谁能帮我翻译一下这两段英文???谢谢 ~!!急急!!!

The importance for welfare analysis of treating interbank payments as endogenous is underscored by the most widely known recent payment crisis, related to the failure of the Herstatt Bank in 1974. The closure of that bank by its German regulator caused delayed receipt, and partial loss of about $200 million to U.S. creditors who were supposed to have received dollars from the bank
on that day. 2 Those traders’ resulting illiquidity temporarily disrupted the flow of other payments
over the CHIPS based in New York, through which the payment from Herstatt was supposed to have been made.To the extent that the Herstatt failure had a welfare cost, it was either through (1) the delay of specific transactions that depended on CHIPS payments, or (2) transactors’ subsequent decisions
to avoid CHIPS and make payments instead through a more costly arrangement, or (3) transactors’
subsequent decisions to use CHIPS in a less convenient or cost-effectiveway than before. 3 Neither
of the first two effects seems to have been significant. Regarding effect (1), we are unaware of
any specific claim having been made that the temporary disruption of CHIPS imposed a high
cost on a specific participant or customer of a participant. The disruption did not cause any runlike
problem for the payment system or the banking system as a whole. 4 Regarding effect (2),
the number of CHIPS participants and the value of transactions grew between 1973 and 1974,
and again between 1974 and 1975. 5 However, regarding effect (3), there is some evidence that
CHIPS participants individually and collectively adopted costlier business processes in order to
shield themselves from loss in the event that a counterparty would default.

第1个回答  2012-09-12
对福利的重要性分析治疗银行间支付作为内生是最广为人知的强调最近支付危机,相关Herstatt失败的银行在1974年。关闭,银行通过其德国监管机构造成延迟收据,和部分损失约2亿美元美国债权人应该已经收到美元银行在那一天。2那些交易员产生的非流动性短暂中断了流的其他付款在位于纽约的芯片,通过支付从Herstatt应该已经做了。在一定程度上,Herstatt失败有一个福利成本,这是通过(1)的具体事务,延迟付款,或者依赖于芯片(2)处理者的后续决策为了避免芯片和支付更昂贵而不是通过安排,或(3)处理者的随后决定使用芯片在一个比以前更不方便或者cost-effectiveway。3也前两种效应似乎是重要的。关于效应(1),我们都不知道任何具体的要求已经作出,暂时中断芯片实施高成本在特定参与者或客户的一个参与者。没有造成任何破坏runlike问题的支付系统或整个银行系统。4关于效应(2),参与者的数量和价值的芯片交易量同比增长了。1973年和1974年之间,再次,在1974年和1975年之间。5然而,关于效应(3),有一些证据表明芯片参与者个人和集体采用昂贵的业务流程来保护自己的损失时,一旦交易对手会违约。
第2个回答  2012-09-15
重要的福利分析处理银行间支付作为内源性所强调的是已知的最广泛的最近支付危机,与失败的赫斯塔特银行1974。关闭银行被德国造成延迟后,和部分损失约200000000美元,美国的债权人,他们应该已经收到美元从银行
在这一天。2这些交易者产生流动性暂时中断流动的其他款项
在芯片立足纽约,通过支付从赫斯特本来了。在某种程度上,赫斯特失败了的福利成本,它是通过(1)延迟取决于芯片的具体交易付款,或(2)交易者随后决定
避免芯片和付款,而不是通过更昂贵的安排,或(3)交易者
随后决定使用的芯片在不方便或cost-effectiveway比以前。3
前两者的影响似乎已显。关于影响(1),我们不知道的
任何具体的要求了,暂时中断的芯片施加高
成本在一个特定的参与者或客户的参与者。中断没有造成任何runlike
问题的支付系统或整个银行体系。4个方面的影响(2),
一些芯片的参与者和交易的价值增长1973至1974,
并再次与1974和1975。5然而,有关的影响(3),有一些证据表明,
与会者单独和集体采取昂贵的芯片业务流程为
保护自己免受损失的事件,一个交易对手违约。
第3个回答  2012-09-12
对福利的重要性分析治疗银行间支付作为内生是最广为人知的强调最近支付危机,相关Herstatt失败的银行在1974年。关闭,银行通过其德国监管机构造成延迟收据,和部分损失约2亿美元美国债权人应该已经收到美元银行
  在那一天。2那些交易员产生的非流动性短暂中断了流的其他付款
  在芯片的基础
相似回答