浅析金融时报选文

金融时报选文SURGE IN BIOFUELS PUSHES UP FOOD PRICES1生物燃料与人类争食2ASIAN PRAGMATISM PROVES ITS VALUE3香港退休基金是怎样运作的4Q&A ON A SADLY PREDICTABLE DEBT CRISIS6全球次贷危机七大问题8GLOBALISATIONS EXILES KEEP THE HOME FIRES BURNING9移民汇款养活发展中国家？11编号：时间：2021年x月x日书山有路勤为径，学海无涯苦作舟页码：第27页 共28页SURGE IN BIOFUELS PUSHES UP FOOD PRICES By Javier Blas and Jenny Wiggins in LondonTuesday, July 17, 2007 A surge in the production of biofuels derived from corn, wheat and soyabeans is helping to push up food prices so sharply that the World Food Programme, the United Nations agency in charge of fighting famine, is finding it difficult to feed as many hungry people as it has in the past.Josette Sheeran, WFPs executive director, said in an interview with the Financial Times that rising food prices were “already having an impact on WFP operations” and added: “There is a realisation we are facing a new level of challenge.”Food commodity prices are surging because of a number of factors including rising demand from China and bad weather, but the potential consequences of the rising demand for biofuels has caught the attention of those in the business of feeding the world. Mark Spelman, head of the Accentures global energy practice, said the biofuel industry was at risk of creating a public backlash similar to wind power generation as food inflation continues.“Windpower was a very popular renewable source of energy until a wind-farm was planned in someones backyard,” he said.Still, Paul OBrien, overseas director for the humanitarian organisation Concern Worldwide, said higher food prices could benefit farmers in emerging markets if food aid programmes find it cheaper to spend cash donations in the countries they distribute food in, rather than in the US and Europe.“What we would encourage is food aid agencies to look more locally . . . and for donors to give money to the WFP,” Mr OBrien said.Some 77 per cent of the WFPs food purchases are made in developing countries. Last year it spent $460m (34m, 226m) in such countries, making the largest cash purchases in Uganda, Ethiopia and Pakistan. The United Nations organisation feeds some 90m people annually.Ms Sheeran also said that her organisation and others were trying to make it easier for poorer farmers to benefit from rising demand for food, either by helping African farmers become more efficient and tapping new markets or by helping small farmers in Latin America benefit from the rising demand for biofuels.“In a world of growing population, the African farmer will be needed,” she said.The rise in food prices has also underlined the difficulties the WFP and other food aid programmes face when determining which type of donations they receive are more effective cash or commodities.About half of the donations the WFP receives are now made in cash, the rest in commodities. When the organisation started, it benefited mainly from surplus food donated by wealthy nations including the US. It now receives cash from many countries, and often, as is the case with US, must spend that money on products grown in the donor country.Marc Cohen, research fellow at the USs International Food Policy Research Institute, said that the rise in food prices had reawakened questions over the best way to distribute food aid.One idea that has been discussed in the past, Mr Cohen said, is for donors to contribute to a global reserve or co-ordinated national reserves of food so that food can be stockpiled.