发展中国家的金融危机FinancialCrisisin

2008年金融危机成因及对中国的启示内容摘要:金融危机又称金融风暴(The Financial Crisis) ，是指一个国家或几个国家与地区的全部或大部分金融指标（如：短期利率、货币资产、证券、房地产、土地价格、商业破产数和金融机构倒闭数）的急剧、短暂和超周期的恶化.2007年底以来,美国次贷危机爆发,逐步演变成上世界大萧条以来最严重的国际金融危机.这样危及全球的金融危机.其造成的原因到底是什么?本文对由美国次贷爆发而引起的金融危机做出了分析和总结,以及各方面的深入研讨.关键词:金融危机国际经济世界货币体系预防攻击一、金融危机产生的原因(一)全球化使美国可以吸取全球其他地区的储蓄,并消费高出自身产出的物品。

2006年,美国经常账户赤字达到了其国内生产总值(GDP)的6.7%。

通过推出越来越复杂的产品和更为慷慨的条件,金融市场鼓励消费者借贷.每当全球金融系统面临危险之际,金融当局就出手干涉,起到了推波助澜的作用,1980年以来,监管不断放宽,甚至到了名存实亡的地步.次贷危机导致发达国家金融机构必须重新估计风险、分配资产，未来两年，发达国家资金将纷纷逆转回涌，加强当地金融机构的稳定度。

由此将导致新兴市场国家的证券市场价格大幅缩水、本币贬值、投资规模下降、经济增长。

放缓甚至衰退。

金融危机的产生多数是由经济泡沫引起的，以21世纪最大的来举例，可以看出金融危机产生的原因。

(二)造成这次危机的背景是复杂的、多方面的1.美国的消费习惯:原因：收入轨道模式。

年轻人钱少，但消费多；老年人退休后享受优越的退休金，但消费相对少。

所以，年轻人多借钱消费。

而且，美国发达、完善的信用体制使几乎所有人的消费靠借钱来完成。

美国人的储蓄率历来很低，近年来，一直在零储蓄率上徘徊。

要消费，只能靠借钱。

2.经济管理思想:80年代的”华盛顿共识”所倡导的”经济自由.私有化.减少管制”成为指导西方国家经济走向的主要道具.3.经济环境与具体政策工具:网络等高科技产业高速发展导致的泡沫破灭进入一个成长停滞期，抑制了大量资金对该行业的投入；20世纪六、七十年代，随着劳动力成本的不断提升，美国制造业，尤其是劳动密集型产业大量外移，形成国内产业空心化，加之服务业在繁荣之后的替代更新需要一定的时滞期，所以，这些行业投资机会较少。

2008年金融危机：渐行渐近的全球经济滞胀次贷危机是美国经济放缓的导火索，其后续影响不断恶化并逐渐波及到世界经济。

2007年世界经济在连续四年的高速增长之后，出现了调整的迹象。

同时，美国、欧元区和广大发展中国家的CPI上涨率已超过央行设定的控制目标。

经济增长放缓和通货膨胀的压力同时出现，威胁着世界经济的发展，全球经济滞胀已经渐行渐近2008 financial crisis (in English)2008 financial crisis: Jianxingjianjin global economic stagflationSecond loan crisis in the U.S. economy is slowing down the fuse, and its follow-up impact of the deteriorating and gradually spread to the world economy. In 2007 the world economy for the fourth consecutive year of rapid growth, there have been signs of adjustment. At the same time, the United States, and the vast number of developing countries in the euro zone's CPI growth rate has exceeded the central bank set the goal of control. Slowdown in economic growth and inflation pressures at the same time, threatening the world economy, global economic stagnation has been Jianxingjianjin.世界主要国家出现滞胀的早期征毙2007年以来，主要发达国家经济增长开始“减速” ，全球大多数国家通货膨胀水平上升，世界上主要国家已经出现经济滞胀的早期迹象The world's major countries stagflation of the early symptoms to deathSince 2007, economic growth in major developed countries began to "slow down", the global rise in the level of inflation in most countries of the world's major countries have been early signs of economic stagnation美国作为世界上第一大经济体，对世界经济的发展具有火车头的作用。

