Digicel通过向缺乏生气、毫无竞争力的市场中引进现代技术和创新服务来发展壮大自己。公司进入牙买加后，引起了价格的急剧下降，也向该地区展示了利用自由化能够创造多少收入。Digicel在海地也打出了同样的牌。“我们把价格降到最低，为人们提供更好的服务。”O'Brien这样说。基于充值卡的预付费账单可以让那些不是商业或政界精英的人们也用得起手机。Digicel还使用了自己开发的新方法，如向其他人发送“给我打电话”的免费短信。

但是有的分析家认为，该公司的快速发展可能已经到了顶点。随着拉美经济增长的减缓，拉美的运营商到加勒比海和中美洲地区寻找新市场，于是竞争加剧。特别是世界第五大移动运营商América Móvil 8月份宣布，将收购一家在MiPhone旗下运营的牙买加小电话公司——海洋数字。América Móvil在墨西哥、巴西、哥伦比亚和美国拥有1.4亿的用户，牙买加将成为其第三个加勒比海地区的市场，而且该公司已经开始在波多黎各和多米尼加共和国运营。像Digicel一样，它依靠的是强大的品牌、现代化的技术和关税削减价格。

Digicel开始在萨尔瓦多运营后，América Móvil的举动就更像是报复性的了。Digicel也已经在危地马拉取得了许可证，并称接下来的目标是洪都拉斯、尼加拉瓜和巴拿马。在牙买加展开的价格战可能对英国公司Cable & Wireless不利，该公司在加勒比地区运营着数个网络。公司希望，其提供固定和无线服务的能力可以成为一个优势。不管最后是否能够如愿以偿，用户都可以从扩大的竞争中获得好处。

Digicel的批评者称，它使用了一些阴险的伎俩，比如给记者提供免费电话、将海地视为牙买加的一部分，从而提供廉价的漫游费，这样就打破了行业规则。海地的监管员Conatel发现，Digicel违反了国际标准，但是政府驳回了这一指责。这类裁定还导致了关于Digicel在一些市场中有不恰当的政治影响力的指控。

但是官员们否定了上述言论，并且称赞Digicel使得海地的贫民可以进入这个市场。“海地需要更多像它这样的国外投资，这样对就业或‘最好的’商业模式都有好处，从而为陈旧、不尊重顾客的商业氛围注入新的活力。”海地一位资深官员说道。





TEXT THREE


On November 4th Chuck Prince left the boss's office at Citigroup, the world's largest bank. A week earlier, Stan O'Neal lost his job at Merrill Lynch after leading the investment bank to a loss with $8.4 billion of write-downs. However churlish you may feel about Wall Street's new axiom—“the higher they fly, the bigger the parachute”—the departure of two of America's most senior bankers in a week is a good sign. Accountability, after all, is a step towards clarity, and there are few more coveted resources in today's fog-strewn and stormy banking industry. Both departures were accompanied by revelations of much steeper losses from American subprime mortgages than either Citi or Merrill had owned up to just weeks before. That attempt at honesty may have spooked the market because it showed how unsure the banks remain about how to value their subprime-related assets, but that is no reason to shy away from such disclosures.

Coming clean will be difficult, because for the time being the disclosures have provided more questions than answers. First, just how much do banks stand to lose? The latest confessions show that a whole new constellation of credit instruments, known as collateralised-debt obligations (CDOs), are far less secure than had been assumed even at the end of September. These include supposedly impregnable “super-senior” and AAA-rated tranches of CDOs that a short time ago were prized by the world's banks, insurance companies and mutual funds. In some cases their values have shrunk to a sliver of their original price since a series of downgrades by rating agencies last month. Citi, one of the biggest issuers of such CDOs, estimated this week that the losses on CDOs and other assets at other banks could reach $64 billion—to which its own potential write-downs must be added.

Second, do banks have enough capital to survive the crisis? At some institutions, mounting losses are making the cushions of capital held for times of crisis look increasingly threadbare. Wall Street firms and European banks use a special accounting provision for securities they consider hardest to value, which appears mainly to involve educated guesswork. On Wall Street the amount of securities in this category has ballooned and could easily wipe out the big firms' core capital if they were written down to zero—which is improbable but no longer thought impossible. To make matters worse, bond insurers, which rate America's $2.5 trillion municipal-bond market, are also up to their necks in CDOs. They were told this week that they might lose their coveted AAA ratings unless their shareholders provide more capital, which would cast a cloud over municipal bonds.

