第一篇：金融英語學習資料25 中英文對照

The proportion of women reaching top-level management positions in the City has doubled in the past year, research has found.研究表明，在過去一年里，倫敦金融城處于頂級管理崗位的女性所占的比例增長了一倍。

Some 12 per cent of managing directors, the level just below the board, are now women, up from 6 per cent a year ago, while 19 per cent of directors and vice-presidents are female, up from 14 per cent, said the financial recruiter Astbury Marsden.金融獵頭公司Astbury Marsden表示，如今大約有12%的董事總經理（其地位僅在董事會之下）是女性，而一年前的這個比例只有6%；此外，如今19%的董事和副總裁為女性，而一年前這一比例只有14%。Women now account for one in five professional-level City employees, up from 18 per cent in 2012.倫敦金融城的專業人士中，如今女性占五分之一，而2012年這一比例為18%。However, women still predominate in non-client facing, non-fee earning jobs – making up 60 per cent of City human resources professionals and 40 per cent of internal auditors, but only 19 per cent of corporate brokers and stockbrokers and 25 per cent of private equity workers.然而，女性占優勢的仍然是那些不需要面向顧客、無傭金可賺的崗位。倫敦金融城從事人力資源工作的專業人士中，60%是女性，40%的內部審計人員是女性，而公司經紀人和股票經紀人只有19%是女性，私募股權員工中女性所占比例則為25%。

Mark Cameron, Astbury Marsden’s chief operating officer, said: “Our research demonstrates

[that more] women working in the City are now breaking through the glass ceiling and reaching senior management positions.Astbury Marsden首席運營官馬克?卡梅倫(Mark Cameron)表示：“我們的研究表明，如今在倫敦金融城有（更多）女性突破玻璃天花板走上了高級管理崗位。

“However, there is also the question as to why the women have a much lower overall

representation in some of the higher paid areas of financial services such as corporate broking and stockbroking or positions in private equity.”“然而，目前仍存在的一個問題是，在部分薪水較高的金融服務崗位，例如公司經紀、股票經紀、私募股權等領域的工作崗位，為什么女性的占比整體上要低得多？”

The rise of women in the City suggested that gender diversity programmes continued to make progress towards the target of 25 per cent female directors set by Lord Davies in the women on boards initiative, Mr Cameron said.卡梅倫表示，倫敦金融城女性的崛起表明，性別多元化計劃仍然在向前推進，距離“爭取女性進入董事會”運動中由戴維斯爵士(Lord Davies)所設立的女性董事占25%的目標又近了一步。

第二篇：金融英語學習資料4 中英文對照

Emerging markets that had been hardest hit by fears of the US central bank scaling back its stimulus programme climbed the most.Indonesian stocks soared 7 per cent in the first half hour of Jakarta trading, the Philippine stock market climbed 3.6 per cent in Manila, and Singapore’s Straits Times index moved up 1.8 per cent.美聯儲周三宣布，將維持每月資產采購量在850億美元不變。這一決定讓市場感到意外，更引發新興市場股市大漲。

美聯儲聯邦公開市場委員會(FOMC)在兩天會議之后，調低了對美國經濟增長預期，沒有像外界廣泛預期的那樣開始削減第三輪量化寬松的規模。公開市場委員會表示，要在“等到經濟企穩的更多信號之后，才會開始調整資產購買的速度”。對美聯儲將削減量化寬松的擔憂，此前讓新興市場股市受到重挫。受到最大沖擊的股市，在美聯儲最新決定之后，成為漲幅最大的股市。印度尼西亞股市在周四開市后半小時內飆升7%，馬來西亞股市上漲3.6%，新加坡股指則上漲1.8%。

第三篇：金融英語學習資料41 中英文對照

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, yesterday warned that the spying scandal was putting pressure on talks to forge an EU-US trade pact, the clearest sign yet of the affair’s impact on economic ties.德國總理安格拉?默克爾(Angela Merkel)昨天警告說，間諜丑聞為締結歐盟(EU)-美國貿易協定的磋商帶來了壓力，這是這起事件影響經濟關系的最明確跡象。Speaking before the German parliament, Ms Merkel urged Washington to provide “a

clarification” of its alleged mass surveillance as “a basis for building new transatlantic trust”.默克爾在德國議會發表講話時，敦促美國政府對其據稱開展的大規模監聽行為加以“澄清”，以此作為“建立跨大西洋信任的基礎”。