“Now that prices are high, the idea may get on the table again,” he said.生物燃料与人类争食 作者：英国金融时报哈维尔布拉斯(Javier Blas)、珍妮威金斯(Jenny Wiggins)伦敦报道2007年7月17日 星期二 从玉米、小麦和大豆中提取生物燃料的生产活动大幅增长，大幅推升了食品价格，导致世界粮食计划署(World Food Programme)发现自己难以向与过去同样多的饥饿人口提供粮食。世界粮食计划署是联合国(UN)抗击饥荒的主管机构。世界粮食计划署执行干事约塞特施林(Josette Sheeran)在接受英国金融时报采访时表示，不断上涨的粮食价格“已经对世界粮食计划署的运作造成了影响”，并补充称：“我们认识到，我们正在面临新层次的挑战。”粮食类大宗商品价格的飙升，是由许多因素造成的，其中包括中国需求的不断上升和恶劣的气候等，但生物燃料需求上升的潜在后果，已引起了世界粮食界相关人士的关注。 埃森哲(Accenture)全球能源业务负责人马克斯佩尔曼(Mark Spelman)表示，随着粮食价格的继续攀升，生物燃料行业有可能像风力发电一样，激起公众的强烈反对。他表示：“风力曾是一种非常受欢迎的可再生能源，但是，到有人计划在自己的后院建设风力发电场时，情况就改变了。”尽管如此，人道主义组织关爱世界(Concern Worldwide)海外事务负责人保罗欧布莱恩(Paul OBrien)表示，如果各粮食援助机构发现，将捐赠的现金花在它们援助粮食的国家，比花在欧美更便宜，那么粮价的上涨可能会使新兴市场的农民受益。欧布莱恩表示：“我们将鼓励（粮食援助机构）更多地着眼于本地并鼓励捐赠者把钱交给世界粮食计划署。”在世界粮食计划署购买的粮食中，大约有77%产自发展中国家。去年，该机构在这些国家花费了4.6亿美元，最大金额的现金购买发生在乌干达、埃塞俄比亚和巴基斯坦。这个联合国机构每年为大约9000万人提供粮食。施林还表示，她所在的机构和其它组织正努力让较为贫穷的农民更容易从粮食需求增长中获益，方法是以下两种办法中的一种：一是帮助非洲农民提高效率，开发新市场；二是帮助拉美小农从生物燃料需求的增长中获益。她表示：“一个人口不断增长的世界，将会需要非洲农民。”粮食价格的上涨，还突显出世界粮食计划署和其它粮食援助机构在要判断哪类捐赠更有效时面临的难题：是接受现金，还是大宗商品。目前，在世界粮食计划署收到的捐赠中，大约有一半是现金，另一半是大宗商品。在创立之初，该组织主要受益于包括美国在内的富国所捐赠的剩余粮食。现在，该组织从许多国家收到的是现金，而且往往就像在美国一样，必须把这些资金用于购买捐赠国生产的产品。美国国际粮食政策研究所(International Food Policy Research Institute)研究员马克科恩(Marc Cohen)表示，粮食价格高企再度提出了有关粮食援助最佳分配方式的问题。科恩表示，过去曾讨论过一种想法，即捐赠者向一个全球性储备机构，或协调一致的国家粮食储备机构进行捐赠，这样粮食就可以被储存起来。他表示：“既然目前价格高企，这个想法可能再度提上议程。”译者/何黎ASIAN PRAGMATISM PROVES ITS VALUE By Mark KonynTuesday, September 11, 2007 In recent months the focus of attention in Hong Kong has been on the accessibility of Hong Kong-registered mutual funds to mainland China investors under the Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) system. So far, two large mainland banks have announced arrangements with key fund management groups that intend to launch products to take advantage of this liberalisation of Chinas domestic savings.This development promises to reignite interest in Hong Kongs mutual fund industry that would otherwise fall behind in the priority list when compared with developments elsewhere in the region - Taiwan, Korea, China and even Japan are attracting more attention. Attempts in Hong Kong to make it easier for international and established hedge fund groups to set up offices is a clear indication that Hong Kong is conscious of the need to stay competitive and attract talent.All of this industry excitement has overshadowed developments in Hong Kongs retirement fund marketplace. Before the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) scheme was introduced at the end of 2000, it was estimated that only a third of the citys workforce was enrolled in some form of retirement savings plan. Arguably, the biggest single success of the MPF has been the compliance level. Enrolment rates for employers are at 99 per cent, and 75 per cent for the self-employed, bringing the number of workers enrolled to over 2m. The growth in assets held in MPF schemes has also been impressive, with more than $27bn (9.7bn, 13bn) now held in MPF accounts.At the time of introduction there was much debate