微博

ECO中文网

 找回密码
 立即注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

ECO中文网 门户 优秀译文推荐 社论 查看内容

[2013.05.11] 华尔街卷土重来

2013-5-17 08:53| 发布者: migmig| 查看: 11112| 评论: 12|原作者: danho

摘要: 美国投行再次占据全球金融主导地位, 对美国未必好。
投资银行

华尔街卷土重来

美国投行再次占据全球金融主导地位, 对美国未必好


May 11th 2013 | From the print edition

2008年投行高层挤在纽约联储局里的那几个月,华尔街摇摇欲坠。雷曼兄弟申请清盘;美林无力独支,被美国银行并购;美国国际集团和花旗集团被美国政府注资救市,即便如此灾难仍在蔓延。当年的财长保尔森在回忆录中写道”接下来就是摩根和高盛了,他们也倒下的话,金融系统就灰飞烟灭了”

大西洋另一面的政客认为这是美国式资本主义的报应。德国总理默克尔指责华盛顿对银行和对冲基金的管理太松了,欧洲的银行则视危为机欲籍此主导国际金融秩序。巴克莱迅速的扑向了雷曼兄弟的残骸,收购其美国业务,巴克莱当时投行负责人bod diamond称之为进入美国市场的”良机”。德国巨头德意志银行也在美国扩张其市场份额。美国长期的国际金融主导地位似乎将毁于一旦。

近五年来,欧洲银行举步为艰,华尔街日益复兴。危机前快速扩张的瑞士最大的两家银行瑞士银行和瑞士信贷现仍在剥离资产。曾一度挤身全球十大投行之列的苏格兰皇家银行,现仍处于英国政府的庇护之下。危机发生以来欧洲银行所占的投行市场份额下降了五分之一,大部分又被华尔街巨鳄吃回去了。仅摩根,高盛和花旗三家就占了全球份额的三分之一。巴克莱和德意志银行这两家欧洲的机构虽然在这次危机中占了点小便宜,但却由于本国和海外所面临的敌意监管导致其全球策略无法施展。汇丰的投行市场份额也有所增长但仍不能和华尔街巨头相提并论。

美国做了什么

华尔街再次主导的这个行业和五年前已经不同了,全球收入减少了近三分之一,约一千亿美元。工作机会也大大减少,仅伦敦就缩减了十万个职位。薪酬也缩水了。行业的盈利能力被更高的资本要求和其他监管法案所侵蚀,包括”多德-弗兰克法案“这样复杂得离谱的法案(其麻烦还未结束)。危机前那样的暴利和丰厚的薪资奖金再也没有了,至少近期是不可能了。

美国的银行之所以能够好起来,其中一个原因是他们承受了痛苦,并且较快地解决了它。美国政府反应迅速,让银行撇清坏账,快速筹资。那些不愿、不能甚至于像高盛这样声称不需的银行被强行注入资本。正因为这个,美国的大银行才得以能够恢复盈利,还钱给政府并继续向市场提供贷款。这使得他们为经济复苏做出了贡献,从而也降低了自身的坏账。

相反,欧洲的银行资产仍在继续缩水,不充足的资本使其难以前行。仅花旗一家就冲销了1430亿的贷款坏账,然而没有任何欧元区银行撇除过300亿以上的坏账。德意志银行曾一度声称资本充足,最后还是得面对现实,目前正在筹资约30亿欧元(40亿美元)

欧洲做了什么

欧洲的监管机构也对银行衰退出了些力,通过这样两个方法:一,他们规定银行员工的奖金上限不可超过薪资的某个比例。其次,他们强制要求银行拥有更多的资本,并通过要求银行将零售储蓄和批发银行业务分离等方法降低其倒闭时对经济的影响。

第一个方法非常愚蠢。这提高了欧洲银行的固定成本,使他们在市道不好的时候不能灵活的减少成本。美国和快速增长的亚洲地区的银行可以自主按市场行情支付员工,欧洲的银行必然需要艰难的与之竞争。第二个方法可以理解。有些银行规模大到不能倒。政府被逼进行银行紓困,但后果是什么?爱尔兰经济崩溃是一个很好的警示。所以瑞士和英国都已致力于停止对银行提供隐性财政补贴。

