高盛继续陨落

    投资银行家眼下的日子还是不好过。

    从7月13日起，银行业将陆续向投资者通报2012年第二季度业绩情况。总体来看，种种迹象显示，这个季度将令人失望。但令人意外的是，高盛（Goldman Sachs）可能是最大的输家。这家一度备受推崇的投资银行获得的市场预期降幅超过了竞争对手。

    过去一个月，分析师们将高盛的收益预期下调了35%。总体而言，如今投资银行家的日子并不好过。自从Facebook的首次公开募股搞砸了以后，IPO窗口已经关闭。而且今年以来，并购交易也减少了21%。

    但高盛的情况可能更糟糕。分析人士预计第二季度高盛可能实现每股收益1.37美元。由此得出的净利润比季度初分析师们预测的净利润减少了7亿美元。上周三，迈克•梅奥表示，他估计高盛交易业务最近可能缩减了多达三分之一。最近高盛的市场份额一直在流失，其中有些还是它在金融危机期间赢得的份额，但最终还是未能守住。高盛直呼客户“白痴”的说法更是让情况雪上加霜。

    高盛手握大量现金，资产负债情况是华尔街最好的一家银行之一。人们一直认为高盛能找到运用这些现金的地方，盈利将会出现反弹。这可能也是分析师在季度开始时继续给出过高预期的原因。但现在，他们依然在等待这个扭转乾坤的神奇时刻。

    近来，好消息是高盛没再登上报纸头条。而且，不像一些竞争对手，高盛不太可能需要奉上巨额和解资金来了结Libor操纵丑闻。高盛不在那些帮助设定（操纵）这一关键贷款利率的银行之列。不过，高盛的确出售了一些与Libor相关联的利率掉期，为此很多市政当局正在抱怨，其中奥克兰市的官员日前甚至表示将不再与该行做生意。

    高盛高管们认为，高盛的大机会在欧洲。或许，该行能从实力更弱的海外竞争对手手中抢来业务。但在未来一年左右，欧洲可能是一个一毛钱都赚不到的地方，特别是对于银行来说。而且，当前高盛的欧洲风险敞口可能更多是一个需要担忧的因素，而不是一个积极因素。该行最近增加了在意大利的风险敞口。

    过去3个月高盛股价下跌了近30%。最近，前《财富》杂志（FORTUNE）专栏作家贝萨尼•迈克林指出，高盛股价难有反转走势，除非该公司进行分拆，或者进一步向股东阐明其盈利模式，以及未来提高盈利的计划。问题是这两者高盛都不太可能做到。薪酬与规模挂钩。透明不是高盛的文化。

    但最终，该公司或许没得选择。按照迈克林的说法，高盛的回答可能是在多德-弗兰克法案（Dodd-Frank）实施后，由于对交易有种种限制，如果高盛继续采用当前国际大银行的体制，它不会有太多增长空间。或许，高盛应当考虑放弃银行业务，完全转变成为对冲基金。大多数人都以为高盛一直就是对冲基金。至少，通过这种方式，缺乏透明度的高盛将变得更透明一些。

    译者：早稻米

    It's still hard out there for an I-banker.

    Starting tomorrow banks will begin to tell investors how they did in the second three months of 2012. Overall, the indications are that the quarter will be a disappointment. But, surprisingly, Goldman Sachs (GS) may emerge as the biggest loser. Expectations for the once-vaunted investment bank have fallen more than rivals.

    In the past month, analysts have cut their earnings expectations by 35% for Goldman. It's been a tough time for investment bankers in general. The IPO window shut after the bungled Facebook deal. And M&A is down 21% so far this year.

    But something worse might be going on at Goldman. Analysts expect the company will earn $1.37 a share in the quarter. The current estimate translates into $700 million less in profits than analysts were expecting when the quarter began. On Wednesday, Mike Mayo said he believes Goldman's trading business may have recently dropped by as much as a third. Recently the firm has been losing market share to rivals, some of which it picked up during the financial crisis and hasn't been able to hold onto. All that talk of Muppets probably hasn't helped.

    Goldman has a lot of cash on hand and one of the best balance sheets on Wall Street. The assumption has long been that Goldman will find a place to put that cash to work, and earnings will rebound. And that may be why analysts continue to start each quarter with outsized expectations. And yet, they're still waiting for that magically switch to flip.

    The good news for Goldman recently has been that it has managed to stay out of the headlines. And unlike some of its rivals it's unlikely to have to fork over a big settlement in the Libor scandal. Goldman is not among the banks that help set (fix) the key lending rate. Nonetheless, Goldman did sell some of the interest rate swaps tied to Libor, which many municipalities are now complaining about. Oakland officials, for one, recently said the city would no longer do business with the bank.

    Goldman executives have said that they expect the big opportunity for the firm is in Europe. And indeed, the bank might be able to steal business from weaker overseas rivals. But in the next year or so, Europe could be a treacherous place to earn a buck, especially for a bank. And Goldman's exposure to Europe might be more of a concern than a positive for now. The bank recently upped its exposure in Italy.

    Goldman's shares have fallen nearly 30% in the past three months. Recently, former FORTUNE writer Bethany McLean made the case that Goldman's shares might not turnaround until the firm either breaks itself up or becomes much more transparent to shareholders about how it makes its money and how it plans to make more in the future. The problem is Goldman is unlikely to do either of these. Compensation is tied to size. And transparency is not in Goldman's culture.

    Eventually, though, the firm might not have a choice. To McLean's point, the answer for Goldman might be that in a post-Dodd-Frank world, with all the restrictions on trading, Goldman, in its current form as a large global bank, might not have a lot of room for growth. Perhaps the firm should think about giving up its banking business, and fully morphing into the hedge fund that most have assumed it was all along. It least that way Goldman's lack of transparency would be more transparent.