 |
当前位置：首页 >> 个人服务 >> 预览个人简历信息 提醒：任何一种简历保密设置，都不会影响您在线投递简历。 |
|
| 个人信息 |
| 姓 名： |
刘译员 [编号]:2930 |
性 别： |
女 |
|
| 擅长专业： |
经济、环保、能源、文化、网络等 |
出生年月： |
1987/1/1 |
|
| 民 族： |
汉族 |
所在地区： |
北京 北京 |
|
| 文化程度： |
硕士 |
所学专业： |
英汉同传 |
|
| 毕业时间： |
2011 |
毕业学校： |
北京外国语大学 |
|
| 第一外语： |
英语 |
等级水平： |
专业8级优秀 |
|
|
| 口译等级： |
中级 |
工作经历： |
1 年 |
|
|
| 翻译库信息 |
| 可翻译语种： |
英语 |
|
|
| 目前所在地： |
北京 北京 |
| 可提供服务类型： |
笔译、口译 |
| 每周可提供服务时间： |
根据学校课表来 现在还不定 周末肯定有时间 |
| 证书信息 |
| 证书名称： |
专业8级 |
|
| 获证时间： |
2005/6/1 |
|
| 获得分数： |
83 |
|
|
| 证书名称： |
专业8级 |
|
| 获证时间： |
2005/6/1 |
|
| 获得分数： |
83 |
|
|
| 工作经历 |
| 工作时期： |
2010/7/1--2010/8/1 |
|
| 公司名称： |
新华社 |
|
| 公司性质： |
国营企业 |
| 所属行业： |
文学/传媒/影视 |
| 所在部门： |
对外部 |
|
| 职位： |
编译 |
| 自我评价： |
还好 |
|
|
| 笔译案例信息 |
| 案例标题： |
财富中文网的翻译 |
|
| 原文： |
The Fannie-Freddie waiting game
By Colin Barr
Putting Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's houses in order will have to wait.
A year and a half after Treasury took over Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and its smaller brother Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500), Washington is just now prepping for a debate over their future. The discussion, relegated to the back burner by Congress' struggles to overhaul bank regulation, could stretch into next year and beyond before anything is decided.
"The soonest we might see some action is mid to late 2011," said Karen Petrou, managing partner at Washington-based financial industry consultant Federal Financial Analytics. "The first priority had to be restoring financial stability, so it's not surprising it is taking a while."
The waiting won't sit well with the companies' many critics. Treasury's takeover of Fannie and Freddie is shaping up as the costliest bailout of all, as mounting loan losses and securities markdowns have forced the companies to draw tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer support.
With the firms owning or guaranteeing trillions of dollars worth of mortgages, there's a risk that the tab will mushroom, particularly if the economy stalls again over the next year.
But it is much easier to revile the firms than to fix them. Stabilizing the housing market has been the focus of the federal response to the economic meltdown, and there is little incentive to tinker now with the companies that are the main source of mortgage funds supporting a fragile economic rebound.
"There is nothing forcing the issue right now," said Paul Miller, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets. "It could be years before they figure it all out."
The House Financial Services Committee scheduled a hearing March 23 "to begin the process of considering the future of housing finance," Chairman Barney Frank's office said this week. Frank has invited Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to appear.
The event could give Geithner an opportunity to outline the administration's view on how to reshape the giant mortgage companies. His office hasn't said whether he'll testify.
Geithner told Congress last month that the White House would announce "principles and broad objectives" for housing reform this year and aim to produce legislation in 2011. The administration had earlier said it would comment on housing reform in last month's budget proposal.
Geithner said administration officials "want to make sure that we get it right," though Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., accused the White House of "punting."
Even before their bailout, Fannie and Freddie were magnets for controversy, because of the conflict between their shareholder-owners and their congressional charter to support housing.
The bailout temporarily resolved that tension in favor of support for housing, though at the cost of putting taxpayers on the hook for the giant tab attached to muddling through the housing bust.
As unpopular as the takeover was, it did succeed in buying some time. Extensive government support for the companies and the mortgage market has kept interest rates low -- making houses more affordable, containing the damage from the housing bust and helping to restore the health of big banks. Freddie Mac said this week the 30-year mortgage commitment rate fell below 5%.
But the Federal Reserve is scheduled to stop buying mortgages this month, and economists expect rates to rise over the balance of 2010, which could push house prices lower again.
Analysts at Standard & Poor's say they believe the dividends the companies pay Treasury on the aid they receive aren't sustainable. Fannie is due to pay at least $7.6 billion this year and Freddie $5 billion -- at a time when both companies expect to continue to lose money.
A cash crunch could force the government to ease the terms, as it did with other bailout recipients such as AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) and GMAC.
And Frank, who said in January he thought the companies should be abolished without explaining exactly what he meant, introduced a new bit of uncertainty Friday when he told the Washington Post the government must keep open the option of making the companies' creditors share in their losses.
None of those events would enhance the companies' low level of popularity with lawmakers and the public, which gets an airing every time the companies ask Treasury for more money after another quarter in the red.
"There has always been a high degree of political risk with these companies," said Barry Zigas, a former Fannie Mae executive who is director of housing policy for the Consumer Federation of America. "There are certainly some possible irritants now."
Yet as unpopular as the companies are, it's still not clear what might replace them. Some plans call for full nationalization, others for turning the companies into public utilities, still others for splitting them into pieces, a la AT&T and the Baby Bells. With banks still unwilling to lend and investors still risk averse, even longtime critics concede change could be years away.
"For Fannie and Freddie to be eliminated, a new mortgage-financing system must take their place, but there is not even a hint of a replacement on the horizon," Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in January.
But perhaps that's the good news. Congress has spent much of the past year dealing with banking reform at a time when the press is rife with stories about overpaid bankers and the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose culture of Wall Street.
