在现代市场经济中，金融的地位越来越突出，金融创新也已成为经济发展的重要因素和先导力量，具有强大的作用力、渗透力和推动力。下面是小编带来的金融文章中英文对照，欢迎阅读!

金融文章中英文对照1

金融时报双语阅读

China should let its currency rise. Such has been the desperate, decade-long complaint from the US and its politicians. China’s manipulation of its currency is a popular scapegoat both for the financial crisis and for the extinction of US manufacturing.

An appreciation is plainly in China’s urgent interests. And the rest of the world, including the US, is beginning to grasp that it has reason to fear the consequences if it does. On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, China’s authorities at one point allowed the renminbi to appreciate against the dollar by a greater percentage than in any two-day period since its managed rise first started in 2005. These moves remain tiny; but they combine with official criticism of the US, a growing need to combat Chinese inflation and much Chinese commentary favouring a change of policy to suggest that the renminbi may soon be allowed to take flight. A widening of its trading bands might be a first incremental step.

Unlike the first managed appreciation, from 2005 to 2008, the current “appreciation” has done nothing to help domestic inflation. By tying to the dollar, a currency sinking like a stone, the renminbi has depreciated against all currencies on a trade-weighted basis, JPMorgan data show. A drastic shift is needed. That will mean exporting its inflation. It also means buying fewer treasuries, or even selling some, which would in turn counteract any efforts at “quantitative easing” – buying bonds to keep US yields low.

The dollar would probably tumble, and treasury yields rise. Other effects are less clear. The Australian dollar, long a proxy for Chinese growth, might suffer if China slows, as might other commodity-driven currencies but much depends on China’s own decisions.

China’s external reserves are enough, even at current prices, to buy all the gold ever produced. It will be hard to shift policy without causing a big displacement elsewhere in the world. Correcting this global imbalance may be necessary but it will not be easy.

Lex专栏：美国担心人民币升值?

中国应该让人民币升值——美国及其政界人士为此声嘶力竭地抱怨了10年。从金融危机到美国制造业的衰亡，“中国操纵人民币汇率”都是热门的替罪羊。

人民币升值显然符合中国的利益。而包括美国在内的世界其它国家正开始意识到，它们有理由担心人民币升值的后果。本周三和周四，中国官方一度允许人民币兑美元汇率以较大幅度上涨，涨幅超过2005年中国启动汇改以来任何一个两天期间。这些升值步伐仍是微小的;但它们与中国官方对美国的批评、中国日需迫切需要遏制通胀、以及中国近期出现的大量支持改变政策的言论相结合，似乎表明人民币不久可能获准大幅走高。扩大其交易区间也许是第一个渐进步骤。

与2005年至2008年第一轮有管理的升值不同，当前这一轮“升值”迄今无助于遏制国内通胀。摩根大通(JPMorgan)的数据显示，与币值直线下跌的美元挂钩意味着，人民币在贸易加权基础上兑所有货币都贬值了。中国需要大幅度地转变做法。那将意味着输入中国的通胀。那还将意味着减少购买美国国债，甚至减持美国国债，从而抵消“定量宽松”(美国政府买入国债以压低其收益率)的努力。

美元很可能大幅走低，美国国债收益率很可能上升。其它效应则不那么明确。澳大利亚元长期是中国经济增长的一个指标，如果中国增长放缓，澳元以及由大宗商品推动的其它一些货币可能走低，但很多事取决于中国自己的决策。

即便按当前价格计算，中国的外汇储备也足够买下人类有史以来开采的全部黄金。要转变政策而不致对世界其它地方产生重大冲击，是很难的。纠正这种全球失衡也许是必要的，但它不会是一件易事。

金融文章中英文对照2

A precipitate, wrong and dangerous decision

The downgrade by Standard & Poor’s of US sovereign debt, from triple A to double A plus, was precipitate, wrong and dangerous.

