沃尔克规则不是末日，华尔街无需呼天抢地

    布拉德•欣茨是自由市场的忠实信徒，他曾担任摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）首席财务官，目前在伯恩斯坦研究（Bernstein Research）做证券分析师，主要关注经纪商、交易所和信托银行。与罗奇代尔证券公司分析师迪克•波维一样，欣茨竭力为金融服务业辩护，希望它尽量少受限制。因此，布拉德•欣茨痛恨沃尔克规则，认为它将葬送华尔街所珍视的一切，他的反应倒也不算出乎意料。

    如果你觉得金融危机的故事听起来痛苦不堪，那你真该来见识下欣茨对沃尔克规则的看法。由于该规则的繁琐程度可能超过业界先前的预期，欣茨眼中的未来暗无天日。“我们原本估计，沃尔克规则将会使交易收入下降10%，”欣茨称，“即使非为客户操作的纯高风险业务遭到禁止，这个数字还是相对较小的。”他这里指的是自营交易部门，过去两年中，多数银行纷纷将该部门关闭或分拆。【高盛（Goldman Sachs）、摩根士丹利和摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）都采取了类似措施。】

    可是，本月初浮出水面供业内人士探讨的新规则限制非常严格，远超此前预期。就连该规则的首倡者、前美联储主席沃尔克本人也有些担忧起来，觉得其复杂性与日俱增。在原版的《多德-弗兰克法案》（Dodd-Frank legislation）中，沃尔克规则只有10页，可美国货币监理署（OCC）公布的最新版本有298页，涵盖了400个主题的1,300多个问题。从现在直到明年1月13日，该版本将接受公众评议。根本性的问题在于，哪些行为构成银行的“自营交易”，特别是因为这涉及到为客户利益而进行证券交易的行为。沃尔克希望实现的目标很简单：确保接受存款的银行无法用这些存款来进行赌博式的自营交易。但是，如何界定自营交易却是个相当棘手的问题。

    欣茨认为，这些规则恰恰瞄准了投资银行履行其关键职责——做市商——的能力。“它们将会改变固定收益市场的整个商业模式，”他说，“风险交易的定义非常宽泛，而受到的限制相当严格，几乎所有固定收益业务都属于风险性业务。如果各银行被迫转型，改为按客户指令而作交易的模式，那收入将会下降25%，而利润会减少三分之一。”

    但是，这样一个事实也不容忽视：提案中包含了豁免“善意”为客户做市的条款。如果银行们无法说明，他们不是在进行自营交易，而是在为客户的利益行事（换句话说，“按客户指令进行交易”），那么，他们从事的或许正是那种使我们陷入经济衰退的高风险交易。没错，考虑到沃尔克规则提案极为细致且法律语言艰深难懂，请求公众评议只是表面文章，可它的复杂程度也没有批评人士宣称的那么夸张。

    尽管如此，摩根大通掌门人杰米•戴蒙也深感忧虑。10月召开的一次电话会议上，戴蒙向分析师们再开金口，直言不讳地吐露了自己的看法。“美国拥有全世界最好、最有深度和广度且最透明的资本市场，这让你们这些投资者有能力以极低价格进行大宗买卖，这是件好事。我希望保罗•沃尔克能理解这一点。行不行？现在我们理解为何不能做自营交易，这也没问题……可是，我们必须为自己的客户去做适当的做市工作……我们的多数业务正是做市……我希望所有收听这次电话会议的人都能理解其重要性，这不仅关乎你们自己的生意，更关乎整个美国的未来。”

    欣茨评论沃尔克规则时，还只是称金融行业面临困境。戴蒙一插话，气氛就不同了，他不仅严辞教训了美国最受尊敬的前美联储主席之一，还提醒我们，整个美国的未来都面临着风险。真的吗？杰米？我们来分析分析。

    Brad Hintz believes in free markets. The one-time treasurer of Morgan Stanley and current equity analyst covering brokers, exchanges, and trust banks for Bernstein Research is as much a defender of an unshackled financial services industry as Dick Bove. So it should surprise no one that Brad Hintz thinks the Volcker Rule could be the death of all things cherished on Wall Street.

    If you thought the story of the financial crisis was a harrowing one, then you should listen to Hintz trying to figure out a future with a Volcker Rule that's looking like it might be more onerous than previously thought. "We had originally estimated that the Volcker rules would reduce trading revenues by 10%," Hintz says. "Even if non-client pure risk-taking businesses were banned, that number was still relatively small." He's talking about proprietary trading desks, the majority of which have been closed down or spun off in the last two years. (See such actions by: Goldman Sachs (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS), and JPMorgan Chase.)

    But new rules floated for industry consideration earlier this month were far more restrictive than previously expected. Even the ex-Fed chief himself is a little concerned about the growing complexity of the thing. In the original Dodd-Frank legislation, the rule was ten pages long. When the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released the latest version for public comment between now and January 13, 2012, it was 298 pages, with more than 1,300 questions on 400 topics. At root is the issue of just what constitutes "proprietary trading" by banks, especially as it relates to the issue of making trades in securities on behalf of their customers. The simple goal that Volcker was trying to achieve was making sure that deposit-taking banks are forbidden from making proprietary bets with those deposits. But it gets really thorny when you try to define just what constitutes a proprietary bet.

    Hintz argues the rules are taking dead-aim at the ability of investment banks to act in their vital role as market makers. "They will change the very business model of fixed income," he says."Risk-taking is very broadly defined and severely limited, and virtually all of the fixed income business is a risk-taking business. If banks are forced to shift to an order-taking business, revenue will drop 25% and margins will fall by a third."

    Here's the thing, though: The proposals include an exemption for "bona fide" market-making on behalf of clients. If banks can't demonstrate why they're not making a house bet but instead acting on behalf of customers (i.e., "order-taking"), then they just might be engaging in the kind of risk-taking that got us in this mess in the first place. Sure, the request for comment is paint-peeling in its detail and legalise, but it's not as complicated as critics would have us believe.

    Still, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) chief Jamie Dimon is concerned too. On a conference call with analysts this month, Dimon uttered another one of his unfiltered jewels. "The United States has the best, deepest, widest, and most transparent capital markets in the world which give you, the investor, the ability to buy and sell large amounts at very cheap prices. That is a good thing. I wish Paul Volcker understood that. Okay? Now we understand why there is no proprietary trading. That was fine….[But] we have to be in a position to do proper market-making for our clients…Most of our business is market-making…I hope all of you on this phone understand how important this is, not just for your own business but for future of the United States."

    When Hintz is talking, it's just an industry under siege. When Dimon chimes in, he not only schools one of the country's most respected former chiefs of the Federal Reserve, but he also puts us on notice that nothing short of the future of the country is at risk. Really, Jamie? Come now.