金融危机与货币危机、债务危机、银行危机金融危机金融危机(Financial Crisis)[编辑]什么是金融危机金融危机又称金融风暴，是指一个国家或几个国家与地区的全部或大部分金融指标(如：短期利率、货币资产、证券、房地产、土地(价格)、商业破产数和金融机构倒闭数)的急剧、短暂和超周期的恶化。

其特征是人们基于经济未来将更加悲观的预期，整个区域内货币币值出现幅度较大的贬值，经济总量与经济规模出现较大的损失，经济增长受到打击。

往往伴随着企业大量倒闭，失业率提高，社会普遍的经济萧条，甚至有些时候伴随着社会动荡或国家政治层面的动荡。

金融危机可以分为货币危机、债务危机、银行危机等类型。

近年来的金融危机越来越呈现出某种混合形式的危机。

亚洲金融危机发生于1997年7月，由泰国开始，之后进一步影响了邻近亚洲国家的货币，股票市场，和其它的资产价值。

此危机另一名称是亚洲金融风暴（常见于香港）。

印尼、韩国和泰国是受此金融风暴波及最严重的国家。

新加坡、马来西亚、菲律宾和香港也被波及。

中国大陆和台湾受影响程度相对较轻，但台湾却面临著“本土型金融风暴”的威胁。

日本则仍是处在泡沫经济崩溃后自身的长期经济困境中，受到此金融风暴的影响并不大。

[编辑]1997年亚洲金融危机概况1997年，泰国经济疲弱，许多东南亚国家如泰国、马来西亚和韩国等长期依赖中短期外资贷款维持国际收支平衡，汇率偏高并大多维持与美元或一揽子货币的固定汇率或联系汇率，这给国际投机资金提供了一个很好的捕猎机会。

由美国知名炒家索罗斯主导的量子基金乘势进军泰国，从大量卖空泰铢开始，迫使泰国放弃维持已久的与美元挂钩的固定汇率而实行自由浮动，从而引发了一场泰国金融市场前所未有的危机。