At best, S&P showed a stunning ignorance and disregard for the potential consequences on a fragile global financial system. The rating agency chose to take this action after the worst week in US equity markets since 2008, a week which not only saw stocks fall sharply, but which also witnessed a dangerous escalation in the European debt crisis. The action was wholly unnecessary and the timing could not have been worse. Compounding this, the reasoning was poor and consequences, both short and long term, for the global financial system unpredictable.

It is unacceptable that privately owned, for-profit companies should have special, legally sanctioned status at the heart of the financial system to function as quasi-regulatory authorities whose opinions can determine what securities financial institutions can hold, how much capital they need, what the borrowing costs of every member of the system will be, all based on secret deliberations with no accountability.

The disastrously flawed ratings of these agencies were at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis and S&P’s action threatens to cause mayhem again by creating uncertainty about the ability of the US to function in its critical role in the financial system.

There was no need for S&P to rush to judgment just days after a bruising political battle had secured a bipartisan agreement to raise the debt ceiling through the next election cycle and which initiated a process to begin to cut spending and address the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalances. Neither Fitch nor Moody’s saw any need to do so, indeed, Moody’s indicated that it saw the agreement as “a turning point in fiscal policy” and declared that a downgrade would be “premature”.

The decision is also wrong. First, it is incredible that S&P should think the US is less creditworthy now than two weeks ago, when an agreement to raise the debt ceiling had not been reached, both parties appeared intransigent and contingency plans were being considered that included prioritising payments or even declaring the debt ceiling null and void. In any event, an agreement was reached that assures the ability of the US to fund its operations through the next election and initiated a process to tackle the nation’s long-standing fiscal imbalances.

The debate on the debt ceiling, moreover, concentrated public attention on the deep fiscal imbalances in the US and changed the governing priorities to include steps to address the unsustainable trajectory of government spending. Now the debate is centred on whether revenue enhancement is needed. This is progress and should have counted for, not against, the triple A rating.

Second, S&P apparently gave little or no weight to the unique role the US plays in the global economy. The US is the world’s largest, most productive economy and the dollar remains the global reserve currency. The only possible alternative, the euro, is structurally flawed and is in what may turn out to be an existential crisis. Issuing its own currency means the US can settle its debts by printing more money if need be, so there is absolutely no question of its ability to pay. Third, the market says S&P is wrong. The US enjoys among the lowest interest rates in its history coincident with the highest deficits and a daunting long-term fiscal outlook. Yet when investors are looking for safe assets, they buy Treasuries. The US is borrowing at lower long-term rates than it did when it was running a budget surplus. In the 2008 crisis, investors flocked to Treasuries and the dollar because they sought the safest, most creditworthy assets in the world. S&P seems not to have noticed this.

The agency’s actions pose unpredictable and dangerous risks to the global economy. As Warren Buffett has noted, fear is contagious and spreads quickly; confidence is fragile and only returns gradually and over time. S&P’s actions can only undermine weak confidence and raise uncertainty. It has created what Keynes called irreducible uncertainty. We have no idea of the consequences of S&P deciding the risk-free assets issued by the country that occupies a unique place in the global economy may not be risk free after all.

One consequence we can all hope for is that Congress ends the oligopoly of Nationally Recognised Statistical Ratings Organisations before they contribute to or ignite another financial crisis. Even S&P agrees, stating to its credit that the regulatory reliance on ratings by NRSROs should end. By all means, let’s have S&P, Moody's and Fitch opine about creditworthiness. But let’s have them do it in a free competitive market and not via a legally-sanctioned oligopoly which effectively regulates without oversight or consequence.

Bill Miller is chief investment officer of Legg Mason Capital Management.

