And then there were none
投行之死

What the death of the investment bank means for Wall Street
投資銀行模式消失對(duì)華爾街來說意味著什么

THE radical overhaul of Britain’s financial sector in 1986 was dubbed the Big Bang. The brutal, unplanned reshaping of Wall Street might be better described as the Big Implosion. As if too ashamed to go on after the humbling of the country’s mortgage agencies and its largest insurer, the “bulge-bracket” brokerage model has collapsed in on itself. Even more humiliating for the erstwhile masters of the universe, the new force in finance is now the government.

1986年英國(guó)金融系統(tǒng)的大整頓被稱為”金融大爆炸”。而這次對(duì)華爾街進(jìn)行的殘酷而又無計(jì)劃的重塑應(yīng)該被稱為”金融大風(fēng)暴”。在繼美國(guó)最大的兩家抵押貸款機(jī)構(gòu)和最大的保險(xiǎn)商蒙羞受乳之后，華爾街的”頂級(jí)投行”的經(jīng)紀(jì)模式也似因連遭重創(chuàng)而無法運(yùn)行下去，只得轟然垮臺(tái)。對(duì)昔日的世界巨頭來說更丟臉的是, 如今金融市場(chǎng)的主導(dǎo)力量變成了美國(guó)政府。

The last remaining investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, were forced to seek sanctuary by converting into bank holding companies after the trampling of Lehman Brothers turned into a full-scale run on the industry. Though neither was particularly sickly, markets could no longer stomach their potentially lethal combination of illiquid assets and skittish wholesale liabilities.

碩果僅存的兩家投行–高盛和摩根斯坦利在雷曼垮臺(tái)后，尋求政府保護(hù)：允許其成為銀行控股公司從而能在市場(chǎng)上繼續(xù)保持原有規(guī)模運(yùn)作。盡管二者都不是完全陷入困境，但是市場(chǎng)對(duì)于其潛在的致命缺陷–非流動(dòng)資產(chǎn)和不可靠的大規(guī)模債務(wù)的模式已經(jīng)不再信任。

Both will now start gathering large amounts of deposits, a more stable form of funding. Signing up strong partners should also help. Mitsubishi UFJ, a giant Japanese bank, will buy up to 20% of Morgan. Late on Tuesday September 23rd Goldman went one better, coaxing $5 billion from Warren Buffett, an investing legend. This endorsement helped Goldman to raise a further $5 billion in a share offering the next day.

高盛和摩根斯坦利現(xiàn)在會(huì)去用吸收大量存款這種穩(wěn)定的模式來籌資。當(dāng)然，他們?nèi)缒芎蛷?qiáng)有力的伙伴合作，那么會(huì)對(duì)他們籌資有很大幫助。日本銀行巨頭三菱日聯(lián)銀行會(huì)購(gòu)入摩根斯坦利20％的股份。高盛做的更好，在周二（9月23日）晚些時(shí)候，它從傳奇投資人物巴菲特那里搞到50億美元。巴菲特的這個(gè)支持有助于高盛第二天從股票發(fā)行中再籌得50億美元。

Mr Buffett, no idle flatterer, describes Goldman as “exceptional”. But some doubt that it can adapt and thrive. As a bank it faces more intrusive supervision from the Federal Reserve, tougher capital requirements and restrictions on investing. Universal banks, such as Citigroup and Bank of America, long dismissed as stodgy, argue that their vast balance sheets and wide range of businesses, from cards to capital markets, give them an edge in trying times. The head of one bank suggests that the golden times enjoyed by investment banks in 2003-06 were an “aberration”, fuelled by a global liquidity glut big enough to hide a multitude of risk-taking sins.

巴菲特先生顯然不是無所事事的馬屁精，他將高盛描述為”異常出色”。但是有些人懷疑高盛是否能夠改革并再次興盛。作為一個(gè)銀行它將面臨美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)更多的監(jiān)管，更嚴(yán)格的資本儲(chǔ)備率和投資限制。長(zhǎng)期以來由于其古板頑固而失寵的綜合銀行，例如花旗和美國(guó)銀行，認(rèn)為他們資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表上充足的資本和從銀行卡到資本市場(chǎng)廣泛的業(yè)務(wù)，在困難時(shí)期給他們帶來許多優(yōu)勢(shì)。一家銀行的老板認(rèn)為，投資銀行在2003到06年間所享受的黃金時(shí)光是”不正常的”–由過剩的流動(dòng)性驅(qū)使而來，流動(dòng)性大到足以掩蓋諸多的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)過錯(cuò)。

Private-equity firms and hedge funds spy opportunity. The buyout barons got good news this week, when the Fed relaxed its rules on their ownership of banks. These investors are also going after the investment banks’ “talent”. Hedge funds will be particularly keen to get their hands on cutting-edge risk-takers who fret that new regulation will clip their wings.

