On Wednesday, the Treasury Department released more details of its plan to s

游客2024-11-25 33

问题 On Wednesday, the Treasury Department released more details of its plan to stress-test the nation’s 19 largest banks to see just how short of capital they would be if the recession worsened.
Conceptually, the test makes sense. Since many of the banks have been deemed too big to fail, it is important for the government to know in advance how much capital they may need in order to absorb losses and sustain lending. Under the rules of the test, a bank that could not cover a projected shortfall by raising money from private investors would have to accept it from the government. In exchange, the government would take a potentially large ownership stake.
In practice, however, the test could be yet one more step toward what is turning out to be a seemingly endless string of bailouts that do not stop the bleeding, stabilize the banks—or adequately protect taxpayers.
For starters, the test’s worst-case assumptions may not be dire enough. They assume that the economy will contract this year by 3. 3 percent and remain flat in 2010, that unemployment will hit 8.9 percent this year and 10.3 percent next year, and that house prices will fall an additional 22 percent this year. That would all be very bad. But given that the economy contracted by 6. 2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 and that virtually all other economic indicators are flashing red, it is hardly the worst that the government should plan for.
Even if the assumptions prove correct, there is no guarantee that the testing will be rigorous. The tests will be supervised by the government but carried out by the banks. Since a capital infusion by the government would be costly to a bank and pose risks to its existing shareholders, the banks will have an incentive to arrive at the lowest possible capital shortfall.
The result could be a situation much like the present one with Citigroup, in which one bailout follows another, with mounting costs and risks for taxpayers and with investors, borrowers and consumers left to wonder when the banking system will be reliably functional again.
Worse still, even if the tests accurately gauge the banks’ conditions and the government provides adequate capital, taxpayers could still lose big. The government will increase a troubled bank’s capital by purchasing preferred stock that pays a 9 percent dividend. If a bank can’t pay the dividend, it can convert the preferred shares into common stock.
The problem is that a bank is likely to convert the shares only if its condition continues to deteriorate, which would stick the taxpayer with stock falling in value. If the bank’s prospects for recovery are good and it pays back the government within two years, all of the stock’s future gains go to existing common shareholders. The system would be preserved, but by enriching private investors at taxpayers’ expense. That raw deal is improved somewhat if repayment occurs after two years. Unfortunately, chances that a bank would return to health after years on government life support do not seem especially good.
The administration has never adequately explained why rescuing the weakest banks should involve rescuing their shareholders, and by extension, their executives and managers, whose wealth is likely to be concentrated in the stock of the bank. Instead, they have staked out a seemingly arbitrary position, insisting the government should not assume control of perilously weak big banks, even if only to restructure their finances.
Before the stress test results are in and acted upon, taxpayers deserve an explanation. [br] The stress-test plan will benefit the following parts EXCEPT______.

选项 A、American economy
B、high-rank officials of the bank
C、the shareholders of the banks
D、taxpayers

答案 D

解析推断题。该项计划目的是拯救美国经济，由倒数第二段可知，银行得保，股东、银行管理层的利益也能得保，政府救市用的是纳税人的钱，因此纳税人的利益受到了损失．因此只有[D]“纳税人”不受益。

转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3860161.html

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

On Wednesday, the Treasury Department released more details of its plan to s

SupremeCourtjusticesseemedreluctantonWednesdaytodisallowatypeofa

SupremeCourtjusticesseemedreluctantonWednesdaytodisallowatypeofa

SupremeCourtjusticesseemedreluctantonWednesdaytodisallowatypeofa