on the level of choice to be offered to members. MPF is a defined contribution system where members choose their investment strategy from a range of funds available under their current plan.The overriding concern at the outset of ensuring that most of the working population enrolled in the scheme resulted in the key responsibility for compliance residing with the employer, and this approach has been successful.At the same time this structure has limited fund choice to those made available by the employers chosen service provider. Seven years since the launch and members are becoming increasingly aware that other funds exist outside of their own scheme that may offer a better performance profile.The main investment for most MPF members has been multi-asset funds that diversify globally in both equities and bonds, and account for more than half of the schemes total assets. Bond funds have been remarkably unpopular, with less than 2 per cent of the total assets, with equity funds representing more than 20 per cent.Members have become more aware of performance across service providers as a result of increased job mobility since the economy recovered from its low point in mid 2003. Members changing jobs can transfer the assets to the scheme of the new employer, remain in the scheme of the existing employer or set-up a preserved account with the provider of their choice.Preserved accounts have become the hunting ground for new business for many service providers. Up to an estimated 20 per cent of scheme assets are now held in preserved accounts for some service providers. Movements in these assets as a result of members exercising their choice will slowly transform the MPF from being an employer-based scheme to an individually administered system where employees are able to choose from a wider range of funds available in the market.However, this development may prove too slow for members who do not change jobs that often, or it may simply prove too clumsy and inconvenient to operate. Hence there is growing debate on whether all members should have greater choice and be able to periodically move assets to any fund available in the market place.The focus on performance comparisons is particularly pertinent when considered alongside the debate on service providers fees that are typically in the range of 1.5-2 per cent each year. Those schemes that lag in respect of performance will increasingly find it difficult to justify the total fees.The choice debate in Hong Kong contrasts greatly with developments in the US. During the consultation period ahead of the MPF launch there was much reference to the successes of the 401K system and the fact that choice was prolific and wide. However, experience suggests that the MPF, with its limited choice at the outset, set the right tone and is now ready to embrace greater choice.More recently, there has been a spate of class actions against fiduciaries in the US, resulting in many schemes adopting default options that place contributions in multi-asset funds and effectively take the strategy and fund choice decisions away from the employee. Perhaps this is an example of how Asian pragmatism produces a more effective and progressive outcome.Mark Konyn is chief executive of RCM Asia Pacific in Hong Kong香港退休基金是怎样运作的 作者：康礼贤(Mark Konyn)为英国金融时报撰稿2007年9月11日 星期二 在香港，人们近几个月来的关注焦点是在港注册的共同基金能否在合格境内机构投资者(QDII)机制下，招徕中国内地投资者。