华尔街卷土重来

Investment banks
投资银行

Wall Street is back
华尔街卷土重来

American investment banks dominate global finance once more. That's not necessarily good for America
美国投资银行再次主导全球金融市场未必是好事

May 11th 2013 |From the print edition

FOR a few tense weeks in 2008, as investment-bank executives huddled  behind the imposing doors of the New York Federal Reserve, Wall Street  seemed to be collapsing around them. Lehman Brothers filed for  bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch collapsed into the arms of Bank of America.  American International Group (AIG) and Citigroup had to be bailed out  and the rot seemed to be spreading. Hank Paulson, the treasury secretary  at the time, recalled in his memoir that: “Lose Morgan Stanley and  Goldman Sachs would be next in line—if they fell the financial system  might vaporise.”

在2008年那几周惊心动魄的日子里，正当投资银行高管们在纽约联邦储备银行的大门后挤成一团之时，四周的华尔街似乎正在分崩离析。雷曼兄弟破产了，美林 落入了美银的掌控之中，美国国际集团（AIG）和花旗集团被迫接受了政府的救助，到处都在散发着死尸的气味。时任美国财长亨利·保尔森在回忆录中写道： “接下来将是摩根士丹利，然后是高盛——如果它们倒了，金融系统将灰飞烟灭。”

Across the Atlantic, European politicians saw this as the timely  comeuppance of American capitalism. Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor,  blamed her peers in Washington for not having regulated banks and hedge  funds more rigorously. European banks saw the crisis as their chance to  get one up on the American banks that had long dominated international  finance. Barclays quickly pounced on the carcass of Lehman Brothers,  buying its American operations in what Bob Diamond, the head of its  investment bank at the time, called “an incredible opportunity” to gain  entry to the American market. Deutsche Bank, a German giant, also  expanded to take market share from American rivals. The dominance that  American firms had long exerted over global capital markets seemed to  have come to an abrupt end.

在大西洋彼岸，欧洲政客们把这次危机看做是对美式资本主义的及时惩罚，德国总理默克尔指责华盛顿同行未对银行和对冲基金实施更加严厉的监管；银行家们把危 机看成是掀翻长期主宰国际资本市场的美国银行的机会。巴克莱银行二话没说就扑向雷曼兄弟的尸体，按照该银行时任总裁鲍勃·戴蒙德的说法，它们利用“一次令 人难以置信的机会”将雷曼的美国业务收入囊中，从而获准进入美国市场。德国巨头德意志银行也通过从美国对手那里收购市场份额实现了扩张。美国银行长期以来 在全球资本市场上那种呼风唤雨的作用似乎在一夜之间哑然而止。

Almost five years on it is Europe's banks that are on their knees and  Wall Street that is resurgent. Switzerland's two biggest banks, UBS and  Credit Suisse, which were expanding fast before the crisis, are still  shedding assets. Royal Bank of Scotland, which for a brief time broke  into the ranks of the world's ten-biggest investment banks, remains a  ward of the British government. The share of the investment-banking  market held by European banks has slumped by a fifth since the crisis  (see our special report), with many of the gains going to Wall Street's  surviving behemoths. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup alone  account for a third of the industry's revenues. Two European outfits,  Barclays and Deutsche Bank, have managed to share in some of these  spoils since the crisis. Both, however, face hostile regulations at home  and abroad that seem likely to crimp their global ambitions. And  although HSBC has increased its share of some investment-banking  markets, it is still well behind Wall Street's titans.

如今，这一幕已经过去将近五年，俯首称臣的依旧是欧洲银行，而华尔街已经东山再起。危机前快速扩张的两家瑞士大银行——瑞士银行和瑞士信贷银行仍在剥离资 产，曾短暂跻身全球十大投行之列的苏格兰皇家银行仍处在英国政府的监护之下。自危机爆发后，欧洲投行的市场份额已经缩水五分之一，市场的大部分利润都被幸 存的华尔街大鳄赚走，其中仅摩根大通、高盛和花旗集团的收入就占到该行业总收入的三分之一。两家欧洲大银行——巴克莱银行和德意志银行一直试图分享一些危 机战利品。但是，这两家银行都面临着来自国内外的敌意监管，而这些敌意监管似乎有可能让他们的全球野心受挫。虽说汇丰银行在部分投行市场中的份额有所增 长，但是它仍然远远地落在华尔街巨头的身后。

What America got right
美国赢在何处

The industry over which Wall Street is reasserting itself is very  different from the one it dominated half a decade ago. Revenues globally  have fallen by about $100 billion, or almost a third. Employment has  plunged, with London alone shedding 100,000 jobs. Pay has fallen too.  Higher capital requirements and other regulations, including America's  absurdly complicated (and still unfinished) Dodd-Frank act, are likely  to erode the profitability of the industry. The stellar returns earned  by banks before the crisis and the massive rewards paid to their  employees are unlikely to recur soon, if at all.

同五年前由华尔街掌舵时相比，如今这个他们再度取得发言权的行业已经发生了天翻地覆的变化。投资银行的全球总收入已经减少了近三分之一，约为1000亿美 元。从业人数大幅下滑，其中仅伦敦一地就失去了10000个工作岗位。工资水平同样难以幸免。更高的资本金要求以及其他一些监管措施，可能会侵蚀这一行业 的盈利能力，包括尚未完成的既荒唐又复杂的多德-弗兰克法案。银行在危机前赚取巨额利润和给员工发放大笔奖金的情况可能再也不会出现。

One of the reasons that American banks are doing better is that they  took the pain, and dealt with it, faster. The American authorities acted  quickly, making their banks write down bad debts and rapidly raise more  capital. Those that proved unwilling or unable, and even those, like  Goldman, that claimed they didn't need it were force-fed additional  capital. As a result America's big banks have been able to return to  profitability, pay back the government and support lending in the  economy. This has helped them contribute to an economic revival that in  turn is holding down bad debts.

