The function of capital markets is to facilitate an exchange of funds among all participants, and yet in practice we find that certain participants are not on a par with others. Members of society have varying degrees of market strength in terms of information they bring to a transaction, as well as of purchasing power and creditworthiness, as defined by lenders.
For example, within minority communities, capital markets do not properly fulfill their functions; they do not provide access to the aggregate flow of funds in the United States. The financial system does not generate the credit or investment vehicles needed for underwriting economic development in minority areas. The problem underlying this dysfunction is found in a rationing mechanism affecting both the available alternatives for investment and the amount of financial resources.This creates a distributive mechanism penalizing members of minority groups because of their socioeconomic differences from others. The existing system expresses definite socially based investment preferences that result from the previous allocation of income and that influence the allocation of resources for the present and future. The system tends to increase the inequality of income distribution. And, in the United States economy, a greater inequality of income distribution leads to a greater concentration of capital in certain types of investment.
Most traditional financial-market analysis studies ignore financial markets’ deficiencies in allocation because of analysts’ inherent preferences for the simple model of perfect competition. Conventional financial analysis pays limited attention to issues of market structure and dynamics, relative costs of information, and problems of income distribution. Market participants are viewed as acting as entirely independent and homogeneous individuals with perfect foresight about capital-market behavior. Also, it is assumed that each individual in the community at large has the same access to the market and the same opportunity to transact and to express the preference appropriate to his or her individual interest. Moreover, it is assumed that transaction costs for various types of financial instruments (stocks, bonds, etc.) are equally known and equally divided among all community members.
1，第一段的最后一句话:Members of society have varying degrees of market strength in terms of information they bring to a transaction, as well as ofpurchasing power and creditworthiness, as defined by lenders.
划线的部分是什么意思；蓝色的of应该和前面的哪一个of对应；as defined by lenders是什么意思，as在这里怎么理解？
2，the credit or investment vehicles 是（the credit or investment） vehicles 还是（the credit） or（ investment vehicles ），到底是什么意思。
3，a rationing mechanism affecting both the available alternatives for investment and the amount of financial resources. 是什么意思。4，This指代谁？不是语法上不允许this单独指代吗？作者: lly72823 时间: 2004-8-22 12:25
Members of society have varying degrees of market strength in terms of information they bring to a transaction, as well as ofpurchasing power and creditworthiness, as defined by lenders.蓝色of和红色of平行. as defined by lenders指的是购买力和信用这两个概念正如由金融机构(贷款人)定义的那样从他们向一项交易提供信息(的多寡),以及,如金融机构所定义的那样,购买力和信用(的不同)来讲,社会成员所拥有的市场力量不尽相同the credit or investment vehicles 是（the credit or investment） vehicles 还是（the credit） or（ investment vehicles ），到底是什么意思。指的是信用和投资工具,（the credit） or（ investment vehicles ）The problem underlying this dysfunction is found in a rationing mechanism affecting both the available alternatives for investment and the amount of financial resources. 这种运作失常所带来的问题在于配额机制影响了现有的各种投资形式以及融资金额this指上述情况GG凑合着看看吧.
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