之后危机很快波及到所有东南亚实行货币自由兑换的国家和地区，香港的港元便成为亚洲最贵的货币。

1998年8月，量子基金和老虎基金开始炒卖港元，首先向银行借来大量港元在市场上抛售，换来美元借出以赚取利息，同时大量卖空港股期货。

Financial crisis of 2007–2009From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is about background financial market events dating from July 2007. For the financial market conditions of 2008 and 2009, see Global financial crisis of 2008–2009. For an overview of all economic problems during the late 2000s, see Late 2000s recession.The financial crisis of 2007–2009 has been called the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression by leading economists,[1] with its global effects characterized by the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, substantial financial commitments incurred by governments, and a significant decline in economic activity.[2] Many causes have been proposed, with varying weight assigned by experts.[3] Both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration,[4] while significant risks remain for the world economy.[5] [edit] BackgroundThe immediate cause or trigger of the crisis was the bursting of the United States housing bubble which peaked in approximately 2005–2006.[6][7] High default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), began to increase quickly thereafter. An increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher.Share in GDP of U.S. financial sector since 1860.[8]In the years leading up to the start of the crisis in 2007, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds made it easier for the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates in the United States too low (by the Taylor rule) from 2002–2006 which contributed to easy credit conditions, leading to the United States housing bubble. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[9][10] As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financialFrom 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[25] This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation.[26] The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006.[27] This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners.[28] This may have also contributed to the deflating of the housing bubble, as asset prices generally move inversely to interest rates and it became riskier to speculate in housing.[29][30]U.S. Current Account or Trade DeficitIn 2005, Ben Bernanke addressed the implications of the USA's high and rising current account (trade) deficit, resulting from USA imports exceeding its exports.[31] Between 1996 and 2004, the USA current account deficit increased by $650 billion, from 1.5% to 5.8% of GDP. Financing these deficits required the USA to borrow large sums from abroad, much of it from countries running trade surpluses, mainly the emerging economies in Asia and oil-exporting nations. The balance of payments identity requires that a country (such as the USA) running a current account deficit also have a capital account (investment) surplus of the same amount. Hence large and growing amounts of foreign funds (capital) flowed into the USA to finance its imports. This created demand for various types of financial assets, raising the prices of those assets while lowering interest rates. Foreign investors had these funds to lend, either because they had very high personal savings rates (as high as 40% in China), or because of high oil prices. Bernanke referred to this as a "saving glut."[32] A "flood" of funds (capital or liquidity) reached the USA financial markets. Foreign governments supplied funds by purchasing USA Treasury bonds and thus avoided much of the direct impact of the crisis. USA households, on the other hand, used funds borrowed from foreigners to finance consumption or to bid up the prices of housing and financial assets. Financial institutions invested foreign funds in mortgage-backed securities. USA housing and financial assets dramatically declined in value after the housing bubble burst.[33][34][edit] Sub-prime lendingU.S. Subprime lending expanded dramatically 2004-2006In addition to easy credit conditions, there is evidence that both government and competitive pressures contributed to an increase in the amount of subprime lending during the years preceding the crisis. Major∙As early as 1997, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated.[citation needed] With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets,[62] the U.S. Congress and President allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.[63]Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" in early 2003.[64][65][edit] Increased debt burden or over-leveragingLeverage Ratios of Investment Banks Increased Significantly 2003-2007U.S. households and financial institutions became increasingly indebted or overleveraged during the years preceding the crisis. This increased their vulnerability to the collapse of the housing bubble and worsened the ensuing economic downturn. Key statistics include:∙USA household debt as a percentage of annual disposable personal income was 127% at the end of 2007, versus 77% in 1990.[66]∙U.S. home mortgage debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP) increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[67]∙In 1981, U.S. private debt was 123% of GDP; by the third quarter of 2008, it was 290%.[68]∙From 2004-07, the top five U.S. investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage (see diagram), which increased their vulnerability to a financial shock. These five institutions reported over $4.1 trillion in debt for fiscal year 2007, about 30% of USA nominal GDP for 2007. Lehman Brothers was liquidated, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch were sold at fire-sale prices, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley became commercial banks, subjecting themselves to more stringent regulation. With the exception of Lehman, these companies required or received government support.[69]∙Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two U.S. Government sponsored enterprises, owned or guaranteed nearly $5 trillion in mortgage obligations at the time they were placed into conservatorship by the U.S. government in September 2008.