到目前为止，两家大型内地银行已经宣布与主要基金管理集团签署了业务安排，这些基金管理集团希望利用中国放宽国内储蓄投资渠道的机会推出相应产品。这一新进展有望重新燃起外界对香港共同基金行业的兴趣，否则与该地区其它地方相比，发展共同基金在香港的优先程度将降低台湾、韩国、中国甚至日本在这方面的表现都吸引了人们更多的注意。香港试图降低跨国知名对冲基金集团在其境内设立办事处的难度。此举显然表明，香港明白需要保持竞争力，并吸引人才。与共同基金业的活跃相比，香港退休基金市场的发展不那么引人瞩目。在2000年底推出强制性公积金计划(MPF)之前，香港约仅有三分之一的劳动人口参加了某种形式的退休储蓄计划。可以说，MPF最成功的一点，便是该计划的普及水平。到目前为止，99%的雇主加入了该计划，而个体经营者的参与比例为75%，从而使加入该计划的工人数量超过200万人。 MPF计划所持资产的增速也十分惊人，目前其账户中的资产超过了270亿美元。在推出该计划时，关于它能够向参加者提供多少投资选择，人们存在很多争论。MPF是一个固定缴款计划，参加者从其计划提供的基金品种中选择其投资策略。最初，人们最关注的问题是确保多数劳动者加入该计划，这使得参加该计划的主要责任落在了雇主身上。这种做法比较成功。与此同时，该结构将参与者可以选择的基金品种，限制在雇主选择的基金管理公司所提供的基金品种内。该计划推出7年来，参加者越来越意识到，在其参加的计划外，还存在或许能提供更高回报的基金。对于多数MPF参加者而言，主要的投资品种是多资产基金，此种基金将其资产分散投资于全球范围内的股票和债券，占该MPF全部资产的半数以上。债券基金相当不受欢迎，在全部资产中仅占不足2，股票基金所占比例则超过20。自香港经济从2003年中的低谷中复苏以来，员工流动率的增加，使MPF计划参加者对服务提供商的业绩有了更多了解。换工作的参加者可以将其资产转移至新雇主的计划中、继续参加现有雇主的计划，或建立一个自己选择服务提供者的保留账户。对于许多服务提供商而言，保留账户已成为它们获取新业务的狩猎场。在MPF计划的资产中，目前约有多达20由一些服务提供商的保留账户持有。由于参加者选择投资品种而导致的资产转移，将慢慢地使MPF从一个基于雇主的计划，转变为一个由个人管理的机制。在这种机制下，雇员将能够从市场上更广泛的基金品种中进行选择。然而，对于不经常变动工作的参加者而言，这种演变或许过于缓慢，或者可能过于笨拙和不便。因此，关于是否所有参加者都应拥有更多的选择，以及能够定期将资产转移到市场上的任何一只基金，人们的争论越来越多。对于服务提供商通常每年收取1.5至2的费用，人们争论较大。在这种情况下，将重点放在比较基金的业绩上就显得特别重要了。那些在业绩方面落后的养老储蓄计划，将日益发现难以证明其全部收费的合理性。在香港，有关可选投资品种的争论，与美国养老储蓄计划的发展历程形成了鲜明对照。在发起MPF前的咨询阶段，相关人士多次提及美国401K制度的成功之处，以及其投资选择多样而广泛的优点。但实践经验表明，最初选择有限的MPF计划设定了正确的基调，而且现在已经准备好接受更多投资选择了。最近，美国接连发生了针对受托人的集体诉讼，导致许多计划都设定了默认选择即将参加者缴款投入多资产基金，实际上将投资策略和选择基金的决策权从雇员手中拿走。或许这个例子表明，亚洲的实用主义如何产生了更有效和进步的成果。本文作者为香港RCM Asia Pacific行政总裁译者/ 何黎Q&A ON A SADLY PREDICTABLE DEBT CRISIS By Martin WolfTuesday, September 11, 2007 We are living through the first crisis of our brave new world of securitised financial markets. It is too early to tell how economically important this upheaval will prove. But nobody can doubt its significance for the financial system. Its origins lie with credit expansion and financial innovation in the US itself. It cannot be blamed on “crony capitalism” in peripheral economies, but rather on irresponsibility in the core of the world economy.What has happened raises important questions. Here are seven.First, why did this crisis start in the US? The answer is: “The borrowing, stupid”. Default on debt actual and feared always drives big financial crises because creditors think that they ought to be repaid. US households were the world economys most important net borrowers in the mid-2000s, replacing the emerging markets of the 1990s. Second, what created the conditions for the crisis? It took foolish borrowers, foolish investors and clever intermediaries, who persuaded the former to borrow what they could not afford and the latter to invest in what they did not understand. In fact, even the borrowers might not have been foolish: if one owns nothing, it may be quite sensible to speculate on ever-rising house prices in the knowledge that personal bankruptcy is always a way out.Third, why did this crisis escalate? “Contagion” is, as always, the answer. Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, described the process in his speech at the Jackson Hole conference last weekend.