高盛交易利润锐减

    这回不是伦敦鲸，但像摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）一样，高盛（Goldman Sachs）也栽在了自营交易上。

    今年第二季度，高盛自营股票交易亏损1.12亿美元。虽然比不上摩根大通58亿美元的巨额损失，但跟高盛自己第一季度盈利9亿美元的业绩比起来仍然可是说是大幅下跌。而且高盛表示，亏损数字中已经包括了私募股权业务取得的收益，这意味着高盛所持公开上市股票的损失应该显著超出1亿美元。

    高盛自营债券交易的表现相对好一些，但也没好到哪里去。第二季度债券交易利润下降62%至2.22亿美元。总体而言,高盛第二季度自营交易收入环比骤降90%，减少到1.69亿美元。

    高盛长期以来一直被视为一家交易公司，自营业务一贯优于竞争对手。从2009年到2010年，高盛连续多个季度没有一个交易日出现过亏损。

    第二季度的情况显然不是这样，但直到目前也还不清楚到底是什么原因，高盛的一位发言人拒绝对公司具体的投资事项发表评论。过去几个月里，高盛曾表示打算强化欧洲业务。没错，说的就是遭受债务危机和经济放缓双重打击的欧洲。但此次高盛表示，第二季度对欧洲持谨慎立场。

    另一个可能的解释是Facebook。第二季度高盛通过出售部分Facebook持股获得了2.35亿美元。这几乎是高盛一年前投资额的两倍。但像其他银行一样，不管是否出售，高盛都需要定期对这些投资的账面价值进行调整。Facebook IPO之前的一年，其股票在非公开交易市场的价格已经出现了上涨。从一些非公开交易来看，Facebook的股价甚至一度超过最终于今年5月IPO时的价格38美元。IPO之后，Facebook股价最近已跌至27.50美元。这一价格可能低于高盛在第一季度末给予这项投资的估值，结果造成了损失。

    鉴于多德-弗兰克法案（Dodd-Frank）的沃克尔法则（Volcker rule）以及其他限制银行进行风险性投资的监管改革，高盛称已经缩减了交易业务。但沃克尔法则目前尚未正式实施。而且，也不清楚高盛相比自营交易大赚其钱的第一季度做了哪些改变。高盛第二季度的风险价值（value-at-risk）为9,200万美元，环比基本持平；风险价值是一家公司在一个交易日内可能发生的损失，基本上反映其交易量的多少。

    有人猜测，高盛已将部分风险性交易转到了沃克尔法则允许的造市商业务。但这项业务第二季度的收入也环比下降了46%。

    金融危机以来，高盛流失了很多一流的交易员，这些人纷纷转投对冲基金或其他公司。如今，这个问题的后果可能终于开始显现。高盛的业绩总体好于预期，完全是因为过去一个月来分析师们下调高盛盈利预测的幅度超过了其竞争对手。现在，至少有一点是明确的，高盛看来已不是曾经的利润大户了。

    好消息是高盛可能已经意识到了这一点。高盛首席财务官戴维•温纳告诉分析师们，他预计年底前公司前将削减5亿美元费用，主要将通过裁员大量高薪雇员来实现。但当一位分析师问到，高盛计划什么时候调低公司的高薪，使其下降到与其他华尔街公司相一致的水平时，温纳却含糊其辞，大致意思是高盛雇员的价值更高。要让自诩为宇宙主宰者的人们认清现实需要一个缓慢的过程。

    译者：早稻米

    It's no London Whale, but, like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs (GS) had its own trading flop.

    Goldman's stock traders lost $112 million of the firm's own money in the second quarter. It's not even in the same tank, or really ocean, as JPMorgan's $5.8 billion loss, but it was a huge drop from the nearly $900 million in profit the bank made from trading stocks in the first quarter. And Goldman said that loss includes gains it made in its private equity business, which means its losses from its public stock holdings could have been considerably larger than just $100 million.

    Goldman's bond traders did better, but not much. Profits from debt trading fell 62% in the quarter to $222 million. In all, revenue from Goldman's own trading operations plunged 90% to $169 million in the quarter from three months ago.

    Goldman has long been known as a trading house, and has generally done a better job than rivals at producing consistent profits investing the firm's own money. The bank had a string of quarters in 2009 and 2010 in which it went without a single down trading day.

    That was clearly not the case this quarter, but it's not clear what caused the firm problems, and a Goldman spokesman declined to comment on the firm's specific investments. In the past few months, Goldman has said that it's looking to beef up its business in Europe, which has been hit by debt concerns and an economic slowdown. But Goldman said it took a cautious stance on Europe in the quarter.

    Another possible explanation could be Facebook (FB). Goldman raised $235 million selling a portion of its investment in Facebook during the quarter. That was nearly double what Goldman paid for those shares just over a year ago. But Goldman, like other banks, has to constantly reprice on their books the value of its investments whether it sells them or not. In the year leading up to Facebook's IPO, the private value of the shares rose. Some private transactions seemed to suggest that Facebook's shares were worth more than the $38 the company eventually sold its stock at in its May IPO. Since then, Facebook's shares have fallen to a recent $27.50. That could be lower than where Goldman marked its investment at the end of the first quarter, producing a loss.

    Goldman has said it has shrunk its trading business in preparation for Dodd-Frank's Volcker rule and other regulatory reforms that will make it harder for banks to make risky bets. But the Volcker rule hasn't been put into place yet. And it's not clear what changed from a quarter ago, when so-called principal transactions, which is when the bank risks its own money rather than completing a trade for a customer, was a big money maker. Goldman's value-at-risk, which tracks how much the firm could lose in one day and generally is seen as a measure of how much trading the firm is doing, was $92 million in the quarter, basically unchanged from the quarter before.

    Some have guessed that Goldman has shifted a portion of its risky trading into its market making unit, a business that is allowed under the Volcker rule. But that unit saw a drop in revenue in the second quarter as well, down 46% from the first three months of the year.

    Goldman has lost a lot of its top traders to hedge funds and elsewhere since the financial crisis, and that could be finally catching up with the firm. Overall, Goldman's earnings were better than analyst expected. But that's only because in the past month, analysts had cut their estimatesfor what Goldman could earn more than any of the firm's rivals. What's clear, is that at least for now, Goldman no longer appears to be the profit powerhouse it once was.

    The good news is that the firm may be starting to realize that. Chief financial officer David Vinar told analysts that he expects the firm will cut $500 million in expenses by the end of the year, mostly by laying off a number of the firm's higher paid employees. Still, when asked by an analyst when Goldman plans to bring its high compensation in line with other Wall Street firms, Vinar demurred, basically saying that Goldman employees were worth more. Self-realization for masters of the universe is a slow process.