贷款协会（Fannie Mae，简称：房利美）的拟议援助，将导致风险社会化，其中蕴含着长期的道德风险负面影响。
这次援助的辩护者认为，这些机构过于庞大，不容垮掉。如果是这样，政府以前就有责任监管它们，那样的话，它们就不会破产。在没有足够消防设施的情况下，没有哪家保险公司会承保火灾险；也没有保险商会依赖“自我监管”。然而，我们对金融体系却这样做了。
即使这些机构庞大得不能破产，它们也不至于大到无法重组。实际上，美国政府的确正在提议一种金融重组，但它并不符合此类公共资助体系应该遵守的一些基本原则。
首先，它应该完全透明：纳税人需要了解他们承担的风险，以及被援助的股东和债权人拿到了多少钱。
其次，它应该具有完全问责性。管理层、股东或是债权人，所有应该对过失承担责任的人都应该承担后果。当股东受到保护时，纳税人不应被要求再多掏一分钱。
最后，纳税人应该为他们面临的风险得到补偿。风险越大，补偿应该越多。
对贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)的援助违反了所有这些原则。股东们带走了超过10亿美元，而纳税人至今也不知道他们所承担的风险规模。很明显，纳税人没有从所有这些风险承担中获得一毛钱。摩根大通(JPMorgan)拿着美联储(Fed)担保的贷款收购了贝尔斯登，而这其中几乎无疑隐藏了价值巨额的利率和信贷期权。当时设计一种重组并不难，这种重组能更加透明、更好地保护纳税人的利益、并为他们的风险承担提供一些补偿。
然而，与房利美和房地美的拟议援助计划相比，贝尔斯登援助方案看起来可算是一个优秀治理的典范。房利美和房地美援助计划为其它国家树立了一座反面榜样。曾监管失败、接着又热情高涨地进行贝尔斯登援助的同一个政府，现在又要求美国民众开出一张空白支票。他们宣称：“相信我们。”是的，我们能够相信政府——会给纳税人带来另一个不公正待遇。
必须采取一些措施了；每个人都这么认为。我们应该从问题的核心下手，而这个核心就是一个事实：相当多的美国人贷款超出了他们的偿还能力。我们需要帮助他们保留其房屋，方法包括将房屋抵押贷款扣除额转变成可兑现的税收抵免，以及设立针对一个房屋所有者的《破产保护法》，重组人们的债务。这将使资本市场变得清晰——降低了有关房利美和房地美资产负债表亏空规模的不确定性。
政府应当设定援助规模的上限，同时需要明确，虽然它不允许房利美与房地美破产，但也不会扩大援助规模。这可能需要严厉的重组。应该对“信用额度”收费（任何私人公司都这样做），而且，基于风险水平，这笔费用应该高于正常利率。
Much
has been made in recent years of private/public partnerships. The US government is about to embark on another example of such a partnership, in which the private sector takes the profits and the public sector bears the risk. The proposed bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entails the socialisation of risk – with all the long-term adverse implications for moral hazard – from an administration supposedly committed to free- market principles.
Defenders of the bail-out argue that these institutions are too big to be allowed to fail. If that is the case, the government had a responsibility to regulate them so that they would not fail. No insurance company would provide fire insurance without demanding adequate sprinklers; none would leave it to “self-regulation”. But that is what we have done with the financial system.
Even if they are too big to fail, they are not too big to be reorganised. In effect, the administration is indeed proposing a form of financial reorganisation, but one that does not meet the basic tenets of what should constitute such a publicly sponsored scheme.
First, it should be fully transparent, with taxpayers knowing the risks they have assumed and how much has been given to the shareholders and bondholders being bailed out.
Second, there should be full accountability. Those who are responsible for the mistakes – management, shareholders and bondholders – should all bear the consequences. Taxpayers should not be asked to pony up a penny while shareholders are being protected.
Finally, taxpayers should be compensated for the risks they face. The greater the risks, the greater the compensation.
All of these principles were violated in the Bear Stearns bail-out. Shareholders walked away with more than $1bn (
全部版块
我的主页
收藏
扫码加好友，拉您进群