TE||Small change
1
导读
一文读懂《多德-弗兰克法案》
1.多德-弗兰克法案从哪儿冒出来的
2.多德-弗兰克法案究竟规定了些什么？
3.到2017年，多德-弗兰克法案落实得如何了？
4.特朗普和这法案什么仇什么怨？
具体请看一文读懂《多德-弗兰克法案
2
音乐| 精读 | 翻译 | 词组
Small change
细微变化
本文英文部分选自经济学人Finance and economics版块
An attempt to revise the Dodd-Frank Act reaches a milestone
修改《多德—弗兰克法案》的尝试到达了一个重要阶段
In the Senate, the process of revising the Dodd-Frank Act grinds on
参议院修改《多德—弗兰克法案》的过程拖拖拉拉，还在持续中
After 25 hearings, thousands of pages of comments and many unworkable bipartisan working groups, America’s Senate has finally produced a possible consensus bill to tweak the Dodd-Frank Act, the vast swathe of banking regulation passed soon after the 2008-09 financial crisis. On March 6th, in a technical move that counts as significant progress in Washington’s creaky bureaucracy, 16 Democrats and one independent joined Republicans in voting to allow several hours of debate before passing the bill on to the Senate leadership.
经过25次听证会，成千上万页的评论以及两党开完多场毫无成效的工作会议之后，美国参议院最终通过了一项可能达成的共识提案，用以微调《多德—弗兰克法案》，该法案于2008-09金融危机不久后通过，涵盖大量银行监管条例。2018年3月6日，该提案提请参议院之前，16位民主党人、1位无党派人士以及共和党人进行了数小时的辩论和投票，这一技术性步骤在华盛顿腐朽的官僚体制中，被认为是取得重大进展。
Amendments may yet be added and the entire edifice could fracture, but the vote, after years of effort, suggests a bill might now pass. If it does, it would then have to be reconciled with a different bill passed by the House of Representatives. But this now seems possible as well, if only because the alternative would be no amendment to Dodd-Frank at all.
尽管《多德—弗兰克法案》有可能增加修订内容，整个计划也可能付诸东流，但经过多年的努力，投票结果表明本提案很可能通过。如果参议院通过了，这项法案则必须与众议院通过的提案相一致。但现在看来,修订版本跟原版是一模一样也是完全有可能的.（关于这一段，希望大家踊跃留言指正）
One certainty is that, whatever the bill’s fate, there will be disappointment. Bernie Sanders, a socialist who ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, said passage would create massive economic disruption. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator since 2012 who helped ensure the current law’s expansive scope, said the proposal was a “punch in the gut to American consumers”, and “bank lobbyists …dragging us back to the bad old days”.
可以肯定的是，无论该提案的命运如何，总还是会有人会失望。“社会主义者”民主党总统候选人伯尼·桑德斯表示，该法案通过会造成巨大的经济混乱。自2012年以来，民主党参议员伊丽莎白沃伦一直致力于确保现行法律的适用范围。她称，该修改提案是“给美国消费者的一记重拳”，以及“银行说客正把我们拽回到过去那个糟糕的时代”。
Dodd-Frank Act《多德-弗兰克法案》全称《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法》（Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act），于2010年7月21日由美国时任总统奥巴马签署生效。它是自20世纪30年代以来美国一项最全面的金融监管改革法案，明确旨在限制系统性风险，为大型金融机构可能遭遇的极端风险提供安全解决方案，将存在风险的非银行机构置于更加严格的审查监管范围下，同时针对衍生产品交易进行改革。
Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010 with almost no non-Democratic support and has been the subject of rancour ever since. That is not only because of the partisan nature of its passage, but also because of its scope, which even supporters would admit went far beyond any cause of the financial crisis. Its original 2,300 pages have spawned tens of thousands more of rules. Compliance costs have run to billions of dollars. Not only Republicans but also many Democrats agree there have been harmful unintended consequences. Hence the willingness of some to support a rewrite.
2010年，《多德-弗兰克法案》在几乎没有非民主党的支持下予以通过。自此，该项法案便成为众矢之的。究其原因，不仅因其固有的党派属性，还在于它所涉及的范围之广，连支持者都不得不承认《多德-弗兰克法案》似乎矫枉过正了。法案全文2300页，明确了上万则规定。合规成本已累计达数十亿美元。共和党派和多数民主党派一致认为，《多德-弗兰克法案》已经带来了出乎意料的恶果。因此支持修订的呼声开始涌现。
At first Republicans promised to rescind Dodd-Frank in its entirety. But more recently, as part of a broader acceptance of political realities, they have focused on what they call “recalibrating”, that is, tweaking regulations they disapprove of rather than tearing them up. Changes to Dodd-Frank with no domestic constituency to lobby for them, such as to rules on foreign banks which their executives consider deeply unfair, have fallen by the wayside. But also left intact are many parts that have attracted fierce domestic opposition.
起初共和党承诺完全废除《多德-弗兰克法案》。但最近，由于受到政治现实因素限制，他们已将重点放至所谓的“重校”，即并非全盘推翻而是推陈出新。《多德-弗兰克法案》中一些变更意向，如外资银行高管认为针对外资银行的条款严重不公平，但因缺乏国内广泛支持而被束之高阁。相反地，法案中许多遭到国内强烈反对的部分却被原封不动地保留了下来。
完全废除《多德—弗兰克法》不可能。受到美国宪法所限，任何法案改动必先经过国会审议，如果国会要废除该法案的大部分内容，就需要参议院的60张赞成票，但共和党在那里只有52个席位。一向支持《多德—弗兰克法》的民主党已扬言将会倾尽全力阻止特朗普。
Two institutions much hated by the industry will be spared: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Both have reassuring names, novel structures and complex mandates that give a few political appointees sweeping authority over financial institutions. Missing too in the Senate bill is a provision in the House bill that would have freed banks from the most bureaucratic regulatory measures if they held extra capital. Adding provisions relating to any of these areas could have cost essential Democratic support.