一些欧洲的银行家声称欧洲需要领导地位的投行。不过很难看出来一个擅长打包和销售美国次贷证卷的欧洲银行会给欧洲的商业或纳税人带来什么好处。实际上需要对华尔街巨头处于垄断地位担心的应该是美国人,是美国人的纳税人承担着下一轮银行紓困的风险。在美国公司上市的费用要比其他地方都高(7%对4%),主要是寡头垄断的原因,若能有更多的竞争,美国纳税人也会从中受益。

华尔街巨头说他们已经受到了惩罚,因为新的国际监管条例向他们提出了比小银行更高的资本缓冲要求,监管机构认为大行的倒闭对经济构成了巨大的风险。实际上大到不能倒给他们带来的规模效益和隐性补贴完全大于缓冲资本的成本。在保持金融系统稳定方面增收资本附加费远比多德弗兰克法案类似的条例要有效的多。

自2008年夏季危机爆发5年了,美国的大银行又回来了,这是好事。但是要想华尔街更安全,还有些事情要做。

鲜花

握手

雷人

路过

鸡蛋
发表评论

最新评论

引用 danho 2013-5-10 09:06
这篇文章很有趣,作者倾向鲜明的批评了欧洲,赞赏了华尔街,同时也提出了对美国监管的意见。

到目前为止 economist.com上本期文章中评论得最多的就是这篇。
评论的人很多,
大部分都不赞成作者的意见,指出了很多华尔街和美国监管的问题。。看来华尔街问题的苦主不少。。。
引用 herofrederick 2013-5-10 11:59
This has helped them contribute to an economic revival that in turn is holding down bad debts.
这使得他们为经济复苏做出了贡献,从而也降低了自身的坏账。
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.
应该是:其次,他们强制要求银行拥有更多的资本,并通过要求将零售储蓄和批发银行业务分离等方法使得银行更容易面临倒闭。
引用 danho 2013-5-10 21:42
herofrederick 发表于 2013-5-10 11:59
This has helped them contribute to an economic revival that in turn is holding down bad debts.
这使 ...

谢谢你的意见,
赞同你的译法,待收集更多的意见一并修改。
引用 discomize 2013-5-10 22:15
本帖最后由 discomize 于 2013-5-10 23:25 编辑

毁与一旦
毁于一旦

This has helped them contribute to an economic revival that in turn is holding down bad debts.
他们帮助了经济复苏,作为交换美国政府帮助他们承担了坏账
他们帮助经济恢复了活力,而后者反过来也帮他们减少了坏账。

has at last faced reality and is raising almost €3 billion
最后面对现实筹资30亿欧元(40亿美元)
最后还是得面对现实,目前正在筹集约30亿(40亿美元)欧元的资本金。

have the freedom to pay the going rate for talent.
可以自由的支付员工
可以自主按市场行情支付员工工资

Wall Street is back
华尔街回归
华尔街卷土重来
(更有气势...我是标题党)

FOR a few tense weeks in 2008
那几个月
那几周

Pay has fallen too.
利润降低。
薪酬也缩水了。

被更高的资本要求和其他监管法案所寝室
...侵蚀

and dealt with it, faster.
并且快速的解决了它。
并且较快地解决了它。
(应该是和欧洲比)

Those that proved unwilling or unable, and even those, like Goldman, that claimed they didn’t need it were force-fed additional capital.
那些不愿、不能甚至于像高盛这样声称不需的银行被强行注入资本。
那些不愿或无力增资的银行,甚至包括像高盛这样声称无需注资的银行也被强制注入了新的资本。

and to make it easier to allow them to fail by, for instance, separating their retail deposits from their wholesale businesses.
以便使银行更容易倒下。比如要求把零售储蓄从批发业务中分离出来。
并且通过分隔银行的零售业务和批发业务等措施,降低他们经营失败所带来的影响。
(让他们破产的时候不用那么痛苦--easier)

surcharges for big banks
对大银行

引用 northxian 2013-5-11 14:52
thanks for sharing!
引用 scetu11 2013-5-11 15:46
行业的盈利能力被更高的资本要求和其他监管法案所寝室侵蚀
传说中的错别字
引用 danho 2013-5-11 17:56
discomize 发表于 2013-5-10 22:15
毁与一旦
毁于一旦

This has helped them contribute to an economic revival that in turn is holding down bad debts.
他们帮助了经济复苏,作为交换美国政府帮助他们承担了坏账
他们帮助经济恢复了活力,而后者反过来也帮他们减少了坏账。