“Although this episode appears to have been triggered largely by heightened concerns about subprime mortgages, global financial losses have far exceeded even the most pessimistic projections of credit losses on those loans. In part, these wider losses likely reflect concerns that weakness in US housing will restrain overall economic growth. But other factors are also at work.“Investor uncertainty has increased significantly, as the difficulty of evaluating the risks of structured products that can be opaque or have complex pay-offs has become more evident. Also, as in many episodes of financial stress, uncertainty about possible forced sales by leveraged participants and a higher cost of risk capital seem to have made investors hesitant to take advantage of possible buying opportunities.”*Fourth, how bad might the impact become? Since Americans borrow in their own currency, the US authorities can, it seems, loosen monetary and fiscal policy at will. Nevertheless, a significant global slowdown is not impossible. One reason is that even the US cannot risk losing the confidence of its creditors. Another is that risk premiums are likely to rise across the board, with adverse consequences for economic activity in many countries. Yet another is that banks may lack the capital to replace a temporary shrinkage in non-bank credit. It is not obvious, in addition, who would act as the worlds “borrower of last resort”, should US households retrench. Finally, big losses may yet emerge elsewhere, not least in other countries overvalued housing markets.Fifth, how should central banks respond? They have two classic functions: to ensure stability in the economy, by avoiding both inflation and deflation; and to provide liquidity to an illiquid financial system.The challenge on the first mandate is not to overreact in anticipation of what may be only a modest blip to the economy. The federal funds rate will almost certainly be cut this month. It is not obvious that it should be slashed, however. Inflation remains a risk, after all.The challenge on the second mandate is to define what keeping the financial system “liquid” means. The classic definition is to provide money the ultimate store of value and means of payment to sound banks threatened by a run. A possible definition in securitised markets, however, is to act as buyer of last resort, thereby guaranteeing liquidity in markets at all times. For the reasons I explored last week (this page, August 28 2007), the latter would be a dangerous departure.Sixth, what is the future of securitised lending? Good reasons can still be advanced for shifting exposure from the balance sheets of thinly capitalised banks to those of better capitalised outside investors. The theory was that risk would thus be shifted on to those best able to bear it. The practice seems to have been that it was shifted on to those least able to understand it.The supply of such fools has, if only temporarily, dried up. In the short run, securitised debt is likely to contract, as existing debt is paid down or written off. In the longer term, intermediaries will have to find a way to make their products more transparent to the buyers. Unfortunately, the ratings agencies, which once served this purpose, have lost their