[70][71]These seven entities were highly leveraged and had $9 trillion in debt or guarantee obligations, an enormous concentration of risk, yet were not subject to the same regulation as depository banks.[edit] Financial innovation and complexityA protester on Wall Street in the wake of the AIG bonus payments controversy is interviewed by news media.The term financial innovation refers to the ongoing development of financial products designed to achieve particular client objectives, such as offsetting a particular risk exposure (such as the default of a borrower) or to assist with obtaining financing. Examples pertinent to this crisis included: the adjustable-rate mortgage; the bundling of subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) or collateralized debt obligations (CDO) for sale to investors, a type of securitization; and a form of credit insurance called credit default swaps(CDS). The usage of these products expanded dramatically in the years leading up to the crisis. These products vary in complexity and the ease with which they can be valued on the books of financial institutions.In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a "Giant Pool of Money" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with the MBS and CDO, which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable.[72]The CDO in particular enabled financial institutions to obtain investor funds to finance subprime and other lending, extending or increasing the housing bubble and generating large fees. A CDO essentially places cash payments from multiple mortgages or other debt obligations into a single pool, from which the cash is allocated to specific securities in a priority sequence. Those securities obtaining cash first received investment-grade ratings from rating agencies. Lower priority securities received cash thereafter, with lower credit ratings but theoretically a higher rate of return on the amount invested.[73][74]For a variety of reasons, market participants did not accurately measure the risk inherent with this innovation or understand its impact on the overall stability of the financial system.[75] For example, the pricing model for CDOs clearly did not reflect the level of risk they introduced into the system. The average recovery rate for "high quality" CDOs has been approximately 32 cents on the dollar, while the recovery rate for mezzanine CDO's has been approximately five cents for every dollar. These massive, practically unthinkable, losses have dramatically impacted the balance sheets of banks across the globe, leaving them with very little capital to continue operations.[76]Another example relates to AIG, which insured obligations of various financial institutions through the usage of credit default swaps. The basic CDS transaction involved AIG receiving a premium in exchangefor a promise to pay money to party A in the event party B defaulted. However, AIG did not have the financial strength to support its many CDS commitments as the crisis progressed and was taken over by the government in September 2008. U.S. taxpayers provided over $180 billion in government support to AIG during 2008 and early 2009, through which the money flowed to various counterparties to CDS transactions, including many large global financial institutions.[77][78]The limitations of a widely-used financial model also were not properly understood.[79][80] This formula assumed that the price of CDS was correlated with and could predict the correct price of mortgage backed securities. Because it was highly tractable, it rapidly came to be used by a huge percentage of CDO and CDS investors, issuers, and rating agencies.[80] According to one article[80]: "Then the model fell apart. Cracks started appearing early on, when financial markets began behaving in ways that users of Li's formula hadn't expected. The cracks became full-fledged canyons in 2008—when ruptures in the financial system's foundation swallowed up trillions of dollars and put the survival of the global banking system in serious peril... Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees."As financial assets became more and more complex, and harder and harder to value, investors were reassured by the fact that both the international bond rating agencies and bank regulators, who came to rely on them, accepted as valid some complex mathematical models which theoretically showed the risks were much smaller than they actually proved to be in practice [81]. George Soros commented that "The super-boom got out of hand when the new products became so complicated that the authorities could no longer calculate the risks and started relying on the risk management methods of the banks themselves. Similarly, the rating agencies relied on the information provided by the originators of synthetic products. It was a shocking abdication of responsibility." [82]Certain financial innovation may also have the effect of circumventing regulations, such as off-balance sheet financing that affects the leverage or capital cushion reported by major banks. For example, Martin Wolf wrote in June 2009: "...an enormous part of what banks did in the early part of this decade – theoff-balance-sheet vehicles, the derivatives and the 'shadow banking system' itself – was to find a way round regulation."[83][edit] Boom and collapse of the shadow banking systemIn a June 2008 speech, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then President and CEO of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, placed significant blame for the freezing of credit markets on a "run" on the entities in the "parallel" banking system, also called the shadow banking system. These entities became critical to the credit markets underpinning the financial system, but were not subject to the same regulatory controls. Further, these entities were vulnerable because they borrowed short-term in liquid markets to purchase long-term, illiquid and risky assets. This meant that disruptions in credit markets would make them subject to rapid deleveraging, selling their long-term assets at depressed prices. He described the significance of these entities: "In early 2007, asset-backed commercial paper conduits, in structured investment vehicles, in auction-rate preferred securities, tender option bonds and variable rate demand notes, had a combined asset size of roughly $2.2 trillion. Assets financed overnight in triparty repo grew to $2.5 trillion. Assets held in hedge funds grew to roughly $1.8 trillion. The combined balance sheets of the then five major investment banks totaled $4 trillion. In comparison, the total assets of the top five bank holding companies in the United States at that point were just over $6 trillion, and total assets of the entire banking system were about $10 trillion." He stated that the "combined effect of these factors was a financial system vulnerable to self-reinforcing asset price and credit cycles."