1导读
2
听力|精读|翻译|词组
Mismatch point
期限错配拐点
英文部分选自经济学人20190629期Finance and economics版块
Fund management
基金管理
Mismatch point
期限错配拐点
Another European fund manager runs into concerns over market liquidity
另一家欧洲基金管理公司深陷市场流动性之忧
Companies and governments need to borrow money for years or decades. But ordinary savers often want instant access to their nest-egg. That age-old mismatch is the origin of many of modern finance’s intermediaries, from banks to fund managers. They promise to lend money for long periods, backed by money they must return to their own creditors and investors at the drop of a hat. Aided by regulation, the arrangement usually helps savers to save and borrowers to borrow. The trouble is, it does not always work so seamlessly.
公司和政府的贷款期限通常长达几年甚至几十年；但普通储户往往希望能随时提现。正因为长期存在的需求不匹配（借短贷长），催生了当代众多金融中介的兴起，涵盖银行到基金管理公司。他们既能提供长期贷款的服务，还提供了在债权人和投资者需要资金时能即时归还的保证。辅之有效监管，此种安排通常能让储者能存，借者可贷。而问题在于，这样的运行也并不总能完美衔接（还是会存在漏洞）。
注：
1. nest egg：A nest egg is a sum of money that you are saving for a particular purpose.
2. Seamlessly：无缝地，无瑕疵地，天衣无缝地 小编从事的钢管行业：seamless pipe/tube 无缝钢管，例子如下：
Fears over the “liquidity mismatch” created by such intermediaries have recurred in recent months, notably in Europe. They resurfaced on June 18th, when an article in the Financial Times highlighted how H20, a fund manager based in London that invests mainly in government and big-company bonds, had a sideline lending money to smaller businesses. Their bonds are far less liquid, meaning that it may be hard to find a buyer quickly and at a reasonable price should the need arise. In theory, that might result in the fund being unable to repay its own customers immediately, should many of them demand the on-the-spot access they had been promised.
最近几个月，人们对此类金融中介存在的“期限错配”忧虑再现，尤其是在欧洲。6月18日，《金融时报》发表了一篇文章，着重报道了位于伦敦的资产管理公司H2O，除投资政府和大型公司债券外新增了小型企业贷款的副业产品，再次引发人们的担虑。小型企业债券流动性要相对低很多，这意味着当债券需要抛售时，很难快速以合理的价格找到买家。理论上，若大多数储户要求按照承诺的期限即期还款，那么这种状况可能会导致金融中介无法立即偿还。
Investors took fright. It hardly helped that the illiquid bonds in question (worth €1.4bn, or $1.6bn, out of about €30bn in assets under management) were issued by a slew of companies connected to Lars Windhorst, a flamboyant German financier famed for past blow-ups. Assets managed by H20 melted faster than an ice cube in a heatwave, down over €5bn as investors headed for the exit. Shares in Natixis, a French bank that owns half of H20, fell 12% on June 20th after Morningstar, a fund-research adviser, raised its own concerns.
资者们惊慌失措。H2O购入与拉尔斯•温德霍斯特(Lars Windhorst)相关联的多家公司发行的低流动性债券(在管理的约300亿欧元资产中，这些债券价值14亿欧元，约合16亿美元)，更加深了投资者恐慌情绪。这位举止高调的德国金融家，曾陷入举世哗然的破产事件。此次H2O管理的资产缩水速度比热浪中冰块融化的速度还要快——随着投资者的纷纷撤离，总资产缩水逾50亿欧元。6月20日，在基金研究机构晨星公司（Morningstar）对外发表担忧后，持有H2O一半股份的法国银行Natixis的股价下跌了12%。
注：
1. Take fright: 受惊吓，受惊恐，take fright at：因...受到惊吓
2. H2O为投资人提供了每日提现的机会，但自从他们与 Lars Windhorst 接触后，便发现了大额资金外流的情况，引发了投资恐慌。
Banks usually benefit from central banks acting as lenders of last resort if large numbers of depositors suddenly demand their money back. Not so fund managers. Their mismatches used not to matter much. Funds like H20 mostly invested in mainstream bonds and shares, for which sufficient buyers could be found in a pinch. But the past decade’s low interest rates have seen fund managers take on greater risk, in more obscure corners of finance. Investing in less liquid securities boosts returns—and management fees.
如果突然发生挤兑（大量储户突然要求收回存款），各大银行往往会将中央银行作为“最后贷款人”来弥补损失。但基金管理公司却并非如此。期限错配在过去并不是什么大问题。以往H2O这类资产管理公司的基金主要投资于主流债券和股票，在紧要关头也足以找到买家。但在过去十年的低利率环境下，基金管理公司不得不承担更大的金融风险，通过选择投资流动性较差的证券来提高回报率和管理费。
注：最后贷款人：当银行遇到资金流动性短缺的时候，例如恐慌性取款、贷款企业同时无力偿还贷款等情况，承担资金需求的机构，通常是中央银行。指中央银行对出现危机的银行帮助资金流动而提供紧急贷款的体制，即最后贷款人。
H2O is not the first to be caught out. Last summer gam, a Swiss fund manager, suspended a star trader who had loaded up on esoteric paper. Its shares have since lost over 60% of their value. Neil Woodford, once a star stockpicker, ran into similar trouble earlier this month. When the big-company shares he was famed for investing in started to offer ho-hum returns, he turned to taking stakes in small unlisted companies. These stakes are far trickier to unload in a hurry. But investors were still entitled to money back on demand.
