首页> 外文期刊>The economist >Buttonwood: Collateral damage
【24h】

Buttonwood: Collateral damage

机译:纽扣木:附带伤害

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

When the financial system teetered on the brink of collapse in 2008, the biggest problem was a lack of liquidity. Banks were unable to refinance themselves in the short-term debt markets. Central banks had to step in on a massive scale to offer support. Calm was eventually restored, but not without enormous economic damage. But has the underlying problem of liquidity gone away? A research note from Michael Howell of Crossborder Capital argues that, in the modern financial system, central banks are no longer the only, or even the main, providers of liquidity. Instead, the system looks a lot like that of the Victorian era, with banks dependent on the wholesale markets for funding. Back then, the trade bill was the key asset for bank financing; now it is the mysteriously named "repo" market.
机译:当金融体系在2008年濒临崩溃的边缘时,最大的问题是缺乏流动性。银行无法在短期债务市场上为其再融资。中央银行必须大规模介入以提供支持。平静最终得以恢复,但并非没有巨大的经济损失。但是潜在的流动性问题已经消失了吗? Crossborder Capital的Michael Howell的一份研究报告认为,在现代金融体系中,中央银行不再是唯一的,甚至是主要的流动性提供者。相反,该系统看起来很像维多利亚时代,银行依赖批发市场来筹集资金。那时,贸易票据是银行融资的关键资产。现在,它被神秘地称为“回购”市场。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The economist》 |2015年第8960期|76-76|共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号