[12]2007 bank run on Northern Rock, a UK bankOne of the first victims was Northern Rock, a medium-sized British bank.[98] The highly leveraged nature of its business led the bank to request security from the Bank of England. This in turn led to investor panic and a bank run in mid-September 2007. Calls by Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable to nationalise the institution were initially ignored; in February 2008, however, the British government (having failed to find a private sector buyer) relented, and the bank was taken into public hands. Northern Rock's problems proved to be an early indication of the troubles that would soon befall other banks and financial institutions.Initially the companies affected were those directly involved in home construction and mortgage lending such as Northern Rock and Countrywide Financial, as they could no longer obtain financing through the credit markets. Over 100 mortgage lenders went bankrupt during 2007 and 2008. Concerns that investment bank Bear Stearns would collapse in March 2008 resulted in its fire-sale to JP Morgan Chase. The crisis hit its peak in September and October 2008. Several major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover. These included Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.[99]See also: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac[edit] Credit markets and the shadow banking systemTED spread and components during 2008During September 2008, the crisis hits its most critical stage. There was the equivalent of a bank run on the money market mutual funds, which frequently invest in commercial paper issued by corporations to fund their operations and payrolls. Withdrawal from money markets were $144.5 billion during one week, versus $7.1 billion the week prior. This interrupted the ability of corporations to rollover (replace) their short-term debt. The U.S. government responded by extending insurance for money market accounts analogous to bank deposit insurance via a temporary guarantee[100] and with Federal Reserve programs to purchase commercial paper. The TED spread, an indicator of perceived credit risk in the general economy, spiked up in July 2007, remained volatile for a year, then spiked even higher in September 2008,[101] reaching a record 4.65% on October 10, 2008.In a dramatic meeting on September 18, 2008 Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke met with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout. Bernanke reportedly tells them: "If we don't do this, we may not have an economy on Monday."[102] The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act also called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is signed into law on October 3, 2008.[103]Economist Paul Krugman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explain the credit crisis via the implosion of the shadow banking system, which had grown to nearly equal the importance of the traditional commercial banking sector as described above. Without the ability to obtain investor funds in exchange for most types of mortgage-backed securities or asset-backed commercial paper, investment banks and other entities in the shadow banking system could not provide funds to mortgage firms and other corporations.[12][58]This meant that nearly one-third of the U.S. lending mechanism was frozen and continued to be frozen into June 2009.[104] According to the Brookings Institution, the traditional banking system does not have the capital to close this gap as of June 2009: "It would take a number of years of strong profits to generate sufficient capital to support that additional lending volume." The authors also indicate that some forms of securitization are "likely to vanish forever, having been an artifact of excessively loose credit conditions." While traditional banks have raised their lending standards, it was the collapse of the shadow banking system that is the primary cause of the reduction in funds available for borrowing.[105][edit] Wealth effectsThere is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth. By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45 percent from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22 percent, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[106]Further, U.S. homeowners had extracted significant equity in their homes in the years leading up to the crisis, which they could no longer do once housing prices collapsed. Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion over the period.[16][107][108] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[109]To offset this decline in consumption and lending capacity, the U.S. government and U.S. Federal Reserve have committed $13.9 trillion, of which $6.8 trillion has been invested or spent, as of June 2009.