2. 考研
  3. European regulators have contributed to their banks’ decline, in two ways. First, they are specifying how much banks can pay in

European regulators have contributed to their banks’ decline, in two ways. First, they are specifying how much banks can pay in

admin2018-03-01  29
问题     European regulators have contributed to their banks’ decline, in two ways. First, they are specifying how much banks can pay in bonuses relative to base pay. Second, they are trying to force banks to hold more capital and to make it easier to allow them to fail by, for instance, separating their retail deposits from their wholesale businesses.
    The first approach is foolish. It will drive up the fixed costs of Europe’s banks and reduce their flexibility to cut expenses in downturns (低迷时期). They will therefore struggle to compete in America or fast-growing Asian markets with foreign rivals that have the freedom to pay the going rate. The second approach is sensible. Switzerland and Britain are making progress in ending the implicit taxpayer subsidy that supports banks that are too big to fail. The collapse of Ireland’s economy is warning enough of what happens when governments feel compelled to help out banks that weaken their economies.
    Some European bankers argue that the continent needs investment-banking champions. Yet it is not obvious that European firms or taxpayers gain from having national banks that are good at packaging and selling American subprime loans (次级贷款). Indeed, it is American taxpayers and investors who should worry about the dominance of a few Wall Street firms. They bear the main risk of future bail-outs (紧急援助). They would benefit from greater competition in investment banking. IPO fees are much higher in America than elsewhere, mainly because the market is dominated by a few big investment banks.
    Wall Street’s new titans say they are already penalised by new international rules that insist they have somewhat bigger capital buffers (缓冲) than smaller banks because they pose a greater risk to economies if they fail. Yet the huge economies of scale and implicit subsidies from being too big to fail more than offset (抵销) the cost of the buffers. Increasing the capital surcharges for big banks would do more for the stability of the financial system than the thicket of Dodd-Frank rules ever will. Five years on from the frightening summer of 2008, America’s big banks are back, and that is a good thing. But there are still things that could make Wall Street safer.
The first approach is foolish because ______.
选项 A、it will do harm to Europe’s economy
B、it will increase the costs of banks in Europe
C、it will cut down the pay of European bankers
D、Europe’s banks have to compete in global markets
答案B
解析 根据题干中的“The first approach is foolish”定位到第二段首句。第二句即是答案：It will drive up the fixed costs of Europe’s banks…选项B与该句最接近，故选项B为答案。而选项A和C均属于无中生有。选项D对应原文：They will therefore struggle to compete in America or fast—growing Asian markets… 可见他们是与美国和亚洲市场竞争，而不是选项D说的“global markets”，故选项D是错误的。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/jNBZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)