In her toughest words on the scandal so far, the chancellor said: “The relationship with the US and the negotiation of a transatlantic free trade agreement are currently, without doubt, being put to the test by the accusations that have been aired against the US about the gathering of millions of bits of data.”這是默克爾迄今對這一丑聞的最強硬表態，她說：“毫無疑問，德國對美關系和跨大西洋自由貿易協定談判目前正面臨考驗，而其肇因正是有關美國搜集海量數據的指控。”

The revelations from Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, have caused outrage in Germany after it emerged Ms Merkel’s own mobile phone had allegedly been tapped for a decade.根據美國國家安全局(NSA)前合同工愛德華?斯諾登(Edward Snowden)的爆料，默克爾的手機據稱已被監聽了十年之久，這一爆料在德國激起了極大憤怒。The chancellor’s statement confirms that, as the Financial Times reported earlier this month, Berlin is making an explicit link between the affair and the trade negotiations.默克爾的聲明證實，正如英國《金融時報》本月早些時候報道的，德國政府正在將這一事件與貿易談判明確聯系起來。

Berlin is pressing the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, to incorporate data safeguards into the negotiations for the planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment

Partnership, launched this year by EU leaders and President Barack Obama.德國政府正在向歐盟執行機構歐盟委員會(European Commission)施加壓力，目的是將數據保護納入《跨大西洋貿易與投資伙伴關系協定》(Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership)的談判。這一談判今年由歐盟領導人和美國總統巴拉克?奧巴馬(Barack Obama)啟動。

第四篇：金融英語學習資料43 中英文對照

The first of China’s former bad banks to list on a stock market is set to raise up to $2.5bn as bankers close in on a price range of HK$3.00-HK$3.58 for more than 5bn shares, according to

people familiar with the deal.知情人士稱，首家上市的中國前“壞銀行”有望籌得25億美元。銀行家們正接近敲定3港元至3.58港元的發行價，發行的股票數量將超過50億股。The listing of Cinda, which was set up in the late 1990s to take on the non-performing loans of China Construction Bank, will be watched closely by bankers and investors interested in the other so-called asset management companies.中國信達資產管理股份有限公司(Cinda)是上世紀90年代后期為接手中國建設銀行(CCB)的不良貸款而成立的。該公司的上市將受到對其它幾家資產管理公司感興趣的銀行家和投資者的密切關注。

Cinda is expected to file its prospectus tomorrow, revealing how it has made its money over recent years and what assets it holds.The initial price range is expected to be finalised on

Monday.預計信達將在本周五提交招股說明書，披露其近年如何創收，目前持有哪些資產。初步的發行價區間預計在周一敲定。

Cinda sold strategic stakes worth a total of $1.6bn to UBS, Standard Chartered and two

domestic investors, and has been for months planning its IPO in Hong Kong, which could value it at almost $20bn.信達已向瑞銀(UBS)、渣打(Standard Chartered)和兩家國內投資者出售了總共16億美元的戰略股份，并已為在香港進行首次公開發行(IPO)籌備了幾個月，此次上市可能使該公司的估值達到近200億美元。

Its rival Huarong, which took on the bad loans of ICBC, has held talks with potential investors including Goldman Sachs about selling a strategic stake.Huarong hopes to conclude that deal within weeks and then to launch an IPO in Hong Kong next year, according to people familiar with the group.信達的競爭對手、接手中國工行(ICBC)壞賬的華融資產管理公司(Huarong)已就出售戰略股份與高盛(Goldman Sachs)等潛在投資者舉行了洽談。知情人士稱，華融希望在幾周內達成交易，明年在香港上市。

China’s asset management companies made little to no money for years as they grappled with billions of renminbi of bad loans that were bought at face value.中國的這些資產管理公司曾在多年期間沒有盈利，艱難處置著以面值買下的大量不良貸款。

But according to reports from the government and the banks that sold them these loans, these groups have in the past few years begun to make profits and pay down the bonds that funded their set-up.但是，根據政府報告和向它們出售貸款的銀行介紹，這些資產管理公司在過去幾年里開始贏利，并開始償還當年為它們的成立提供資金的債券。

