次貸危機
Subprime mortgage crisis

context: zh_tw: 許多金融機構，特別是投資銀行，在 2004-2007 年期間發行了大量的債務，並投資於住房抵押貸款證券的收益。它們主要認為，房價將持續上升，而且家家戶戶將繼續按時償還住房抵押貸款。以較低的利息借款並投資於較高利率的收益是一種財務槓桿的形式。這與個人同時利用其住屋進行二次抵押貸款融資來投資於股票市場類似。這策略在房市繁景時證明有利可圖，但在房價開始下跌、抵押貸款開始違約時會造成巨大損失。從 2007 年開始，金融機構和個別投資人持有的 MBS，亦因抵押貸款付款違約與由此產生的住房抵押貸款證券價值蒸發遭受重大損失。2004 年美國證券交易委員會的裁決使美國投資銀行大體上發行更多債券，這些債券隨後用於購買住房抵押貸款證劵。從 2004 到 2007 年，五家最頂尖的美國投資銀行每一家皆顯著地增加其財務槓桿比率（見圖表），這意味著它們面對 MBS 貶值時更加脆弱。這五個機構 2007 會計年度披露的報告共超過 4.1 兆美元債務，為大約該年度 30％的美國名義國內生產總值。此外，次級抵押貸款的比例佔總發放貸款的比例從 2001 至 2003 年間的低於 10％，到 2004-2006 年間的 18-20％，肇因於來自投資銀行的部分融資。2008 年期間，三間美國最大的投資銀行要麼倒閉（雷曼兄弟）或賤價出售給其他銀行（貝爾斯登和美林證券）。這些銀行崩潰對環球金融體系增加了不穩定性。剩下的兩家投資銀行：摩根士丹利和高盛，則選擇轉換為商業銀行，從而使自己更加嚴格的受政府監管。紐約州主計長辦公室在 2006 年表示，華爾街高管的獎金總額 239 億美元。「華爾街交易商想的是年終獎金，而不是它們公司長期體制健全。整個系統 — 從抵押貸款經紀人到華爾街的風險管理經理 — 看來都傾向採取短期風險，而忽視長期義務。最證據確鑿的是，大多數銀行高層並沒有真正理解這些投資是如何運作的。」投資銀行家獎金報酬是集中在金融產品組裝所產生的收費，而不是這些產品的表現和隨著時間的推移產生利潤。他們的獎金受到嚴重偏向現金支付而不是股票支付，而且在所建立的住房抵押貸款證券或 CDO 沒有表現的情況下不會 “回吐”（從公司僱員追回獎金）。此外，主流投資銀行高階主管的報酬付多少並沒有充分納入該行因其指示採取行動而增加的風險（在財務槓桿的形式下）。
en: The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: "From 1978 to 2007, the amount of debt held by the financial sector soared from $3 trillion to $36 trillion, more than doubling as a share of gross domestic product. The very nature of many Wall Street firms changed – from relatively staid private partnerships to publicly traded corporations taking greater and more diverse kinds of risks. By 2005, the 10 largest U.S. commercial banks held 55% of the industry's assets, more than double the level held in 1990. On the eve of the crisis in 2006, financial sector profits constituted 27% of all corporate profits in the United States, up from 15% in 1980."Many financial institutions, investment banks in particular, issued large amounts of debt during 2004–07, and invested the proceeds in mortgage-backed securities (MBS), essentially betting that house prices would continue to rise, and that households would continue to make their mortgage payments. Borrowing at a lower interest rate and investing the proceeds at a higher interest rate is a form of financial leverage. This is analogous to an individual taking out a second mortgage on his residence to invest in the stock market. This strategy proved profitable during the housing boom, but resulted in large losses when house prices began to decline and mortgages began to default. Beginning in 2007, financial institutions and individual investors holding MBS also suffered significant losses from mortgage payment defaults and the resulting decline in the value of MBS.A 2004 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decision related to the net capital rule allowed US investment banks to issue substantially more debt, which was then used to purchase MBS. Over 2004–07, the top five US investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage (see diagram), which increased their vulnerability to the declining value of MBSs. These five institutions reported over $4.1 trillion in debt for fiscal year 2007, about 30% of US nominal GDP for 2007. Further, the percentage of subprime mortgages originated to total originations increased from below 10% in 2001–03 to between 18–20% from 2004 to 2006, due in-part to financing from investment banks.During 2008, three of the largest U.S. investment banks either went bankrupt (Lehman Brothers) or were sold at fire sale prices to other banks (Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch). These failures augmented the instability in the global financial system. The remaining two investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, opted to become commercial banks, thereby subjecting themselves to more stringent regulation.In the years leading up to the crisis, the top four U.S. depository banks moved an estimated $5.2 trillion in assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into special purpose vehicles or other entities in the shadow banking system. This enabled them to essentially bypass existing regulations regarding minimum capital ratios, thereby increasing leverage and profits during the boom but increasing losses during the crisis. New accounting guidance will require them to put some of these assets back onto their books during 2009, which will significantly reduce their capital ratios. One news agency estimated this amount to be between $500 billion and $1 trillion. This effect was considered as part of the stress tests performed by the government during 2009.Martin Wolf wrote in June 2009: "...an enormous part of what banks did in the early part of this decade – the off-balance-sheet vehicles, the derivatives and the 'shadow banking system' itself – was to find a way round regulation."The New York State Comptroller's Office has said that in 2006, Wall Street executives took home bonuses totaling $23.9 billion. "Wall Street traders were thinking of the bonus at the end of the year, not the long-term health of their firm. The whole system – from mortgage brokers to Wall Street risk managers – seemed tilted toward taking short-term risks while ignoring long-term obligations. The most damning evidence is that most of the people at the top of the banks didn't really understand how those [investments] worked."The incentive compensation of traders was focused on fees generated from assembling financial products, rather than the performance of those products and profits generated over time. Their bonuses were heavily skewed towards cash rather than stock and not subject to "claw-back" (recovery of the bonus from the employee by the firm) in the event the MBS or CDO created did not perform. In addition, the increased risk (in the form of financial leverage) taken by the major investment banks was not adequately factored into the compensation of senior executives.
qas: question: zh_tw: 由於這些失敗，哪個處理金錢的領域變得更不穩定？
en: What area dealing with money was made more unstable due to these failures?
answers: zh_tw: text: 環球金融體系
en: text: the global financial system