Third, how hard might the broader economy be hit? The flimsier the banks' capital base, the less freely they can lend to firms and households, putting both consumer spending and corporate investment at risk. Already there is evidence that credit conditions are tightening well beyond the housing market. A survey this week found that American banks have been tightening lending standards on everything from mortgages to commercial property to business and industrial loans. In Europe, too, credit conditions have tightened. In Britain the withdrawal of a bid for J. Sainsbury, a supermarket chain, by a Qatari-backed investment group was the latest sign that life has almost been squeezed out of the buy-out business.

1. Chuck Prince left the boss's office at Citigroup probably because _____.

[A] he was afraid that he was unable to prevent the company from continuing steeper losses

[B] he found there were few more coveted resources in banking industry

[C] he had already led Citigroup into enormous losses

[D] he was forced to leave the position because of poor management

2. Wall Street's new axiom—“the higher they fly, the bigger the parachute” means that _____.

[A] the higher the bankers' position, the bigger loss they will make

[B] the higher the bankers' position, the more influential their backstage bosses

[C] the higher the bankers' position, the safer they will be

[D] the higher the bankers' position, the more risks they will face

3. Which one of the following statements is TRUE of CDOs?

[A] “Super-senior” and AAA-rated tranches of CDOs were affected the most.

[B] It was CDOs that played the major role of Citi's tremendous losses.

[C] The earlier expectation far exceeded the actual security of CDOs.

[D] CDOs led to the devaluation of many companies in banking industry.

4. The author thinks the special accounting provision for the hardest securities adopted by Wall Street firms and European banks _____.

[A] is mainly composed of various speculations

[B] is based on unreliable experience

[C] is a trick played around by educated accountants

[D] has big problems that threaten to swallow big companies' core capital

5. By the abortion of the bid for J. Sainsbury, the author intends to imply that _____.

[A] foreign investment group has smelled the danger of investing in America

[B] the other business is also affected by the impact of American subprime mortgages event

[C] Europe's credit conditions are also facing great danger as affected by American subprime mortgages event

[D] credit conditions in Europe have also tightened





文章剖析


这篇文章主要介绍了银行业目前面临的危机。第一段讲述银行业现在正在面临审查；第二、第三和第四段讲述要弄清事实存在许多困难，文章从三个方面进行了叙述：首先，银行可以承受多少损失？其次，银行是否有足够的资金度过这次危机？第三，更广意义上的经济会遭受什么程度的打击？





词汇注释


churlish adj. 难驾驭的

axiom n. 公理

covet v. 垂涎

own up 承认

spook v. 吓唬

collateralise vt. 以…做抵押担保

impregnable adj. 不受影响的

tranche n.（债券等的）一股，一份

cushion n. 积储

flimsy adj. 脆弱的





难句突破


① Both departures were accompanied by revelations of much steeper losses from American subprime mortgages than either Citi or Merrill had owned up to just weeks before.

主体句式：Both departures were accompanied by revelations...

结构分析：这是一个复合句，than引导了一个比较状语从句；own up to是一个短语，意为“坦白，承认”。

句子译文：伴随这两位银行家离职的是对美国次贷方面更大的损失的披露，其程度要比花旗和美林几周前公布的损失严重得多。

② On Wall Street the amount of securities in this category has ballooned and could easily wipe out the big firms' core capital if they were written down to zero—which is improbable but no longer thought impossible.

主体句式：The amount of securities has ballooned and could easily wipe out...

结构分析：这是一个复合句，句子包含两个谓语；if引导的是句子的条件状语从句；破折号后面的which引导的句子用来修饰they were written down to zero。

句子译文：在华尔街，这类证券的数量已经飞速增加，如果它们变成零，那么大公司的主要资产就都会被一笔抹掉，这在目前是不可能的，但是已经有人开始这么想了。





题目分析


1. Chuck Prince left the boss's office at Citigroup probably because _____.

[A] he was afraid that he was unable to prevent the company from continuing steeper losses

[B] he found there were few more coveted resources in banking industry

[C] he had already led Citigroup into enormous losses

[D] he was forced to leave the position because of poor management

1. Chuck Prince离开了花旗银行的总裁办公室，可能是因为 _____。

[A] 他担心自己不能够阻挡公司持续大幅损失的趋势

[B] 他发现银行业中没有什么值得垂涎的资源了

[C] 他已经使得花旗银行蒙受了巨大损失

[D] 由于管理较差，他被迫离开了这个职位

答案：C　难度系数：☆☆☆☆

分析：推理题。对于Chuck Prince的离职原因文章并没有直接提及，但第一段一直将他和Stan O'Neal相提并论，视为一个类型，那么可以推断，他也是使银行遭受了重大的损失。因此，只有选项C最为符合题意。