credibility.Seventh, what does this event imply for the future of regulation? It is important to distinguish two objectives. One is to protect innocents. The investors who bought the products do not fall in this category. They were, if not fools, willing speculators. It is not at all obvious why the state should try to protect such institutions from their own folly. Those who borrowed the money to buy houses may, however, be deemed innocents. Whether this applies to people who exaggerated their earnings in applying for loans is an open question. But paternalists may require minimum down payments or the abolition of “teaser” interest rates and other devices that encouraged ordinary people to borrow more than they could afford.The second objective of regulation is to insulate financial markets against the sort of panic seen in recent weeks. The only way to do that may be to re-regulate them comprehensively. Restrictions would have to be imposed on products sold or on the ability of guaranteed financial institutions to engage in off-balance-sheet transactions. I cannot see how either would now be made to work. Regulation of the detail of the financial system may fall somewhere between hard and impossible. It is why financial institutions must never be too big to fail.Financial crises are always different in detail and the same in their essence. This one is no exception. It showed the normal pattern of rising prices of assets, expanding credit, speculation, excess, then falling prices, default and finally panic. The new securitised financial markets are meeting a test. We will soon know how far they manage to pass it.全球次贷危机七大问题 作者：英国金融时报首席经济评论员马丁沃尔夫(Martin Wolf)2007年9月11日 星期二 我们正在经历证券化金融市场这个新世界的首个危机。现在要出说此次动荡在经济上会何等重要，未免为时过早。但没人能够质疑其对金融体系的意义。此次动荡的源头在于美国本身的信贷扩张和金融创新。我们不能将其归咎于周边经济体的“裙带资本主义”(crony capitalism)，反倒应该归咎于这个全球经济核心的不负责任。目前发生的情况提出了一些重要问题。以下就是其中的7个。首先，为何这场危机始于美国？答案是：“因为借贷，傻瓜”。债务违约（实际发生的和人们担心的）总是会引发重大金融危机，因为债权人认为他们应该得到还款。2005年前后，美国家庭取代上世纪90年代的新兴市场，成为全球经济中最为重要的净借款人。 第二，什么为此次危机创造了条件？是愚蠢的借款人、愚蠢的投资者和聪明的中介机构。中介机构说服借款人借入他们无法负担的债务，投资者投资于他们并不了解的产品。事实上，即便是借款人可能也不愚蠢：如果一个人一无所有，那么他们投机日益上涨的房地产，可能是一种相当合理的行为，因为他们知道，个人破产总是一个解决办法。第三，为何此次危机会愈演愈烈？和以往一样，答案就是“传染效应”。美联储(Fed)主席本伯南克(Ben Bernanke)上周末在杰克逊霍尔会议的讲话中描述了这一过程。“尽管此次事件似乎主要是由次级抵押贷款领域担忧加剧的引发，但全球的金融损失已经远远超出对这些贷款哪怕是最为悲观的预测。在一定程度上，这些更广泛的损失可能反映出这样一种担忧：美国房地产市场疲弱将抑制整体经济增长。但其它因素也发挥了作用。”“投资者的不确定性已明显增加，因为对于缺乏透明度或回报结构复杂的结构性产品，要评估其风险变得愈加困难。此外，正如在多次面临金融压力时一样，杠杆参与者可能被迫出售资产和风险资本成本上升方面的不确定性，似乎已让投资者不愿利用潜在的买进机会。”*第四，此次危机的影响可能有多严重？由于美国人是以本币举债，美国当局似乎可以凭自己的意愿放松货币和财政政策。不过，全球经济增速显著放缓的可能性并非不存在。一个原因是，即便是美国也不能冒失去债权人信心的风险。另一个原因是，风险溢价可能全面上升，许多国家的经济活动将受到负面影响。不过，还有一个原因是，银行可能缺乏取代暂时性收紧的非银行信贷的资金。此外，如果美国家庭紧缩开支，看不出来谁会成为全球“最后的借款人”。最后，巨额损失还可能在其它地方出现，特别是其它国家估值过高的房地产市场。第五，各国央行应该如何应对？央行有两个典型的职能：一是通过避免通胀和通缩，确保经济的稳定；二是向缺乏流动性的金融体系提供流动性。第一项任务的挑战是不要过度反应，期待着经济也许不过是出现适度的暂时停顿。美国的联邦基金利率本月几乎肯定会下调。不过，下调利率的原因并不明显。毕竟，通胀仍然是一个风险。第二项任务的挑战是给保持金融系统“流动”下定义。传统的定义是向受到挤兑威胁的健康银行提供货币最终的价值储藏和支付手段。然而，证券化市场上一个可能的定义是：充当最终购买人，以此始终保障市场上的流动性。出于我上周探究过的理由，后一种定义是一种危险的背离。第六，证券化借贷的未来如何？对于将资产从资本较少的银行的资产负债表上剥离给资金更为充足的外部投资者，人们仍然可以提出很好的理由。这种做法背后的理论是，风险因而可以转移给那些最有承担能力的人。实际上，风险似乎转移给了那些最不了解它的人。这种傻瓜投资者的供给已经（如果说仅仅是暂时的）枯竭。从短期看，随着现有债务被偿还或被注销，证券化债务有可能萎缩。从长期看，金融中介机构将不得不设法提高其产品对买家的透明度。不幸的是，曾经发挥这一作用的评级机构已经失去了信誉。第七，这场动荡对未来的监管意味着什么？区分两个目标颇为重要。第一是保护无辜