FOR a few tense weeks in 2008
那几个月
那几周


and to make it easier to allow them to fail by, for instance, separating their retail deposits from their wholesale businesses.
以便使银行更容易倒下。比如要求把零售储蓄从批发业务中分离出来。
并且通过分隔银行的零售业务和批发业务等措施,降低他们经营失败所带来的影响。
(让他们破产的时候不用那么痛苦--easier)

surcharges for big banks
对大银行

以上几点我的理解有所不同,其他照改了, thx.
引用 danho 2013-5-13 00:00
把不同的业务分拆不是为了其中一个倒掉的时候不会影响到另外的业务,从而对全局经济影响减小吗?

从常识上说政府让银行更容易倒闭有什么好处吗?增加资本金要求不就是为了让它们不那么容易倒吗? 

一个倒掉不会影响其他的,对全局经济影响就小一点。
增加资本金就是不容易倒了。
这两点确实听起来不错。政府当时的确这么考虑的才有此政策。
不过事后看来他们搞错了.
零售批发业务分离,致使批发业务的杠杆率急升,批发业务必倒。
批发业务倒闭后,会引起流动性担忧的恐慌,零售客户的挤兑,也会引发流动性枯竭,由此批发零售一起倒闭。影响并不会小。

增加资本金,通常就是发债,但是一个摇摇欲坠的银行去发债,必然需要很高的收益率才能有人买。
在ecb利率极低,市道不好的时候,发高收益率的债,无疑这大大提高了营运和资金成本。balance sheet会很难看,投资者或储户看到后,继续恐慌. 会快速引起流动性枯竭,变相自杀。
引用 elvissong 2013-5-13 10:35
danho 发表于 2013-5-11 17:56
This has helped them contribute to an economic revival that in turn is holding down bad debts.
他 ...

刚才看了你对这一句话的理解,也看了@discomize 给你的文章的点评,我不是学经济和金融的,偶学的是工科,对你分析的那些连锁反应不是太能理解。
但是我比较赞同@discomize的看法,我的翻译也是有问题的,从常识上说,政府的确不会想让银行更容易倒闭的;从上下文看,作者一直在提到一个“too big to fail”的概念,作者显然是不赞成银行规模太大的,因为规模大了,一但出现问题,必然对宏观经济造成影响,从而迫使政府出手相救。所以这句话的意思是,在批发和零售业务分开之后,如果他们在破产了就不会那么痛苦了。
下文提到,这个做法是“sensible”的,因为瑞士和英国政府已经试图取消对那些“too big to fail”的银行的补贴,可见这个做法是不希望继续存在这样的银行;再下一段,“Some European bankers argue that”,因为某些银行家不赞成政府这样的做法,所以才会argue,而argue的内容是认为银行业需要champion,他们认为银行需要做大。由此也可以看出,所谓的第二个做法,就是一面要求银行增加资本金从而降低自身风险,一面拆分银行业务以减小规模从而降低因破产给政府带来的风险。
所以,我比较赞成@discomize的翻译方法:并且通过分隔银行的零售业务和批发业务等措施,降低他们经营失败所带来的影响。
引用 fsz 2013-5-15 20:56
As a result America’s big banks have been able to return to profitability, pay back the government and support lending in the economy. 正因为这个,美国的大银行才得以能够恢复盈利,还钱给政府并继续向市场提供贷款。


试译为: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。

First, they are specifying how much banks can pay in bonuses relative to base pay.
一,他们规定银行员工的奖金上限不可超过薪资的某个比例。


试译为: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。

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.华尔街巨头说他们已经受到了惩罚,因为新的国际监管条例向他们提出了比小银行更高的资本缓冲要求,监管机构认为大行的倒闭对经济构成了巨大的风险。


简单分句好像说不清楚原文的意思。
试译为: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。
引用 fsz 2013-5-15 21:04
干脆把自己的译文贴出来,大家一块儿讨论。

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。
引用 danho 2013-5-16 00:44
@discomize 我被你说服了..

查看全部评论(12)

QQ|小黑屋|手机版|网站地图|关于我们|七月天| ECO中文网 ( 京ICP备06039041号  

GMT+8, 2022-5-28 06:44 , Processed in 0.074771 second(s), 27 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.3

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

返回顶部