[110] In effect, the Fed has gone from being the "lender of last resort" to the "lender of only resort" for a significant portion of the economy. In some cases the Fed can now be considered the "buyer of last resort."The New York City headquarters of Lehman Brothers.Economist Dean Baker explained the reduction in the availability of credit this way:"Yes, consumers and businesses can't get credit as easily as they could a year ago. There is a really good reason for tighter credit. Tens of millions of homeowners who had substantial equity in their homes two years ago have little or nothing today. Businesses are facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. This matters for credit decisions. A homeowner with equity in her home is very unlikely to default on a car loan or credit card debt. They will draw on this equity rather than lose their car and/or have a default placed on their credit record. On the other hand, a homeowner who has no equity is a serious default risk. In the case of businesses, their creditworthiness depends on their future profits. Profit prospects look much worse in November 2008 than they did in November 2007 (of course, to clear-eyed analysts, they didn't look too good a year ago either). While many banks are obviously at the brink, consumers and businesses would be facing a much harder time getting credit right now even if the financial system were rock solid. The problem with the economy is the loss of close to $6 trillion in housing wealth and an even larger amount of stock wealth. Economists, economic policy makers and economic reporters virtually all missed the housing bubble on the way up. If they still can't notice its impact as the collapse of the bubble throws into the worst recession in the post-war era, then they are in the wrong profession."[111]At the heart of the portfolios of many of these institutions were investments whose assets had been derived from bundled home mortgages. Exposure to these mortgage-backed securities, or to the credit derivatives used to insure them against failure, caused the collapse or takeover of several key firms such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, and HBOS.[112][113][114][edit] Global contagionThe crisis rapidly developed and spread into a global economic shock, resulting in a number of European bank failures, declines in various stock indexes, and large reductions in the market value of equities[115] and commodities.[116] Moreover, the de-leveraging of financial institutions, as assets were sold to pay back obligations that could not be refinanced in frozen credit markets, further accelerated the liquidity crisis and caused a decrease in international trade.World political leaders, national ministers of finance and central bank directors coordinated theirefforts[117] to reduce fears, but the crisis continued. At the end of October 2008 a currency crisis developed, with investors transferring vast capital resources into stronger currencies such as the yen, the dollar and the Swiss franc, leading many emergent economies to seek aid from the International Monetary Fund.[118][119][edit] Effects on the global economy[edit] Official economic projectionsOn November 3, 2008, the EU-commission at Brussels predicted for 2009 an extremely weak growth of GDP, by 0.1 percent, for the countries of the Euro zone (France, Germany, Italy, etc.) and even negative number for the UK (-1.0 percent), Ireland and Spain. On November 6, the IMF at Washington, D.C., launched numbers predicting a worldwide recession by -0.3 percent for 2009, averaged over the developed economies. On the same day, the Bank of England and the Central Bank for the Euro zone, respectively, reduced their interest rates from 4.5 percent down to three percent, and from 3.75 percent down to 3.25 percent. Economically, mainly the car industry seems to be involved. As a consequence, starting from November 2008, several countries launched large "help packages" for their economies.The U.S. Federal Reserve Open Market Committee release in June 2009 stated: "...the pace of economic contraction is slowing. Conditions in financial markets have generally improved in recent months. Household spending has shown further signs of stabilizing but remains constrained by ongoing job losses, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Businesses are cutting back on fixed investment and staffing but appear to be making progress in bringing inventory stocks into better alignment with sales. Although economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time, the Committee continues to anticipate that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, fiscal and monetary stimulus, and market forces will contribute to a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth in a context of price stability."[136] Economic projections from the Federal Reserve and Reserve Bank Presidents include a return to typical growth levels (GDP) of 2-3% in 2010; an unemployment plateau in 2009 and 2010 around 10% with moderation in 2011; and inflation that remains at typical levels around 1-2%.[137][edit] Responses to financial crisis[edit] Emergency and short-term responsesMain article: Subprime mortgage crisis#ResponsesThe U.S. Federal Reserve and central banks around the world have taken steps to expand money supplies to avoid the risk of a deflationary spiral, in which lower wages and higher unemployment lead to aself-reinforcing decline in global consumption. In addition, governments have enacted large fiscal stimulus packages, by borrowing and spending to offset the reduction in private sector demand caused by the crisis. The U.S. executed two stimulus packages, totaling nearly $1 trillion during 2008 and 2009.[138] This credit freeze brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse. The response of the USA Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and other central banks was immediate and dramatic. During the last quarter of 2008, these central banks purchased US$2.5 trillion of government debt and troubled private assets from banks. This was the largest liquidity injection into the credit market, and the largest monetary policy action, in world history. The governments of European nations and the USA also raised the capital of their national banking systems by $1.5 trillion, by purchasing newly issued preferred stock in their major banks.[99]Governments have also bailed-out a variety of firms as discussed above, incurring large financial obligations. To date, various U.S. government agencies have committed or spent trillions of dollars in loans, asset purchases, guarantees, and direct spending. For a summary of U.S. government financial commitments and investments related to the crisis, see CNN - Bailout Scorecard.。