消费者金融保护局和金融稳定监管委员会是业界最为痛恶的两所机构。它们都拥有值得信赖的头衔，创新的架构以及复杂的授权机制，这些机制赋予官员们全面监管金融机构的权利。众议院法案中有法条提及，若银行持有额外资本，则其可免受大部分官僚主义的措施管制，这也是遗漏于参议院法案之外的。增加相关领域的条款则需民主党派必要支持。
The most significant of the Senate’s proposals is to raise the threshold that triggers closer regulatory scrutiny from $50bn in assets to $250bn. Currently banks with just over $50bn come under much the same regime as those with trillions, even though larger institutions tend to have more varied business and thus merit more scrutiny. The proposal would also greatly reduce regulatory requirements for small institutions with straightforward operations. During the debate, senators recounted complaints from constituents about the way in which rules that were intended to rein in vast financial institutions ended up wounding small local banks, with the competitive benefits flowing to the giants.
美国参议院这份议案中最重要的一点在于提高监管门槛，将门槛从500亿美元上调至2500亿美元。资金规模更大的机构往往拥有更多样化的业务因此理应接受更多的审查，但目前资产规模超过500亿美元的银行与那些有着数万亿美元资产规模的银行基本处于同一体制下。所以该提案也将大大降低对小型机构的监管要求，并简化其审查流程。在辩论中，参议员们详细叙述了来自于选民们的抱怨，即那些本来用于遏制大型金融机构的规则最终伤害了当地的小银行，小银行的竞争优势都逐渐流向了这些巨头。
自2007-2009年金融危机以来，银行业并购活动一直低迷。因为资产规模超过500亿美元的银行需遵守更严格的监管规定，而且监管规定的积极执行阻止存在合规问题的银行进行扩张。
The Senate bill contains many other provisions, some of which are bound to have new unforeseen consequences. It runs to 148 pages, more than enough room for mischief. But it reveals much about the way laws are made in Washington that it is one of the shortest pieces of major financial regulation in a decade, says one lawyer with expertise in the area. Notwithstanding the many compromises and resulting lack of enthusiasm, the bill may be passed in something similar to its current form simply because the task of building support has been so exhausting.
参议院的提案包含了许多其他条款，其中有些条款注定会产生一些新的意想不到的后果。该法案长达148页，足够产生麻烦了。但一位在这个领域的专业律师表示，这深刻揭示了华盛顿制定法律的方式（虽然这份新提案算是近十年来金融法规中最最小菜一碟的了）。尽管该提案做出了许多妥协而且结果也缺乏热情，但由于寻求支持的过程已经让人精疲力尽，它最终可能会以与目前法案类似的形式通过。
翻译组：
Vivian，女，国际商务硕士， 经济学人粉丝
Top，女，翻译专业大三学生，经济学人铁粉
Jasmine， 女 ，税收专业大三学生， 经济学人粉丝
校核组：
Emily，女，金融民工，经济学人粉丝
Alan，男，金融工程硕士，经济学人粉丝
3
观点 |评论|思考
本次观点由金融民工Lulu全权执笔
划重点：单身
关于动刀《多德－弗兰克法案》，其实早在去年2月初就被朗普正式提出，这项重新评估的行政令也算是在缓慢中推进。而在当时消息一经传出后，美股银行板块旋即大涨2%，花旗、高盛、摩根无一例外都在获利之列（可怜雷曼兄弟已经无力撑到这一天了）。
原因当然很好理解。《多德－弗兰克法案》在08年金融危机后，以啪啪打脸的棍棒身份于2010年强势登入华尔街的监管舞台，无论金融机构再百般不乐意，终究还是用了小8年的时间把美国的金融体系往稳健安全的方向掰回了一点，比如金融业的透明度、银行杠杆率、对金融消费者的保护等；但是代价也是显而易见的，比如采用的“沃尔克规则”，限制银行进行自营交易—大家都知道，银行的主要收入来源是存贷利差和中收，金融危机后的量化宽松的环境让利差这碗饭不好吃，法案的限制交易让中收这条路也举步维艰。
凡事都有两面性，法案也不例外。金融机构不外乎保证安全性、流动性的同时兼顾收益性，金融危机前后几乎是走了两个极端，之前是华尔街的那些个所谓银行家们被“乱花渐欲”的利益迷了眼而弃了安全性，而之后则是监管的“三省吾身”，代价便是各家银行背负的每年数千亿的监管成本。
所谓，全则必缺，极则必反，盈则必亏，凡事不走极端也是没毛病。而至于特朗普的拯救松绑计划，会不会是又一次打开潘多拉的盒子，重新将金融机构推向贪婪无底线的路径，关键还是得看修订的把握程度，毕竟2300多页的内容，大概大家也都觉得，即使去掉1000页，也不会有谁记得去掉的是什么内容。加上本身经济是有其周期性的，监管从宽松到严格再到宽松的循环，本身也是对市场环境变换作出的理性反应。
而且，你看，银监会和保监会都合并了，从混业监管到分业监管到如今的“分久必合”，除了顶层意志估计也是双子双鱼天平之类的人格，在达到永远达不到的最优状态时，永远都是“试错”。
4
愿景
小组
小编理工男，建筑底层民工，经济学人铁粉，和小伙伴(经济学人小群不超过8个人）看经济学人到现在已经将近700多天。现有一经济学人大群,如果您也有兴趣，可加入我们学习小组，群规甚严，请三思后而入群，WeChat : foxwulihua