Cinda recorded a pre-tax profit of Rmb7.2bn($1.2bn)in 2011 and Rmb4.6bn in the first half of 2012, according to ChinaScope Financial, a research service that compiles data on public and

private Chinese companies.數庫財務咨詢公司(ChinaScope Financial)的數據顯示，信達2011年實現稅前利潤72億元人民幣（合12億美元），2012年上半年實現稅前利潤46億元人民幣。數庫是一家專業研究機構，匯編中國上市和私有企業的數據。

Beijing set up the four state-funded asset management companies to take over the bad debts of four state-owned banks.Alongside Cinda and Huarong, the other two were China Orient for Bank of China, and Great Wall for Agricultural Bank of China.中國政府當年成立四家資產管理公司，由它們從中國四大銀行接手不良貸款。除了信達和華融外，另外兩家分別是東方資產管理公司(China Orient)——接手中國銀行(Bank of China)的不良貸款；以及長城資產管理公司(Great Wall)——接手中國農業銀行(AgBank)的不良貸款。

Comparable profit data for these groups are hard to come by, but Trevor Kalcic, analyst at CIMB, reckons their combined return on equity has increased from 8.9 per cent in 2009 to 15.5 per cent last year.很難獲得這些資產管理公司的可比利潤數據，但馬來西亞聯昌國際銀行(CIMB)分析師特雷弗?卡爾契奇(Trevor Kalcic)估計，它們的總股本回報率已從2009年的8.9%提高至去年的15.5%。

The companies have made money by turning some of their bad loans into equity stakes as well as by working out problem companies and selling assets.這些資產管理公司把一部分不良貸款轉換成股權，并對問題企業采取行動，出售資產，由此實現盈利。

But their biggest value for new investors may be the raft of financial services licences many have acquired in recent years at a time when China is expected to undergo major financial reforms.在中國預計將推行重大金融改革之際，這些資產管理公司近年來獲得了多項金融服務牌照。對新投資者來說，這一點或許才是它們的最大價值所在。

第五篇：金融英語學習資料17 中英文對照

Some laws are too dangerous to be allowed to remain on the books.Take, for example, the US debt ceiling.It is the legislative equivalent of a nuclear bomb aimed by the US at itself, with the rest of the world within its blast radius.What must never be used should not exist.Regardless of the outcome of the current negotiations, the law needs to be repealed.Orderly government cannot be pursued under so destructive a threat.It is quite different from a partial government shutdown.Albeit foolish and unjust, that is just about manageable.Failure to lift the debt ceiling is not.有些法律太過危險、不應保留，美國的債務上限就是一例。債務上限的立法相當于美國對自己投下了一顆核彈，而整個世界都在其爆炸范圍內。絕不能使用的東西根本不應存在。不論目前談判的結果如何，債務上限的法律都需要廢止。面對破壞力如此之強的威脅，政府不可能實現有序的運轉。這與政府部分關門有很大區別。政府部分關門雖然愚蠢和不應該，但基本上是可控的。而無法提升債務上限就不一樣了。

The imbroglio over the ceiling does have a darkly amusing side.Many will recall Republican insistence that “uncertainty” was thwarting economic recovery.Yet it is difficult to imagine policies better designed to create maximum uncertainty than a possible default by the world’s most important debtor.Asked about the consequences of a failure to reach a deal on the ceiling, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, responded: “You don’t want to know.” But we must seek to know;the results would be calamitous.關于債務上限的糾葛確實有其黑色幽默的一面。很多人會記得共和黨堅稱“不確定性”正在阻礙經濟復蘇。但我們很難想象出，還有什么政策比世界最重要債務國違約更能制造不確定性。當被問及無法就債務上限問題達成妥協將有何后果時，摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)首席執行官杰米?戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)說：“你肯定不想知道。”但我們必須設法弄清答案。結果將是災難性的。