一、金融危机的特征、分类及测定1.金融危机（financial crisis)是指金融体系出现严重困难乃至崩溃，表现为绝大部分金融指标的急剧恶化、各种金融资产价格暴跌、金融机构陷入困境并大量破产，同时对实物经济的运行产生极其不利的影响。

2.金融危机的分类①货币危机货币危机(currency crisis),一般是指固定汇率制度下，市场参与者对一国的货币失去信心，通过外汇市场进行大量抛售等操作促使该国汇率制度崩溃、外汇市场持续动荡的危机。

②银行业危机银行业危机（banking crisis），是指由于某种原因，公众对银行的信心出现危机，造成银行挤提，并迅速蔓延到其他银行，造成大批银行倒闭的现象。

③债务危机债务危机（debt crisis),是指一国不能偿付其内债和外债而引发的危机。

但通常所指的债务危机主要是指外债危机，包括主权债务和私人债务。

债务危机不仅影响债务国，使其物价上涨、经济停滞、社会动荡，也影响债权国，并成为其银行危机的诱因。

④泡沫危机泡沫危机（bubble crisis），是指因股票、债券或房地产等资产价格脱离了正常的价格水平和经济运行规律而过度上升，造成大量经济泡沫后破裂而导致的危机。

3.金融危机的测定①币值稳定程度②汇率稳定程度③股指稳定程度④外债严重程度这一指标主要通过以下分指标体现：偿债率（当年偿还外债本息与当年外汇收入之比）、负债率（外债余额与当年GDP的比值）、债务率（外债余额与当年外汇收入之比）、短债率（短期外债占全部债务的比重）、债储率（外债余额与外汇储备的比值）。

