評(píng)論
打印
Big banks have started pulling their business out of Barclays’ “dark pool” after the British bank was sued by New York’s top securities regulator for allegedly misleading institutional investors over its anonymous trading venue.
各大銀行已開始從巴克萊(Barclays)的“暗池”撤出業(yè)務(wù)。這家英國(guó)銀行因涉嫌在其匿名交易場(chǎng)所誤導(dǎo)機(jī)構(gòu)投資者，被紐約州最高證券監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)提起訴訟。
Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse were among the institutions that yesterday withdrew from Barclays’ LX dark pool in the wake of the lawsuit from Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney-general. Barclays said any drop in trading volumes at LX might be due to a technical glitch.
紐約州總檢察長(zhǎng)埃里克•施奈德曼(Eric Schneiderman)提起訴訟后，德意志銀行(Deutsche Bank)和瑞信(Credit Suisse)等機(jī)構(gòu)昨日退出巴克萊的LX暗池。巴克萊表示，LX交易量的任何下降可能是技術(shù)故障所致。
More than $13bn was wiped off the market value of the 10 biggest dark pool owners as analysts assessed who US prosecutors might target next. Shares in Barclays, which operates one of the biggest, lost more than 6 per cent, while shares in other large operators, including Credit Suisse, UBS and Deutsche Bank, also fell.
在分析師們推測(cè)哪一個(gè)暗池將是美國(guó)檢方的下一個(gè)目標(biāo)之際，10個(gè)最大暗池的東家超過130億美元的市值蒸發(fā)。運(yùn)行最大暗池之一的巴克萊股價(jià)下滑逾6%，其它大型暗池運(yùn)營(yíng)商的股價(jià)也下跌，包括瑞信、瑞銀(UBS)和德意志銀行。
Investors called for a management shake-up at Barclays’ equity trading business and said the US lawsuit underlined the challenge for Antony Jenkins, chief executive, to achieve his goal of changing the bank’s culture.
投資者呼吁巴克萊的股票交易部門進(jìn)行管理層改組，并表示，美國(guó)的訴訟突顯了巴克萊首席執(zhí)行官安東尼•詹金斯(Antony Jenkins)要實(shí)現(xiàn)企業(yè)文化改革所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)。
Mr Schneiderman cited a pattern of “fraud and deceit” by Barclays starting in 2011. He accused the bank of lying to clients about the level of protection they would receive in its dark pool from high-frequency traders aiming to profit from their speed advantage.
施奈德曼稱，巴克萊從2011年起出現(xiàn)一種“欺詐和欺騙”的模式。他指控該行向客戶撒謊，在其暗池提供的保障客戶不受高頻交易商損害的保護(hù)等級(jí)上誤導(dǎo)客戶。高頻交易商尋求利用自己的速度優(yōu)勢(shì)獲利。
Dark pools allow investors to trade large blocks of shares anonymously, with prices posted publicly only after deals are done. They were created as a way for institutional investors to place large orders without disadvantaging themselves by signalling to the wider market any market-moving trades.
暗池讓投資者能夠匿名交易大批股票，交易價(jià)格只會(huì)在交易完成之后公布。這種交易機(jī)制讓機(jī)構(gòu)投資者能夠在大筆下單的同時(shí)，不會(huì)因向市場(chǎng)泄露足以影響行情的交易而使自己陷于不利境地。
But regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, are concerned they may allow high-frequency traders to exploit other investors’ orders to profit in an opaque, unregulated venue. The SEC is still investigating Barclays.
但是，包括美國(guó)證交會(huì)(SEC)在內(nèi)的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)擔(dān)心，暗池可能讓高頻交易商利用其他投資者的買賣單，在一個(gè)不透明、不受監(jiān)管的場(chǎng)所獲利。美國(guó)證交會(huì)仍在調(diào)查巴克萊。
“The allegation that investors have been misled is clearly not acceptable,” said Helen Roberts at the UK’s National Association of Pension Funds, whose members have almost £900bn of assets. “There should be a level playing field for all investors.”
“投資者被誤導(dǎo)的指控顯然是不能接受的，”英國(guó)退休基金協(xié)會(huì)(National Association of Pension Funds)的海倫•羅伯茨(Helen Roberts)表示。該協(xié)會(huì)的成員擁有近9000億英鎊資產(chǎn)。“應(yīng)該有一個(gè)面向所有投資者的公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)環(huán)境。”
The dark pool lawsuit is the latest legal setback for Barclays, which in 2012 agreed a £290m settlement in the Libor rate-fixing scandal and last month paid a £26m fine after one of its traders manipulated the London gold fix.
暗池訴訟是巴克萊遭遇的最新法律挫折，該行2012年就倫敦銀行同業(yè)拆借利率(Libor)操縱丑聞同意支付2.9億英鎊和解費(fèi)，上月又因該行一名交易員操縱倫敦黃金定盤價(jià)而支付2600萬英鎊罰款。
“We felt that the flow of bad news about bank conduct was slowing down, but it looks like it continues to be a problem,” said Jennifer Walmsley, director of Hermes Equity Ownership Services. A former senior equities banker said Barclays’ case was far from unique. “Most of the bulge-bracket firms think their clients would do their own due diligence.”
“我們之前還覺得有關(guān)銀行行為的壞消息開始減少，但看起來這仍是一個(gè)問題，”Hermes Equity Ownership Services董事珍妮弗•沃姆斯利(Jennifer Walmsley)表示。一名前資深股票銀行家表示，巴克萊的情況并非獨(dú)一無二。“多數(shù)大型跨國(guó)投行認(rèn)為，他們的客戶會(huì)自己做好盡職調(diào)查。”
When asked whether other institutions were being probed, Mr Schneiderman said: “I cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The conduct here was so egregious and ongoing we felt we had to move on this.”
在被問及是否也在調(diào)查別的機(jī)構(gòu)時(shí)，施奈德曼表示：“我不能對(duì)正在進(jìn)行的調(diào)查發(fā)表評(píng)論。本案的行為如此令人震驚，而且是進(jìn)行時(shí)的，以至于我們覺得必須采取行動(dòng)。”