H2O并不是第一个被发现这样做的。去年夏天，一名明星交易员因投资大量非常规债券而被瑞士基金管理公司GAM解雇。自那以后，该公司股价下跌逾60%。曾经的明星选股人尼尔•伍德福德(Neil Woodford)本月早些时候也深陷类似的麻烦。他曾因投资大公司股票而闻名，而今当投资回报不尽如人意时，转而投资于未上市的小公司。这些股票要想迅速脱手，难度要大得多；但投资者却是依旧有权按需收回资金的。
注：
1.瑞士投资公司GAM明星基金经理蒂姆.海伍德(Tim Haywood)被解雇，自称是“替罪羊”
瑞士投资公司GAM于当地时间2月21日宣称，由于严重不端行为，原基金经理蒂姆.海伍德(Tim Haywood)被解雇。而海伍德对此结果非常不满，宣称将上诉。据了解，海伍德近20年来一直关注债券对冲基金，其领导下的18名投资专家团队管理着GAM的旗舰产品——绝对回报债券基金(ARBF)，资产规模达到110亿瑞士法郎(折合人民币约740亿元)。2018年7月，海伍德被举报使用个人电子邮箱工作，违反规定而被停职，同时接受公司的调查。具体链接：
http://fund.10jqka.com.cn/20190223/c609870061.shtml
2.run into trouble：遇到麻烦，陷入困境（非常好的用法）
Or not. gam and Woodford had to “gate” their clients’ money as client redemptions threatened to overwhelm their ability to generate cash by selling their funds’ assets. That annoyed investors, but helped ensure the funds are not forced to sell illiquid assets at fire-sale prices. H20’s funds include provisions whereby investors pulling their money amid a wider outflow have to accept a small discount. So far it has proved capable of meeting hefty redemptions.
或（基金赎回）并非如此（简单）。GAM 和Woodford 必须要“守住”客户的钱，因为客户的赎回严重影响到他们通过销售基金份额来盈利的能力。这使投资者感到烦恼，但也有效确保了这些资金不会被迫作为非流动性资产大甩卖出售。H2O基金的条款中规定若投资者需大额赎回/提现的话，必须接受小额折让。目前看来，承受大量赎回还是可以的。
There are other reasons to worry about liquidity in the bond market. Investment banks that match buyers and sellers of securities used to grease the system by holding troves of bonds on their own balance-sheets. Rules curtailing that practice since the financial crisis may have worsened liquidity mismatches elsewhere. Regulators seem aware of the problem. On June 26th Mark Carney, the Bank of England’s governor, denounced funds promising daily redemptions while investing in hard-to-shift paper as “built on a lie”. Too true.
对于债券市场流动性的担忧还另有原因。协调债券买卖双方的投资银行过去常常通过在资产负债表上持有“秘密债券”的方式去“疏通”整个系统。自经济危机以来，制约此类操作的一些规定在他处使资金流动性失调的情况变得更加严峻。监管机构似乎也意识到了这个问题的存在。对于投资流动性差的债券还承诺可每日提现的基金，英格兰银行的总裁马克•卡尔尼（Mark Carney）于6月26日进行了公然抨击，称此“建立在谎言之上”。简直太TM真实了。
3
观点|评论|思考
本期评论员
Alan，男，金融工程硕士，经济学人粉丝
持有债券所承担的风险一般可以分为信用风险和流动性风险，信用风险一般又可以被看作是违约风险。
H20从文章来看是因为投资了过多流动性差的债券从而导致投资者大量撤资引发了挤兑，但是为什么h20要投资过多的流动性差的债券呢？因为低利率。
欧洲在过长的一段时间以来都维持着低利率的环境，但是因为投资人并不会因为低利率环境而主动降低要求回报率，于是基金公司为了达到这一要求回报率不得不承担比以往更多的风险。事实是，低利率很容易催生一种金融公司竞相过度承担风险的激励，从而太多并不赚钱的项目或者失败的项目因为其高风险预期高回报得到了资金，因为这些项目往往血本无归，投资人也将得不到预期的回报。
央行往往会承担“最终贷款人”的角色，如果金融系统真的出了很大的问题，更好的做法其实并不是任由出问题的大公司破产，因为大型金融公司的破产会使得数以千计的居民或投资人失去自己的储蓄或投资，而同时一个人的支出是另一个的收入，这些受损的居民或投资人又会削减他们的消费或是因此无法偿还他们的其他贷款，又会波及另一群人，所以真正的影响会比大型金融公司破产来得大得多，因此才会有“too big to fail”的批评，指有时候大型金融公司往往仗着自己体量大央行不敢让其破产引发更大问题。当然央行往往很少会不得不去纾困一些公司，即使真的不得不纾困也往往是有很大贷款业务的金融公司，所以往往是银行，并且被纾困的公司都会被国有化并被严格监管。而对冲基金显然就不在央行的纾困对象列表上了。
挤兑是任何银行或投资基金的天敌。过于激进的投资策略往往会招致投资人的担忧从而被纷纷要求撤资，为了解决这个问题一些基金会要求有一个封闭期，期限一般是三年左右。但是很多基金其实没有封闭期，封闭期的限制会让基金少很多客户，所以基金一般会追求更稳妥的策略，这样的话封闭期也就无所谓了。对于一些投资风格激进的基金经理人，在没有得到市场投资者的认可之前日子并不好过，索罗斯的风格以投机为主，而且还偏爱做空一国货币或者追随市场动量来获利，但他在真的做空成功英格兰银行之前，因为其投机风格遭遇了太多中途撤资了，只有他真的名声大噪之后才不再需要面对这个问题。