Yet the banks appear to have largely defeated efforts to rein in derivatives trading and create a standalone consumer financial products overseer.
"You look at all the work they have to do on regulatory reform, and you wonder how anyone can say fixing Fannie and Freddie is urgent," said Zigas. "What's the big rush?"
|
|
| 译文： |
房利美和房地美的持久战
作者：Colin Barr
要处理好房利美和房地美的房子问题可能还需要一段时间。
财政部接手房利美（FNM，世界500强）和房地美（FRE，世界500强）已有一年半的时间了，美国政府现在正准备讨论两者的未来发展。之前美国国会忙着银行监管改革，关于两房的讨论被搁置在次要的位置，现在起码要讨论到明年才能讨论出一个结果。
位于华盛顿的金融业咨询机构联邦金融分析（Federal Financial Analytics）的合伙人卡伦·彼得鲁（Karen Petrou）说：“最早也要等到2011年下半年才能有所行动，首先要恢复金融的稳定，所以要花些时间也不足为奇。”
两房的批评者认为不应该等这么长时间。财政部接手房利美和房地美是花钱最多的救助行动，由于贷款损失和证券减价越来越严重，两房不得不依靠纳税人数千亿美元的支持来度过难关。
两个公司拥有或担保着价值上万亿美元的抵押，这个账单还有上涨的风险，尤其是如果明年的经济仍然停滞不前的话，风险就会更大。
谩骂两家公司当然比整治它们要容易。政府应对经济衰退的重心一直是稳定房地产市场，现在缺乏激励措施，以促进对两家公司的整理，而这两家公司提供抵押资金，支撑脆弱的经济反弹。
FBR资本市场的分析员保罗·米勒（Paul Miller）说：“关于这件事情他们现在没有面临什么压力，可能会花几年的时间来处理。”
众议院金融服务委员会（The House Financial Services Committee）安排在3月23日举行一场听证会，委员会主席巴尼·法兰克（Barney Frank）的办公室人士本周表示：“听证会是为了开始考虑住房金融的未来发展问题。”法兰克已经邀请了财政部长蒂莫西·盖特纳（Tim Geithner）出席听证会。
盖特纳可以利用这个机会概述政府重塑这两家大型抵押公司的计划。他的办公室人士没有表示他是否会在听证会上作证。
上个月盖特纳向国会表示，白宫将在今年宣布房产改革的“原则和主要目标”，并计划在2011年对此立法。政府之前早就表示会在上个月的预算建议中对住房改革作出评论。
尽管加州众议员达雷·伊萨（Darrell Issa）指责白宫“在踢皮球”，盖特纳表示政府官员“想确定我们的做法是正确的”。
即使在救助行动之前，房利美和房地美就已经是争议的焦点，因为股东所有者有他们的要求，另一方面国会章程要求公司支持房地产，两者之间存在矛盾。
救助行动暂时解决了这个矛盾，结果有利于支持房地产，尽管为了应对这次房地产泡沫，纳税人的钱也被搭进去了。
尽管救助行动不受欢迎，但确实赢得了一些时间。政府对两房以及抵押贷款市场的广泛支持使利率保持在低水平，人们能够支付得起房价，房产泡沫的危害也得到限制，而且使大型银行恢复了正常运转。房地美公司本周表示30年到期的抵押贷款利率调低，低于5%。
但是美联储（Federal Reserve）计划本月停止购买抵押，经济学家预计2010年利率将会走高，会使房价会再次降低。
标准普尔（Standard & Poor）的分析员认为两房因受救助要付给财政部的股息无法稳定持续。房利美至少应该付76亿美元，房地美要付50亿美元，而此时两家公司仍处于亏损阶段。
出现现金危机也许会使政府放宽条件，正如政府对待其他的受救助机构一样，比如美国国际集团（AIG，世界500强）和美国通用汽车金融服务公司（GMAC）。
法兰克曾在1月份说这两家公司应该被废除，而没有具体解释他说这话的意思，这周五他向华盛顿邮报（Washington Post）表示，对于让公司债权人分担公司亏损的做法，政府应该持开放态度，他的观点又给当前形势增加了一点不确定性。
所有这些事件都不会使两房在立法者和公众眼中的形象有所改善，两房在每个季度底都出现赤字，然后伸手向财政部要钱，而这样的事媒体都会公布于众广而告之。
房利美前主管人员巴里·齐加斯（Barry Zigas），现在是美国消费者联盟（Consumer Federation of America）的住房政策主管，他说：“这两家公司一直都有很高的政治风险，总会有一些烦人的事。”
尽管两家公司很不受欢迎，但现在也不清楚拿什么替代它们。有的方案要求完全国有化，有的方案要求将两房变成公共事业公司，也有些方案认为两房应该进行拆分，分成多个小公司，就像当年美国电话电报公司（AT&T）分成多个贝尔电话公司（Baby Bells）一样。现在银行仍然不愿发放贷款，投资者规避风险，即使是长期以来持批评态度的人也承认，要有所变化可能还要等几年。
美国企业研究所（American Enterprise Institute）的彼得·沃利森（Peter Wallison）1月份写到：“要废除房利美和房地美，就必须有一个新的住房抵押贷款融资体系代替两房，而现在还完全看不到替代系统的影子。”
但也许这也是好消息。去年大部分时间里，国会都在处理银行改革的问题，当时报刊上充斥着关于银行高管薪酬和华尔街冒险行为的报道。
但是银行似乎使控制衍生品交易的努力大大受挫，一个独立的金融产品消费的监督机构也没能建立起来。
齐加斯说：“你看看他们在监管改革方面要做的工作，怎么还有人说整治房利美和房地美迫在眉睫呢，急什么呀？”
|
|
|
|
|