2. Wall Street's new axiom—“the higher they fly, the bigger the parachute” means that _____.

[A] the higher the bankers' position, the bigger loss they will make

[B] the higher the bankers' position, the more influential their backstage bosses

[C] the higher the bankers' position, the safer they will be

[D] the higher the bankers' position, the more risks they will face

2. 华尔街的新公理——“飞得越高，降落伞就越大”指的是 _____。

[A] 银行家地位越高，他们导致的损失就越大

[B] 银行家地位越高，他们的后台就越有影响力

[C] 银行家地位越高，他们就越安全

[D] 银行家地位越高，他们面临的风险就越大

答案：D　难度系数：☆☆

分析：推理题。第一段提到两位高管因为使银行的资产账面有巨大亏损而丢掉了工作，由此可以证明华尔街的新定理“飞得越高，降落伞就越大”。其实隐含的意思就是，飞得越高，那么你需要的安全保护设备就越高级，也就是说，职位越高，那么所要面临的风险也越大。因此，选项D最为符合题意。

3. Which one of the following statements is TRUE of CDOs?

[A] “Super-senior” and AAA-rated tranches of CDOs were affected the most.

[B] It was CDOs that played the major role of Citi's tremendous loss.

[C] The earlier expectation far exceeded the actual security of CDOs.

[D] CDOs led to the devaluation of many companies in banking industry.

3. 关于CDOs，下列哪项陈述是正确的？

[A] “资深”和3A级CDOs债券受到的影响最大。

[B] CDOs是使花旗银行蒙受巨大损失的主要原因。

[C] 早期人们对于CDOs的预期远远超过了其实际的安全程度。

[D] CDOs使得银行业中的许多公司都贬值了。

答案：C　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：细节题。选项A，根据第二段，原本宣扬抵押债务CDOs很安全，结果事实并非如此，连所谓的不会受影响的“资深”和3A级也受到了影响，但是文章并未说明其受影响最大；B，第二段指出花旗银行是CODs最大的发行者之一，它预测了可能的损失，但是并没有提到损失最严重；C，由第二段可以看出，CDOs远没有所宣称的那么安全，因此没有人们想象中的那么好。D，并非是CDOs导致它们贬值，而是整体的经济环境导致了评级机构进行降级处理。因此，只有C的陈述是正确的。

4. The author thinks the special accounting provision for the hardest securities adopted by Wall Street firms and European banks _____.

[A] is mainly composed of various speculations

[B] is based on unreliable experience

[C] is a trick played around by educated accountants

[D] has big problems that threaten to swallow big companies' core capital

4. 作者认为，华尔街的一些公司和欧洲的银行为最坚挺的证券采取的特殊会计条款 _____。

[A] 主要由各种投机买卖构成

[B] 基于不可靠的经验

[C] 是那些知识丰富的会计们玩弄的把戏

[D] 有很大的问题，甚至可能侵吞大公司的核心资产

答案：B　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：细节题。根据第四段，这些公司和银行采取这样的条款只是基于以往经验的一种猜测而已，因此，选项A并不是作者想要表达的观点。选项B是正确的，这些经验是不可靠的，不一定适用。选项C，文章中并没有提到这一点。选项D也是子虚乌有，在文中并没有明确的依据。因此，正确答案为B。

5. By the abortion of the bid for J. Sainsbury, the author intends to imply that _____.

[A] foreign investment group has smelled the danger of investing in America

[B] the other business is also affected by the impact of American subprime mortgages event

[C] Europe's credit conditions are also facing great danger as affected by American subprime mortgages event

[D] credit conditions in Europe have also tightened

5. 通过放弃对J. Sainsbury的投标，作者想要说明 _____。

[A] 外国投资集团已经嗅到了在美国投资的危险

[B] 其他行业也受到了美国次贷事件的影响

[C] 欧洲的信贷条件因为美国的次贷风波，也面临着巨大的危险

[D] 欧洲的信贷条件收紧了

答案：B　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：推理题。最后一段提到，一个卡塔尔的投资集团放弃了投标这家连锁超市，因此连所有权购买这样的业务都失去了生机。而最后一段要说明的主要问题是，更广范围的经济会遭受怎样的打击，而从这个事例可以看出，危机已经从金融界蔓延到了其他领域。因此，选项B是正确的。