美国银行之所以表现突出，原因之一是他们承认失败和应对失败的速度比别人都快。危机发生后，美国当局反应迅速，他们一边让银行减记坏账，一边让他们以极快 的速度筹集了更多的资本金。那些不愿这样做或者没有能力这样做的银行，甚至那些像高盛一样宣称他们不需要救助的银行，被迫接受了筹集额外资本金的要求。结 果，美国大银行始终都具备恢复盈利能力、偿还政府救助资金和在经济活动中提供贷款支持的能力。这有助于他们为经济复苏做出贡献，而经济的复苏反过来又在减 少他们的坏账。

European banks, in contrast, are continuing to  and limp along with  insufficient capital. Citigroup alone has flushed through $143 billion  of loan losses; no euro-zone bank has set aside more than $30 billion.  Deutsche Bank, which had insisted it did not need more equity, has at  last faced reality and is raising almost €3 billion ($4 billion).

相比之下，欧洲银行仍在持续缩减他们的资产负债表，仍在资本金不充足的情况下蹒跚前行。仅花旗集团一家就冲销了1430亿美元的贷款损失；在欧元区内，没 有一家银行减记的不良贷款超过300亿美元。此前坚称不需要更多权益资本的德意志银行到头来只得面对现实，他们正在筹集将近30亿欧元（合40亿美元）的 资本金。

What Europe got right
欧洲胜在哪里

European regulators have also contributed to their banks’ decline, in  two ways. First, they are specifying how much banks can pay in bonuses  relative to base pay. Second, they are trying to force banks to hold  more capital and to make it easier to allow them to fail by, for  instance, separating their retail deposits from their wholesale  businesses.

欧洲银行的衰落也有欧洲监管方的“功劳”。这表现在两个方面：一，他们对银行可以发放的相对于底薪的奖金数额制定了明确的要求。二，他们不仅试图强制银行持有更多的资本金，而且还通过将零售存款从批发业务中分离出来等规定放松了对银行倒闭的要求。

The first approach is foolish. It will drive up the fixed costs of  Europe's banks and reduce their flexibility to cut expenses in  downturns. They will therefore struggle to compete in America or  fast-growing Asian markets with foreign rivals that have the freedom to  pay the going rate for talent. The second approach is sensible.  Switzerland and Britain are making progress in ending the implicit  taxpayer subsidy that supports banks that are too big to fail. The  collapse of Ireland's economy is warning enough of what happens when  governments feel compelled to bail out banks that dwarf their economies.

第一种做法是愚蠢的行为，它将提高欧洲银行的固定成本，降低他们在衰退时期消减开支的灵活性。因此，在同美国市场和快速增长的亚洲市场中那些能够自由地以 现行利率为人才支付薪水的对手进行竞争时，欧洲银行将出于不利的地位。第二种做法是明智的行为。支撑那些“大到不能倒”的银行的是隐形纳税人补贴，瑞士和 英国在解决这个问题上已经取得了一些进展。当政府认为他们拯救那些造成经济萎缩的银行的行为是迫于压力时会发生什么事情？对此，爱尔兰经济的崩溃给我们足 够的警示。

Some European bankers argue that the continent needs investment-banking  champions. Yet it is not obvious that European firms or taxpayers gain  from having national banks that are good at packaging and selling  American subprime loans. Indeed, it is American taxpayers and investors  who should worry about the dominance of a few Wall Street firms. They  bear the main risk of future bail-outs. They would benefit from greater  competition in investment banking. IPO fees are much higher in America  than elsewhere (7% v 4%), mainly because the market is dominated by a  few big investment banks.

一些欧洲银行家认为，欧洲大陆需要投资银行大鳄。然而，欧洲企业或投资者从建立擅于打包出售美国次级抵押贷款的全国性银行的行动中收获什么并不明显。实际 上，反而是美国纳税人和投资者应当对那几家在华尔街呼风唤雨的公司保持警惕，他们是未来救助行动的主要风险所在。他们可能会得益于投行界的更多竞争。美国 的IPO费用比其他任何地区都要高出许多（7%v4%），这主要是因为美国市场已被几个投行大鳄所霸占。

Wall Street's new titans say they are already penalised by new  international rules that insist they have somewhat bigger capital  buffers than smaller banks because they pose a greater risk to economies  if they fail. Yet the huge economies of scale and implicit subsidies  from being too big to fail more than offset the cost of the buffers.  Increasing the capital surcharges for big banks would do more for the  stability of the financial system than the thicket of Dodd-Frank rules  ever will.

华尔街那些崭露头角的大佬们说，他们早已接受按照坚持要求他们持有更多缓冲资本的国际新规则对自己进行了整改，这些国际新规则之所以这样做，是因为大银行 倒闭时对经济的冲击要大于小银行。不过，巨大的规模效应和因大到不能到而获得的隐形补贴大大抵消了他们的缓冲成本。同将要实施的错综复杂的多德-弗兰克规 则的相比，提高大银行的资本附加费更有利于金融系统的稳定。

Five years on from the frightening summer of 2008, America's big banks  are back, and that is a good thing. But there are still things that  could make Wall Street safer.

2008年那个令人心悸的夏天已经过去了五年。如今，美国大银行又卷土重来，这是一件好事情。但是，要想让华尔街变得更安全，还有许多事情等着我们去做。