After years of disregarding privacy, exploiting user data, and failing to control its platform, Facebook has now unveiled a cryptocurrency and payment system that could take down the entire global economy. Governments must intervene before a company that "moves fast and breaks things" ends up breaking everything.
經過多年來漠視個人隱私、濫用用戶數據且無能管控本身平台的風風雨雨後，臉書現在又推出了一個加密貨幣與一個可能把全世界經濟搞垮的支付系統。各國政府必須在這家"快速行動、打破成規"的公司（臉書的標語）把所有事搞砸之前快介入處理。
來源：Katharina Pistor, Project Syndicate, 20 JUN 2019, 原文網址Facebook has just unveiled its latest bid for world domination: Libra, a cryptocurrency designed to function as private money anywhere on the planet. In preparing the venture, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been in negotiations with central banks, regulators, and 27 partner companies, each of which will contribute at least $10 million. For fear of raising safety concerns, Facebook has avoided working directly with any commercial banks.
臉書最近又進行了一項意圖主宰世界的行動：臉書幣（Libra），一個可在整個地球上都可使用的加密貨幣。為了展開這偉大冒險，臉書執行長祖克伯已與中央銀行、主管機關、與27個至少會出一千萬美金的商業夥伴進行磋商。由於對安全議題日益升高的不安，臉書已避免直接跟商業銀行進行合作。
Zuckerberg seems to understand that technological innovation alone will not ensure Libra’s success. He also needs a commitment from governments to enforce the web of contractual relations underpinning the currency, and to endorse the use of their own currencies as collateral. Should Libra ever face a run, central banks would be obliged to provide liquidity.
祖克伯看來明白單單靠技術上的創新不足以使臉書幣成功。他還需要政府的力量來確保它與各方的合約關係以鞏固臉書幣的穩定，與背書擔保它的使用無虞。若臉書幣面臨擠兌，中央銀行將有責提供流動性。
The question is whether governments understand the risks to financial stability that such a system would entail. The idea of a private, frictionless payment system with 2.6 billion active users may sound attractive. But as every banker and monetary policymaker knows, payment systems require a level of liquidity backstopping that no private entity can provide.
問題是政府是否明白這樣的系統其金融穩定將會面臨到多大的風險。一個私有、完美的支付系統還擁有兩億六千萬活躍使用者聽起來實在太過美好。但是每個銀行家與財經政策制定者都知道，支付系統背後需要的流動性水準高到不是一般私有企業可以負擔的。
Unlike states, private parties must operate within their means, and cannot unilaterally impose financial obligations on others as needed. That means they cannot rescue themselves; they must be bailed out by states, or be permitted to fail. Moreover, even when it comes to states, currency pegs offer only an illusion of safety. Plenty of countries have had to break such pegs, always while insisting that “this time is different.”
與政府不同，私人企業能動用的手段有限，有需要的時候對其他機構也沒有強制力。這代表出事的時候他們是救不了自己的。要不是靠政府紓困，不然就是放著讓他倒。更有甚者，就算是要讓爛攤子掛到政府頭上，匯率緊釘政策只是提供一個讓人安心的幻覺。許多國家在不得不取消緊釘政策時也都會說"此一時也、彼一時也"。
What sets Facebook apart from other issuers of “private money” is its size, global reach, and willingness to “move fast and break things.” It is easy to imagine a scenario in which rescuing Libra could require more liquidity than any one state could provide. Recall Ireland after the 2008 financial crisis. When the government announced that it would assume the private banking sector’s liabilities, the country plunged into a sovereign debt crisis. Next to a behemoth like Facebook, many nation-states could end up looking a lot like Ireland.
臉書的巨大程度、全球的滲透力、以及對"快速行動、打破成規"的堅定意志與其他私有貨幣的發行者不同。"挽救臉書幣所需的流動性不是任何一個國家可以支應"這樣的情境並不難想像。回想2008年金融危機後的愛爾蘭。當政府宣佈承擔私人銀行的債務時，該國旋即陷入了主權債務的危機。在像臉書這麼巨大的怪獸旁邊，許多國家不會比愛爾蘭好上多少。
Facebook is barreling ahead as if Libra was just another private enterprise. But like many other financial intermediaries before it, the company is promising something that it cannot possibly deliver on its own: the protection of the currency’s value. Libra, we are told, will be pegged to a basket of currencies (fiat money issued by governments), and convertible on demand and at any cost. But this guarantee rests on an illusion, because neither Facebook nor any other private party involved will have access to unlimited stores of the pegged currencies.