Why is the debt ceiling too dangerous to use? This question has two answers.為何債務上限這種步器過于危險、不應使用？可以從兩個層面解答這個問題。The first is constitutional.In a recent article, Neil Buchanan of The George Washington University and Michael Dorf of Cornell argue that a binding debt ceiling would create a “trilemma” for the president: “Ignore the debt ceiling and unilaterally issue new bonds, thus usurping Congress’s borrowing power;unilaterally raise taxes, thus usurping Congress’s taxing power;or unilaterally cut spending, thus usurping Congress’s spending power.” Thus, a binding debt ceiling would force the president to violate his obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.The authors conclude that the president should choose the “least unconstitutional” course and ignore the debt ceiling.But, inevitably, whatever the president did would create a constitutional crisis.No responsible Congress would seek to put the president in that position.首先是憲法層面。在近期一篇文章中，喬治華盛頓大學(The George Washington University)的尼爾?布坎南(Neil Buchanan)和康奈爾大學(Cornell University)的邁克爾?多爾夫(Michael Dorf)辯稱，具有約束力的債務上限為總統帶來“三難”局面：“忽略債務上限，單方面發行新債券，將篡奪國會的舉債權；單方面增稅，將

篡奪國會的稅權；單方面減支，將篡奪國會的支出權。”因此，有約束力的債務上限將迫使總統違背其“監護法律得到切實執行”的義務。兩位作者的結論是，總統應選擇“最不違憲”的道路，忽略債務上限。但無論總統怎么做，都將不可避免地造成憲政危機。一個負責任的國會，是不會尋求讓總統陷于如此境地的。

The second reason why the debt ceiling is so dangerous is that the administration could not obey it in a non-destructive way.At some point between October 17 and the end of the month, the administration would lack the money to pay its bills.All choices would be dire.債務上限如此危險的第二個原因是，政府無法在不帶來破壞性后果的前提下遵守債務上限。在10月17日到月底之間的某個時點，政府將無錢支付賬單。所有的選擇都很糟糕。

One much discussed choice is “prioritisation”: the federal government would pay “high priority” claimants, such as the Chinese government, and default to “low priority” claimants, such as beneficiaries of Social Security or Medicare.Yes, the idea is that awful.一個被廣泛討論的選擇是“優先支付”：聯邦政府將向中國政府等“高優先級”債權人償還債務，而對社保或聯邦醫療保險計劃(Medicare)受益人等“低優先級”債權人違約。沒錯，這個主意就是那么“餿”。

The US Treasury has two potent objections.First, prioritisation would not protect the “full faith and credit of the United States” – it would still be a default.Second, the US government’s computer systems do not allow it to choose among the close to 100m payments it makes a month.But Fedwire, the system that handles sovereign debt payments, is distinct from the systems making payments to government agencies and other vendors.So maybe the US Treasury could pay the former obligations first and then use any remaining money for the latter, a possibility it denies even exists, to preserve its bargaining credibility.美國財政部(US Treasury)提出兩點有力的反對理由。首先，優先支付不能保護“美國的全部信心和信用”——它仍將是一種違約。其次，美國政府的計算機系統不允許財政部在每月的近1億筆支付中做出選擇。但處理主權債務付款的Fedwire系統與向政府機構和其他供應商付款的系統不同。因此，美國財政部也許能夠先向前者償債、然后用余下的資金向后者支付（但它認為這根本不具可行性），以維持自己討價還價的信譽。

Even if possible, which is unclear, the politics of prioritisation would be disastrous.Yet the economics of a failure to service debt would be worse.US Treasuries are the world’s most important safe assets.If they were to default, even temporarily, there would be an immediate impact on risk premiums and a quite possibly permanent impact on their role as havens.Haircuts would be imposed on their use as collateral.The result, as my colleague Gillian Tett has noted, might be a huge disruption to market liquidity and credit across the world.A Lehman default is one thing;a US default would be quite another.No wonder the gathering of central bankers and finance ministers in Washington last week for the IMF meeting was so agitated about the issue.優先支付即便可行（可行與否尚不明朗），其政治后果也將是災難性的。但不償還債務的經濟后果更嚴重。美國國債是全球最重要的避險資產。如果美國國債違約，哪怕是暫時性的，也將對風險溢價產生即刻影響，并很可能對其避險資產角色產生長期影響。它作為抵押品的價值將打折扣。正如我的同事吉蓮?邰蒂(Gillian Tett)所說的，結果可能是嚴重擾亂全世界的市場流動性和信貸。雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)違約是一回事，美國政府違約是另一回事。難怪上周各國央行行長和財長齊聚華盛頓參加IMF年會時，對此問題感到十分焦慮。

