金融双语阅读：《让“新兴市场”成为历史》
就现阶段而言，越来越明显的是“新兴市场”这个表述已越来越不合用。不如放弃它，以释放我们的想象力，让我们构思一个更为精细的模型，通过它来理解世界。下面小编为大家带来金融财经双语阅读：《让“新兴市场”成为历史》，希望大家喜欢!
“As we are ....prisoners of the words we pick, we had better pick them well,” said Giovanni Sartori, the Italian political scientist. For a long time since they were first coined in the 1980s, the words “emerging markets” appeared to have been well-chosen, such was their popularity as a description for a big chunk of the planet. As the world evolves, the term is progressively losing its purchase over the collective consciousness because it imprisons perceptions within parameters that are increasingly false or unhelpful.
“由于我们……是自己所挑选的词语的囚徒，因此我们得好好遣词，”意大利政治学家乔万尼?萨托利(Giovanni Sartori)如此说道。“新兴市场”这个表述自上世纪80年代出炉以来，在很长一段时间内似乎很贴切，人们很喜欢用它来描述地球上相当大一部分地区。随着世界发展变化，这个词逐渐失去了其对世人集体意识的影响力，因为它把人们的观感桎梏在日益虚假或无益的参数中。
For one thing, several “emerging markets” — particularly recession-hit Brazil and Russia — are no longer emerging in an economic sense but rather regressing at a rapid clip. For another, the sense of equivalence that the term bestows on the countries under its umbrella is entirely bogus. Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Taiwan all boast a gross domestic product per capita that is higher than that of the UK, but find themselves occupying the same definitional space as India, the Philippines and Indonesia.
比如，数个“新兴市场”——尤其是受到经济衰退打击的巴西和俄罗斯——在经济意义上已经不再崛起，反而是在快速倒退。再比如，这个词赋予其群体内所有经济体的“均等感”完全是虚假的。卡塔尔、阿联酋和台湾地区都拥有比英国更高的人均国内生产总值(GDP)，但它们发现自己与印度、菲律宾和印尼处于同一个定义空间。
Most of all though, the longstanding hierarchy that put “emerging markets” at the periphery and “developed markets” at the core of global affairs may be unravelling. In purchasing power parity terms, developed countries contribute less to global output than their emerging counterparts, after their share of world GDP dwindled to 43 per cent in 2014 from 54 per cent in 2004.
但最重要的是，长期以来在全球事务中把“新兴市场”置于外围、把“发达市场”置于核心的等级体系也许正在解体。按购买力平价计算，发达国家对全球产出的贡献已经少于新兴经济体的贡献，占世界GDP的比重从2004年的54%降至2014年的43%。
Such inconsistencies not only make for a flawed definition that can misdirect analysis and entrench prejudice, they also exert a deleterious impact on portfolio investment returns. The collection of emerging market stock and bond indices that have grown up over the past three decades influence how fund managers in the west allocate their money. Because their performance is judged against the dominant index in their asset class, such managers generally try to invest in most or all of the assets included in the index. In emerging markets, this presents problems; several of the key indices pool a jumble of incongruous assets with wildly different risk profiles. For example, although 70 to 90 per cent of the JPMorgan EMBI, CEMBI, GBI-EM and ELMI+ are composed of investment grade bonds, the remainder in the words of Peter Marber, fund manager at Loomis Sayles, are “garbage”. Thus a fund manager who tries to mirror any of these indices is in effect being invited to add junk to his portfolio.
这种不一致不仅造成有缺陷的定义，进而误导分析，固化偏见，而且会对投资组合的回报产生有害影响。过去30年里逐渐发展起来的新兴市场股票和债券指数，影响着西方基金经理配置资金的方式。由于他们的表现是根据所在资产类别的主要指数来评定的，这些经理一般会试图投资于指数所含的多数甚至全部资产。这种做法在新兴市场带来问题，因为多个关键指数只是把一些不协调的、风险状况大相径庭的资产拼凑在一起。举例来说，摩根大通(JPMorgan) EMBI，CEMBI，GBI-EM和ELMI+指数虽然70%至90%由投资级债券构成，但是借用Loomis Sayles基金经理彼德?马伯尔(Peter Marber)的话来说，其余标的资产都是“垃圾”。因此，试图以这些指数中的任何一个为参照的基金经理，实际上是被邀请往他的投资组合添加垃圾。
Over the next two weeks, the Financial Times will publish alternatives to the “emerging markets” definition and host a debate on which of these seems most helpful. It would be foolish to prejudge that debate, but it may transpire that no single term can encapsulate the diversity of 152 countries identified by the International Monetary Fund as “emerging and developing economies”.
今后两周，英国《金融时报》将发表“新兴市场”这一定义的几个替代词语，并主持一场辩论，看哪一个定义最有帮助。提前评判这场辩论将是愚蠢的，但可能出现的情况是，没有一个表述足以概括被国际货币基金组织(IMF)认定为“新兴和发展中经济体”的152个国家的多样性。
People are likely to perceive different characteristics according to their perspectives. A development economist might think, for example, that key criteria should include per capita GDP, educational coverage, health indices and the diversity of a country’s economic base. A fund manager would think that the access of international capital to a country’s financial markets is key. A strategist at a multinational company may think that a country’s openness to direct investment combined with its position on competitiveness rankings and corruption tables would be important determinants.
人们可能从自己的视角出发而特别注意某些特性。比如发展经济学家可能会认为，关键标准应当包括人均GDP、教育普及度、健康指数以及一个国家经济基础的多样性。基金经理会认为，国际资本进入一国金融市场的能力是关键。跨国公司的策略师可能会认为，一个国家对直接投资的开放程度，加上其在竞争力和清廉榜单上的排名，将是重要的决定因素。
All this remains to be decided. At this stage it is becoming increasingly evident that the term “emerging markets” is less and less helpful. It should be scrapped, thus freeing us to imagine a more nuanced matrix through which to understand the world.
一切都有待定夺。就现阶段而言，越来越明显的是“新兴市场”这个表述已越来越不合用。不如放弃它，以释放我们的想象力，让我们构思一个更为精细的模型，通过它来理解世界。