国际公认的危机警戒线是：偿债率为20%，负债率为25%，债务率为100%，短债率为20%，债储率为100%。

⑤资产不良程度金融不良资产也就是人们常说的坏帐、呆帐，是不能偿还的贷款。

不少不良资产与金融机构的腐败程度有直接关系。

结合金融机构的法定准备金率、备付金率、资本金率，银行的不良资产一般应不超过其总资产的20%。

关于金融危机的英语演讲稿三篇演讲稿一：金融危机的起因与教训Ladies and gentlemen,Good morning! Today, I would like to talk about the financial crisis, its causes, and the lessons we have learned from it.The financial crisis that occurred in 2008 was one of the most significant economic events in our history. It originated in the United States but quickly spread across the globe, causing a severe recession that affected millions of people.So, what were the causes of this crisis? One of the primary factors was the housing bubble. Banks and financial institutions were lending money to individuals who could not afford to pay back their mortgages. As a result, when housing prices started to decline, many homeowners defaulted on their loans, leading to a wave of foreclosures. This had a significant impact on the financial sector, as many banks held these risky mortgage-backed securities.Another factor was the excessive risk-taking by financial institutions. They were engaging in complex financial transactions, such as the creation and trading of derivatives, without fully understanding the risks involved. When the housing market collapsed, these institutions faced massive losses, which created a domino effect throughout the financial system.Furthermore, there were regulatory failures that contributed to the crisis. Authorities failed to properly oversee the activities of financial institutions and allowed them to take on excessive leverage. This lack of oversight created an environment where risky behavior was not adequately controlled.The lessons we have learned from this crisis are invaluable. First and foremost, we must ensure that financial institutions are properly regulated. It is crucial to have effective oversight to prevent excessive risk-taking and ensure the stability of the financial system.Secondly, transparency is key. Financial institutions must disclose accurate and timely information about their activities and the risks they undertake. This will allow investors and regulators to make informed decisions and take appropriate actions to mitigate potential risks.Lastly, it is essential to promote financial literacy among the general public. People should have a basic understanding of financial products and be aware of the risks involved. This will help individuals make informed decisions about their personal finances and reduce the likelihood of another crisis.In conclusion, the financial crisis of 2008 was a wake-up call for the global economy. It exposed the flaws in our financial system and highlighted the need for better regulation and transparency. By learning from the mistakes of the past, we can build a more stable and resilient financial system for the future.Thank you for your attention.演讲稿二：金融危机对全球经济的影响和应对措施Ladies and gentlemen,Good afternoon! Today, I would like to discuss the impact of the financial crisis on the global economy and the measures taken to address its consequences.The financial crisis of 2008 had far-reaching effects on the global economy. It caused a severe recession in many countries, leading to a significant increase in unemployment and a sharp decline in economic growth.One of the main consequences of the crisis was the collapse of several major financial institutions. Governments around the world had to step in to bail out these institutions to prevent a complete meltdown of the financial system. This led to a massive increase in public debt, which had long-term implications for fiscal sustainability.Furthermore, the crisis had a profound impact on international trade. As demand plummeted, many countries experienced a sharp decline in exports, leading to a contraction in their economies. The interconnectedness of the global economy meant that the crisis spread rapidly across borders, affecting both developed and developing nations.In response to the crisis, governments and central banks implemented various measures to stabilize their economies. They cut interest rates to stimulate borrowing and spending, and implemented fiscal stimulus packages to boost demand. Additionally, regulatory reforms were introduced to strengthen the oversight of financial institutions and prevent a similar crisis from occurring in the future.On the international level, coordinated efforts were made to address the crisis. The G20, for example, played a crucial role in promoting cooperation among countries and implementing measures to restore confidence in the global financial system. International financial institutions, such as the InternationalMonetary Fund, provided financial assistance to countries in need and facilitated the restructuring of their economies.While these measures were successful in mitigating the immediate impact of the crisis, challenges still remain. The global economy is still recovering from the aftermath of the crisis, and many countries are facing long-term structural issues, such as high levels of public debt and increasing inequality.Looking forward, it is essential to continue strengthening the resilience of the global financial system. This includes implementing reforms to improve the regulation and supervision of financial institutions, enhancing transparency and accountability, and promoting sustainable economic growth.In conclusion, the financial crisis of 2008 had profound and lasting effects on the global economy. While significant progress has been made in addressing its consequences, there is still work to be done. By learning from the past and implementing the necessary reforms, we can build a more stable and prosperous global economy.Thank you for your attention.演讲稿三：金融危机对个人理财的影响和应对策略Ladies and gentlemen,Good evening! Today, I would like to discuss the impact of the financial crisis on personal finance and share some strategies to navigate through these challenging times.The financial crisis of 2008 had a profound impact on individuals and their personal finances. Many people lost their jobs, saw their retirement savings shrink, and struggled to pay off their debts. Thecrisis served as a wake-up call for the importance of sound financial planning and risk management.One of the key lessons from the crisis is the need for diversification. It is crucial to spread your investments across different asset classes, such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. By diversifying, you can reduce the risk of significant losses in the event of a market downturn.Furthermore, it is essential to have an emergency fund. This is a pool of money set aside to cover unexpected expenses, such as job loss or medical emergencies. Having a cash buffer can provide peace of mind and help you weather financial storms without having to rely on credit or sell investments at a loss.Additionally, the crisis highlighted the importance of financial literacy. It is crucial to educate yourself about personal finance and make informed decisions about your money. This includes understanding the risks and rewards of different investment options, managing debt responsibly, and budgeting effectively.Another strategy to mitigate the impact of a financial crisis is to focus on long-term goals. While it is natural to be concerned about short-term market fluctuations, it is important to stay focused on your long-term financial objectives. By maintaining a long-term perspective, you can avoid making impulsive decisions based on short-term market volatility.Finally, seeking professional advice can be beneficial during times of uncertainty. Financial advisors can provide guidance and help you develop a personalized financial plan based on your individual circumstances and goals. They can also provide objective adviceand help you make rational decisions when emotions are running high.In conclusion, the financial crisis of 2008 had a significant impact on personal finance. However, by adopting sound financial strategies, such as diversification, building an emergency fund, and focusing on long-term goals, individuals can navigate through challenging times and secure their financial future.Thank you for your attention.。

金融危机英文作文The financial crisis hit the global economy hard, causing widespread panic and uncertainty. Stock markets plummeted, banks collapsed, and businesses struggled to survive. It was a time of great turmoil and fear for many people.Many individuals and families suffered as a result of the financial crisis. Jobs were lost, homes were foreclosed, and savings were wiped out. The impact was felt across all sectors of society, and the effects were long-lasting.Governments around the world scrambled to findsolutions to the financial crisis. Bailouts were issued, regulations were tightened, and new policies were implemented to prevent a similar crisis from happening in the future. It was a time of great change and reform in the financial industry.The financial crisis also exposed the flaws andweaknesses in the global financial system. It revealed the dangers of excessive risk-taking, the lack of transparency, and the interconnectedness of financial institutions. It was a wake-up call for the world to reevaluate and rethink the way the financial system operates.Despite the hardships and challenges brought about by the financial crisis, there were also valuable lessons learned. It forced individuals, businesses, and governments to become more resilient, adaptable, and cautious in their financial decisions. It was a period of growth and transformation for many.。