参考译文


11月4日，Chuck Prince离开了世界最大的银行——花旗银行的总裁办公室。一个星期之前，Stan O'Neal丢掉了工作，因为在他的领导下，投资银行美林银行资产的账面价值亏损了840亿美元。不管你认为华尔街新的公理（“飞得越高，降落伞就越大”）有多么的难以理解，一周内这两位美国最资深银行家的离去就是最好的迹象。毕竟，审查是通往事实真相的一个步骤。在今天迷雾重重、多事之秋的银行业里已经没有什么更让人垂涎的资源了。伴随这两位银行家离职的是对美国次贷方面更大的损失的披露，其程度要比花旗和美林几周前公布的损失严重得多。而力图保持诚信的行动也让市场大吃一惊，因为这表明，银行根本不能确保它们与次贷相关的资产保值，但是也不得不披露这些事实。

弄清事实是有困难的，因为目前公布的情况提出了更多的问题而非提供了解决的方法。首先，银行可以承受多少损失？最新的公告显示，全新的信用工具组合，即抵押债务（CDOs）远没有9月底所宣称的那么安全。这包括宣称不受影响的“资深”和3A级CDOs债券，它们的级别是前不久由世界各地的银行、保险公司和共同基金评定的。但由于上个月一些评级机构的降级处理，一些债券的净值和原来的价格相比大大缩水了。花旗是这类CDOs最大的发行者之一，本周它预测，CDOs以及别的银行其他资产的损失可能要达到640亿美元，它自己可能出现的账面损失也算在其中了。

其次，银行有足够的资金度过这次危机吗？在一些机构里，不断增加的损失使得用于应付危机时刻的资金也显得捉襟见肘了。华尔街的公司和欧洲的银行对于那些他们认为最为坚挺的证券运用了特殊的会计条款，但这也只是基于凭以往经验的猜测而已。在华尔街，这类证券的数量已经飞速增加，如果它们变成零，那么大公司的主要资产就都会被一笔抹掉，这在目前是不可能的，但是已经有人开始这么想了。更为糟糕的是，债券保险公司占有美国2.5万亿的地方债券市场，目前却也深陷于CDOs的麻烦中。本周它们被告知有可能会失去3A评级，除非其股东能够提供更多的资金，这将给地方债券蒙上阴影。

第三，更广意义上的经济会遭受什么程度的打击？银行的资金基础越薄弱，就越难给公司和家庭提供贷款，由此，消费者消费和公司投资就都面临风险了。有迹象表明，信用状况的收紧已经超出了房地产市场的能力。本周的一项调查显示，美国银行已经收紧了借贷标准，从商业资产抵押贷款到商业和工业贷款都受到了影响。在欧洲，也实施了信贷紧缩政策。在英国，一个卡塔尔支持的投资集团放弃了J. Sainsbury（一家连锁超市）的投标就是最新的迹象——连购买所有权的业务也失去了生机。





TEXT FOUR


Chris Smith, coowner of a small bookshop in Canada, assumed his customers would remain loyal even as the rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar against its American counterpart made a mockery of the gap between the twin prices printed on the covers of American books. But when Mr. Smith asked a few regulars, he was shocked to find that they were going online to buy American books from retailers south of the border. In an effort to keep his existing trade, he now uses the much lower American figure as the Canadian price, even though this means selling American books at a loss.

At least this has moved Mr. Smith safely to the sidelines as angry Canadians rebel against paying higher prices for American goods now that the loonie has met and surpassed the value of the greenback. The Canadian dollar has been rising steadily against the American dollar since 2002, when it hit a historic low of about $0.62. But this year it has soared by almost 25%, owing to a combination of the American currency's weakness and the high prices of Canadian exports such as oil, gas and metals. Consumer grumbling became a roar when the gap between the two dollars closed in late September, making it easy for shoppers north of the border to see how much more they were paying.

Talk of hundreds of thousands of Canadians streaming south in search of bargains captured the headlines. Many went. But cross-border shopping is easier in theory than it is in practice. Canada has stringent limits on the amount shoppers can bring home without paying sales taxes and other duties. Headlights and bumpers on some American cars must be modified for use in Canada. And some firms refuse to honour warranties on imported goods. All this is too much for many shoppers, who have either turned on their local retailers and demanded immediate discounts, or turned to the Internet, where goods such as books are easy to buy. Canada Post, the state-owned postal service, has had to add extra shifts at its international mail-sorting centres as a result.

The government hopes that the reduction in January of the national goods and services tax from 6% to 5% will help, and Jim Flaherty, the finance minister, has called upon retailers to speed up price reductions. David Dodge, the central bank governor, was more nuanced in his comments, urging Canadians to shop around for the best deal, but also pointing out that prices will never be exactly the same on both sides of the border because there is less competition in Canada. State-owned liquor boards in many provinces, for example, have monopolies. When it comes to passing on currency savings, liquor boards are the worst offenders.