私募股權(quán)公司和對(duì)沖基金正在伺機(jī)以動(dòng)。它們本周得到個(gè)好消息，美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)放松了這些收購(gòu)巨頭對(duì)銀行控股的限制。這些投資者正在追逐投行的”人才”。對(duì)沖基金將會(huì)對(duì)那些擔(dān)心自己被新規(guī)定束縛手腳的精英冒險(xiǎn)家們（譯者注：投行的人才）表現(xiàn)的格外熱情。

Power may shift in two other directions: abroad and, to a lesser extent, to boutique investment banks. Mitsubishi is not the only foreign bank making a move. After a brief wrangle in the bankruptcy courts, Britain’s Barclays has taken over Lehman’s American operations.

權(quán)力正在兩極分化：一是朝向海外，國(guó)際化方向聚集，另一個(gè)則是朝向小型專業(yè)投行聚集。三菱并不是唯一一個(gè)行動(dòng)的外資銀行。在破產(chǎn)法庭上簡(jiǎn)單爭(zhēng)執(zhí)之后，英國(guó)的巴克萊銀行收購(gòu)了雷曼美國(guó)的運(yùn)營(yíng)部門。

But all is not lost for the former investment banks. For one thing, they may not have to cut leverage by as much as feared. Though their overall leverage ratios are high, their risk-adjusted capital ratios under the Basel 2 rules are stronger than those of most commercial banks.

但是對(duì)于原來投行來說并不是所有都失去了。至少，他們不用減掉杠桿像原來擔(dān)心的那么多。盡管它們的全面杠桿比率很高，但在巴塞爾2協(xié)議下，他們的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)調(diào)節(jié)資本比率比絕大多數(shù)商業(yè)銀行都要好。

Moreover, there are some advantages to becoming a bank now. Dozens of regional lenders are expected to fail in the coming months. Goldman and Morgan should thus be able to amass deposits on the cheap, and without the headaches that would accompany a merger with a big commercial bank. As two of the sharpest distressed-debt investors, they will also be looking to pick up assets from the government’s giant loan-buying entity when it gets going.

此外，現(xiàn)在變?yōu)殂y行還有一些優(yōu)勢(shì)。許多地區(qū)性商業(yè)銀行在近期會(huì)倒閉。因此，高盛和摩根斯坦利就可以吸收大量便宜的存款，而不必頭痛要與一家大型商業(yè)銀行合并的事情了。作為兩家債券嚴(yán)重受損的投資者，它們也同樣希望在政府巨大的貸款購(gòu)買實(shí)體成立后，能夠回籠些資產(chǎn)。

Given the acute stress in money markets, however, the accent for the time being is more on survival than grabbing opportunities. Banks continue to treat each other with suspicion in interbank loan markets.

由于貨幣市場(chǎng)有著巨大的壓力，現(xiàn)在市場(chǎng)的聲音不是能否抓住機(jī)會(huì)而是能否保住性命了。從銀行間拆借市場(chǎng)可以看出銀行之間依然存在著巨大的疑慮。

Financial firms fear further fallout from the recent, potentially catastrophic run on money-market funds that prompted the government to step in with guarantees. “Prime” money funds, which are important buyers of corporate debt, remain under pressure and are pulling away from anything deemed risky. This is a big problem for banks, since money funds hold up to $1.3 trillion of their short-term debt. As the funds retreat, the banks will be forced to turn to longer-term (and more expensive) funding markets.

金融公司擔(dān)心最近在貨幣市場(chǎng)基金上潛在的災(zāi)難會(huì)有更嚴(yán)重的輻射影響。這促使美國(guó)政府介入市場(chǎng)提供擔(dān)保。重要的公司債券購(gòu)買者，”首要”貨幣基金仍處于壓力之下，而且不再涉及任何有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的債券。這對(duì)銀行來說是個(gè)大問題，因?yàn)樨泿呕鹬挥兴鼈?.3萬億美元的短期債券。隨著這些基金的撤退，銀行將被迫使用期限更長(zhǎng)（且成本更高）的籌資手段。

Once markets stabilise, Wall Street will start to wonder if it is better or worse off without its standalone investment banks. They may leave behind a vacuum. As broker-dealers, regulated more lightly by the Securities and Exchange Commission, they were free to put large dollops of capital to work, providing liquidity, making markets and assuming risk. As banks, they may find the Fed takes a more restrictive view.

一旦市場(chǎng)企穩(wěn)，華爾街就會(huì)考慮缺乏獨(dú)立投行模式對(duì)其有利還是有害。獨(dú)立投行之死留下了一片真空地帶。作為經(jīng)紀(jì)交易商，略受證券交易委員會(huì)監(jiān)管，它們可以自由地運(yùn)作巨額資本，提供流動(dòng)性，形成市場(chǎng)并評(píng)估風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。作為銀行，它們則會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)有著更加限制性的看法。