臉書現在把臉書幣當成一般的私企業務推動。但是就跟許多先前的金融中介機構一般，它試圖承諾一個光靠他自己沒法辦到的事：確保臉書幣的價值。我們知道臉書幣會與一籃子貨幣掛勾（政府發行的法幣），且無論如何都可以隨時進行兌換。但這保證簡直是天方夜譚，因為無論是臉書或是其他相關的私企都不可能無限制的存取所有掛勾的貨幣。
To understand what happens when regulators sit on their hands while financial innovators create put options, consider the debacle with money market funds in September 2008. Investors in MMFs were promised that they could treat their holdings like a bank account, meaning they could withdraw as much money as they put in whenever they wanted. But when Lehman Brothers collapsed, MMF investors all tried to cash out at the same time, whereupon it became clear that many funds could not deliver. To forestall a widespread run on all MMFs and the banks that backed them, the US Federal Reserve stepped in to offer liquidity support. A run on Libra would require support on a much larger scale, as well as close coordination among all central banks affected by it.
要了解當主管機關對金融家發明了"賣權"撒手不管會發生什麼事，就想想2008年九月貨幣市場基金的崩潰就知道了。貨幣市場基金的投資人被保證他們的部位可被視為是一個銀行帳戶，這意指他們無論何時都能領回全額的錢。但是當雷曼兄弟垮了的時候，貨幣市場基金的投資者都在第一時間想要變現，於是很明顯的一大堆基金根本辦不到。為了防止對貨幣市場基金與後端支撐的銀行擠兌的情形擴大，美國聯準會介入並提供流動性的支援。要是臉書幣發生擠兌所需要的支援將是更大規模的，以及牽連到的中央銀行的範圍也會更廣泛。
Given these massive risks, governments must step in and stop Libra before it launches next year. Otherwise, as Maxine Waters, the Chairwoman of the US House Committee on Financial Services, has warned, governments may as well start drafting their own living wills. In the parlance of finance and banking, a “living will” is a written plan that banks provide to regulators describing how they will unwind themselves in the event of insolvency. In the case of a government, a living will would have to explain how the relevant authorities would respond to Libra breaking its peg and triggering a global run.
既然有這麼巨大的風險，政府必須在臉書幣明年啟動前介入並阻止它。否則就如美國眾議院金融服務委員會主席華特斯警告的，政府可能也得開始起草自己的生前遺囑了。在金融、銀行業界，所謂的生前遺囑就是一個銀行預先提給主管機關的計畫，內容描述當他們在遇到週轉不靈的情形下的解套方式。要是政府有這種情形，生前遺囑就應當解釋相關的主管機關面對臉書幣切斷匯兌掛勾與全球的擠兌風暴發生時該如何處置。
Obviously, this raises a number of pertinent questions. Would governments vow, like former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke in September 2008, followed by European Central Bank President Mario Draghi in July 2012, to do “whatever it takes” to ensure the currency’s survival? Would they even have the capacity to do so, let alone coordinate their actions – and share losses – with all the other countries involved? Would governments be able to seize control of the system if it proves incapable of sustaining itself?Silence in response to Facebook’s announcement this week is tantamount to endorsing its dangerous new venture. Governments must not allow private, profit-seeking parties to put the entire global financial system at risk. If banks are “too big to fail,” then states definitely are. If governments fail to protect us from Facebook’s latest act of hubris, we will all pay the price for it.
顯而易見的，這又引發了一些相關問題。政府會像2008年九月的聯準會主席柏南克與2012年七月的歐洲央行總裁德拉奇一樣承諾會盡一切努力確保這個貨幣苟延殘喘下來嗎？他們真有這樣的能力，我甚至還沒提到與被牽連到的相關國家協調行動與分擔損失喔？如果根本就自身難保，政府是否還有能力掌控這個系統。對於臉書本週這項重大宣佈的沉默以對正等同於對這危險的新事業背書。政府絕不能允許私有、營利導向的組織把全球金融系統這樣置於險地。如果銀行太大不能倒，那麼國家也是。如果政府不能保護我們對抗臉書傲慢的新行動，你我都將會付出慘痛代價。
註釋：
fricktionless: 金融業使用的名詞，代表著一個假設的理想狀態，投資者進行交易都無任何阻礙、管制、費用，個人與企業有同等的資訊獲取、進行門檻
currency peg: 貨幣掛鉤是將一國貨幣的匯率與另一種貨幣或黃金價格形成固定匯率關係的一項政府政策。有時也稱為固定匯率。保持貨幣掛鉤要求一國央行對貨幣供需進行監控，並對現金流進行釋放或限制以確保供需無過度情形發生
behemoth: 龐然巨獸
barreling ahead: 飛奔向前
sit on AAA's hand: 對發生的狀況毫無作為
MMF: Money Market Fund, 貨幣市場基金，理論上應等同於現金
沒有留言:
張貼留言