????傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，中國對美國銀行不構(gòu)成太多的直接風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。沒錯(cuò)，如果中國爆發(fā)金融危機(jī)或者陷入衰退（考慮到中國經(jīng)濟(jì)最近的年增長率仍然保持在7%，這一幕不會(huì)很快來臨），那將對全球經(jīng)濟(jì)造成嚴(yán)重傷害。美國銀行和美國經(jīng)濟(jì)將會(huì)感受到這種沖擊。但從對華直接風(fēng)險(xiǎn)敞口的角度來講，美國銀行目前并不會(huì)面臨巨虧的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

????根據(jù)債務(wù)評級機(jī)構(gòu)惠譽(yù)公司(Fitch)上周發(fā)布的一份報(bào)告，美國銀行對華直接貸款共計(jì)830億美元。相對于美國銀行業(yè)的規(guī)模，這并不是一個(gè)大數(shù)目。比如，僅摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)一家銀行的貸款總額就超過7,000億美元。整個(gè)美國銀行業(yè)擁有近15萬億美元的資產(chǎn)。對于美國銀行來說，中國的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)權(quán)重依然不算大。

????但這種狀況似乎正在發(fā)生改變。一年前，由于擔(dān)心信貸泡沫，中國政府大幅提高了國內(nèi)利率，減緩國內(nèi)銀行的貸款速度。這就使得中美之間產(chǎn)生一個(gè)巨大的利率差：美國的短期銀行同業(yè)貸款利率大約為 0.50% ，而中國的短期銀行貸款利率則高達(dá)5%。

????由此看來，如果一家機(jī)構(gòu)從美國和歐洲借款，然后在中國放貸，它就很容易賺到錢。一段時(shí)間以來，這種交易一直在增長，但直到最近才引起關(guān)注。它有一定的危險(xiǎn)性，至少對美國銀行系統(tǒng)而言。

????過去一周左右的時(shí)間里，一些大銀行一直在追查它們是否卷入了一起融資騙貸欺詐案：中國青島港一家大宗商品交易公司向多位貸款人提供同一抵押品。這起案件已經(jīng)揭示了一個(gè)事實(shí)——中國公司為獲取利差收益而從海外借入的很大一部分資金是以大宗商品作為抵押品的貸款。

????高盛公司(Goldman Sachs)估計(jì)，過去4年來，大宗商品支持貸款已經(jīng)導(dǎo)致1,100億美元的外幣涌入中國經(jīng)濟(jì)，這筆資金約占中國同期新增短期債務(wù)總額的三分之一。

????花旗集團(tuán)(Citigroup)似乎是唯一一家淪為青島港欺詐案犧牲品的美國大型銀行。但大多數(shù)美國大銀行都在從事大宗商品支持的貸款業(yè)務(wù)，而且最近越做越大。據(jù)彭博社(Bloomberg)報(bào)道，全球銀行去年向大宗商品類企業(yè)發(fā)放了共計(jì)6,870億美元貸款，盡管其中許多貸款直接發(fā)放給了公司，并且是用原材料擔(dān)保的。摩根大通是向海外發(fā)放貸款最多的美國貸款人，貸款金額為579億美元；其次是富國銀行(Wells Fargo)，貸款金額為470億美元。

????惠譽(yù)和其他評級機(jī)構(gòu)在估算美國銀行系統(tǒng)的對華風(fēng)險(xiǎn)敞口時(shí)或許沒有考慮這些貸款中的很大一部分。比如，大宗商品支持貸款有時(shí)候被結(jié)構(gòu)化為衍生工具或掉期交易?；葑u(yù)表示，它的美國銀行系統(tǒng)對華貸款預(yù)測值并沒有把衍生工具和信用擔(dān)保計(jì)算在內(nèi)。

????The conventional wisdom is that China doesn’t hold much direct risk for U.S. banks. Sure, if China were to have a financial crisis, and if it were to fall into recession — a long way to go, considering its recent annual growth of 7% — that would do serious damage to the global economy. American banks and the U.S. economy would feel that. But in terms of direct exposure to China, U.S. banks don’t stand to lose a lot.

????According to a report last week from debt rating agency Fitch, U.S. banks have a collective $83 billion in direct loan exposure to China. That isn’t very much in the scope of the U.S. banking sector. JPMorgan Chase JPM 0.00% , alone, for instance, has over $700 billion in total loans. The entire U.S. banking sector has nearly $15 trillion in assets. For U.S. banks, China is still not that big of deal.

????That appears to be changing, though. Fearing a credit bubble, a year ago, Chinese authorities sharply raised domestic interest rates to slow lending made by local banks. That opened up a huge gap between U.S. interest rates, which are around 0.50% for short-term interbank loans, and Chinese interest rates, which are 5% for short-term banks loans.

????And so it appears there is easy money to be made borrowing money from the U.S. and Europe, and lending it in China. The trade’s been growing for a while, but it has attracted attention lately. And it’s a bit dicey, at least for the U.S. banks.

????In the last week or so, a number of large banks have been trying to figure out if they were taken in a loan fraud scheme in which a Chinese commodities trading firm in the port of Qingdao pledged the same collateral to a number of lenders. The scheme has shed light on the fact that a large portion of the overseas lending that Chinese companies are doing to capture the interest rate spread has been with loans collateralized with commodities.

????Goldman Sachs estimates that commodities-based lending has resulted in an inflow of $110 billion of foreign currency into the Chinese economy in the past four years, or about a third of all new short-term debt in China in that time.

????Citigroup C -1.41% appears to be the only large U.S. bank that has fallen victim to the Qingdao fraud. But most large U.S. banks make commodities-based loans, and the practice has been growing recently. Last year, banks around the world lent $687 billion to commodities-based businesses, according to Bloomberg, though much of those loans were made directly to the companies and secured by raw materials. JPMorgan was the top U.S. lender worldwide, at $57 billion, followed by Wells Fargo WFC 0.37% , which gave out $47 billion.

????Many of these loans might not be factored in the estimates that Fitch and others have put together to calculate U.S. banks’ exposure to China. For instance, sometimes commodities loans are structured as derivatives or swaps. Fitch says its China loan estimates do not factor in derivatives or guarantees.