标普犯下大错

标准普尔(Standard & Poor’s)将美国主权债务评级从AAA下调至AA+，是一个草率、错误而又危险的举动。

说的轻一点，对于此举可能给脆弱的全球金融体系造成的后果，标普表现出了惊人的无知与漠视。这家评级机构所选择的时机，是在美国股市经历了自2008年以来最糟糕的一周之后。那一周，不仅股市大跌，而且欧洲债务危机也出现了危险的升级。标普此举完全不必要，时机的选择也糟糕透顶。更可怕的是，其推理拙劣，而给全球金融体系所造成的结果(无论短期还是长期)是难以预测的。

以盈利为目的的私有公司却拥有法律认可的特殊地位，即处于金融体系的核心、发挥准监管机构的职能，这令人无法接受。这些准监管机构权势熏天，他们的意见可以决定金融机构可持有何种证券、需要多少资本金、金融体系中的每个成员的借款成本应该是多少，而且所有这些依据的都是一些隐秘的考量，无需加以解释说明。

这些机构给出的具有灾难性缺陷的评级，正是2008年金融危机的罪魁祸首，而标普这次的行为有可能会再次引发混乱，因为它给美国扮演全球金融体系关键角色的能力带来了不确定性。

标普根本没有必要在这个时候匆忙做出判断。仅仅数日之前，一场激烈的政治斗争刚刚推动两党达成了一项在下个选举周期内提高债务上限的协议，并开启了着手削减支出、解决美国长期财政失衡的进程。惠誉(Fitch)和穆迪(Moody’s)都没有看出采取这种做法的任何必要，事实上，穆迪已表示，它认为上述协议是“财政政策的转折点”，并宣称目前调降评级将“为时过早”。

标普的决定也是错误的。首先，标普认为眼下的美国比两周前信誉度低，这令人难以置信。两周前，提高债务上限的协议尚未达成，民主与共和两党看上去都没有妥协的意愿，有关优先支付哪些款项、甚至宣布债务上限无效的应急方案已在考虑之中。不管怎么说，两党目前已达成了一项协议，这确保了美国在下个选举周期内为其运行融资的能力，并开启了解决该国由来已久的财政失衡的进程。

此外，围绕债务上限的论战，将公众注意力集中到了美国的严重财政失衡上，改变了政府的优先事务排序，纳入了解决不可持续的政府支出模式的步骤。如今，论战主要集中到了是否需要增加收入这个问题上。这是一个进步，应该被认为是对AAA评级有利、而非有害的因素。

第二，标普显然几乎(或压根)没有考虑美国在全球经济中独一无二的地位。美国是全球规模最大、生产力最高的经济体，美元仍然是全球储备货币。唯一可能的替代品欧元在结构上存在缺陷，而且正处于一场最终可能关系到其能否存在的危机之中。发行自己的货币，意味着如果有必要，美国可以通过印刷更多的货币来解决自己的债务，所以它的支付能力绝对不存在任何问题。

第三，市场也认为标普的决定是错误的。目前，美国的利率水平处在历史最低位，而赤字却处于最高水平，长期财政前景不容乐观。然而，当投资者想要购买安全资产时，他们还是会选择美国国债。美国目前的长期借债利率低于预算盈余时期的利率水平。2008年金融危机期间，投资者纷纷抢购美国国债和美元资产，因为他们寻找的就是全球最安全、最可靠的资产。而标普似乎没有注意到这一点。

标普的行为对全球经济构成了不可预测的极大威胁。沃伦•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)曾说过，恐惧是会传染的，而且蔓延速度很快;而信心则十分脆弱，只能逐步、缓慢地恢复。标普的行为只会损害市场本已脆弱的信心，并增加不确定性。这已经造成了凯恩斯所说的“不可减少的不确定性”。标普判定，由在全球经济中占据独一无二地位的美国所发行的无风险资产，可能并不是真的没有风险。对于这样一个决定会带来哪些后果，我们仍不得而知。

我们都希望看到的一个结果是，美国国会能够在那几家“全国认定的评级组织”(Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization)促成或引发下一场金融危机之前，终结它们的寡头垄断。甚至连标普也同意这一点——该公司值得赞许地表示，监管部门应该结束对这些机构评级的依赖。当然，我们应该让标普、穆迪(Moody's)和惠誉(Fitch)继续就信誉发表意见。但应该让它们在一个自由竞争的市场发表意见，而不是凭借获得法律认可、实际上不受监督或不计后果的寡头垄断地位。