The less economically damaging alternative would seem to be for the US government to default on its non-debt obligations.Indeed, many in the Tea Party apparently believe the ceiling is a clever way to impose a balanced budget, though one that would curtail even the short-term borrowing normal for households.Today, this would require immediate elimination of a deficit of about 4.2 per cent of gross domestic product.An instantaneous cut of this magnitude would lower GDP by far more than the 6 per cent that conventional multipliers might suggest.The reason is that all built-in stabilisers would be cut off.As revenue fell along with GDP, spending would automatically shrink further.GDP could fall 10 per cent.This would inflict a domestic and global disaster.經濟危害較小的選擇似乎是，讓美國政府對非債務義務違約。實際上，不少茶黨(Tea Party)成員似乎認定債務上限是一種實現預算平衡的更巧妙方法，盡管就連家庭日常所要進行的短期借款也會因此受到抑制。從目前看，對非債務義務違約將立馬削減相當于美國國內生產總值(GDP)約4.2%的赤字。但如果突然進行如此大規模的減赤，GDP的萎縮幅度將遠超根據常規乘數推算出的6%。原因是，這樣一來，所有的內在穩定器都將被切斷。隨著財政收入伴隨GDP下滑，支出也會自動地進一步收縮。GDP可能萎縮10%，對美國國內和全球造成災難性影響。

Thus, if the administration were to obey the debt ceiling, it would have a choice between a debt calamity and an output disaster.Yet Barack Obama is also right that he cannot concede to people wielding this threat because that would increase their incentive to use it and so, in the long run, the likelihood that the bomb would explode.This device needs to be disarmed.Alas, that is not going to happen.因此，如果政府準備遵守債務上限，它將不得不在債務災難和經濟產出災難之間做出選擇。但巴拉克?奧巴馬(Barack Obama)也正確地認識到，他不能對那些用這一威脅逼迫他的人讓步，因為那會增強他們使用債務上限步器的動力，從而加大長期內這顆核彈爆炸的概率。債務上限步器應被銷毀。可惜的是，這是不會發生的。So the administration also needs to decide what it would do if the ceiling were not to be lifted in time – be it now, next month or at a later date.The least bad answer would be: keep borrowing.The president cannot state he would do so, before the fact.Indeed, he must deny it, since knowing this would lower his opponents’ incentive to raise the ceiling.Yet, if it came to the worst, he would have to borrow, invoking the need to preserve the credit of the government, without which it would be permanently damaged.所以，政府還需決定，如果債務上限無法及時解除——不論是現在、下月還是之后——自己應當采取什么行動。負面影響最低的方案是繼續舉債。總統不能在采取行動前透露這種打算。事實上，他必須否認自己將這么做，因為他的政敵如果得知他有此打算，他們解除債務上限的動力就會減弱。但如果最糟糕的情況發生，總統就必須以“需要維護政府信用”為由舉債——如果不這么做，政府的信用將永久受損。

Borrowing under a constitutional cloud would be risky.The simplest way to minimise

these risks would be to borrow short-term.After all, the US Federal Reserve must ensure that the interest rate remains zero, in order to preserve its monetary policy.The House of Representatives might impeach the president for the “high crime” of ensuring the US government fulfils its promises, but this would fail in the Senate.Someone might challenge Mr Obama’s decisions in court.But how could a judge conclude that the president acted unconstitutionally if Congress has given contradictory instructions?

在憲法的陰影下舉債將是危險的。把這些風險降到最小的最簡單辦法是借入短期資金。畢竟，美聯儲(Fed)必須確保利率維持在零，以維系其貨幣政策。眾議院可能會因總統為保障美國政府履行其承諾而犯下的“重大罪行”彈劾他，但參議院絕不會通過彈劾案。也許有人會在法庭上質疑奧巴馬的決定。但既然國會下達的指示自相矛盾，法官又如何能夠認定總統的行為違憲呢？

It is insane that such a discussion is even possible.Abolish the ceiling now.It is an invitation to mischief.神志正常的人根本不會進行這樣的討論。趕快廢除債務上限吧，它只會引發鬧劇。