三大招人恨的经济预言

    韦尔显然是对的。银行不只是大到不能倒（这是公共政策问题），而且是大到无法进行有效的管理（这是盈利问题）。我们应该从对冲基金行业吸取教训。在这个行业里，有很多最为成功的基金经理向他们的投资者返还资金，因为他们的基金已经大到难以驾驭。各种类型的金融机构都有一个最佳的规模，而“伦敦鲸”的教训告诉我们，就连杰米•迪蒙的管理能力都有个限度。布兰克费恩和韦尔在前，迪蒙等人是否会跟进？我们希望银行业能够出现新的架构。

    韦尔指出，公众对金融机构缺乏信任，这是赞成将存款业务和风险业务分离的有力论据。沃克尔规则（Volcker Rule）的执行情况将极其混乱，聪明的银行家将会提早划清界限。少数记性好的华尔街高管常常是最成功的。这不应该和银行家们对自身名誉的担心相混淆。银行高管们意识到，他们的行业周期与公众的喜好和厌恶息息相关，必须跟上公众情绪的变化，这样才能保持流动性。劳埃德•布兰克费恩或许会对自己被称为“一只缠绕在人脸上的巨大吸血乌贼”一事不予理会，但他将迅速采取行动，使市场继续依赖高盛这个交易商。

    行动很快就会到来。韦尔在消费者新闻与商业频道上的露面是个试探气球，向银行业发出了许可。华尔街高管们针对重新实施《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》的所有呼号和愤怒都只是在说：“别把我扔进暴风骤雨中。”他们将在方便的时候按照自己的计划拆分自己执掌的金融机构，在这个过程中不会放过每一分利润。不要指望国会会为了公众的利益采取行动。但在进行预测的时候，可以打赌，华尔街一定会充分利用每一个机会。

3. 股利减少

    最后，我们的第三个预测是，大公司支付的股利将会减少。

    《金融时报》（Financial Times）说股票正在胜过债券：“对52个机构投资者的调查显示，高收益率债券和高息股票都越来越受青睐，此外还有房地产和基础设施，以及发达和新兴市场的投资级企业贷款。”这与太平洋投资管理公司（PIMCO）董事总经理比尔•格罗斯的说法恰恰相反。他宣称“股票已死”。1979年8月，就在20世纪最漫长牛市到来前夕，《商业周刊》（Business Week）登载了一篇著名的封面故事，标题就是《股票已死》。从那时到现在，这个短语始终在华尔街回响。

    格罗斯说：“从历史上看，股票年均实际回报率为6.6%，比GDP增速高了3%。”他的观点是：GDP增速只有3.5%，但回报率却是6.6%，这意味着你获得了超过3%的“幽灵”回报。格罗斯说，输家是贷款人、劳动者和政府。对那些遭遇债权契约被取消、失业或者税收增加的人来说，这是个很有吸引力的观点。

    相关报道正在竞相争夺媒体的头版头条版面——尽管逻辑告诉我们，股票不能在已死的同时又受到青睐。正如我们亲爱的已故父亲常说的那样，这也是赛马比赛的组成部分。

    但在这场比赛中杀出了一匹黑马——不负责任的美国政策不断推迟“美元之死”。要求审查美联储的国会议员或许有点道理。但我们认为，美联储应该要求审查国会。国会给伯南克的工具非常有限，但却要求他解决国会和白宫所有人员加起来都不知从何入手的问题。只有一把锤子和直尺的伯南克必须弄明白如何砍、钻、拧、斜切、刨、推平、斜接和组装一个被首要责任人恶意忽视的经济。国会的职责是通过负责任的财政政策，然后授予美联储控制缰绳的权力，好让马儿不致脱离赛道。

    然而，国会已经放弃了自己的职责。面对这种情况，美联储用尽方法也无法提振美元。美国企业界不是哑巴。即使是在美国的信用评级从AAA被下调至AA之后，“无风险”投资仍然能够以负回报率将自己推销出去。在这种环境下，获得AAA信用评级的公司为什么要牺牲自己来拯救美国国债收益率？政府和银行都不愿意拿钱出来的时候，美国企业界是否应该挺身而出呢？看看近3.5%的IBM股票收益率，请扪心自问：“为什么？”

    如果你负责监管股票基金或者零售经纪账户，你应该会对异常事件非常敏感。在这个时候，大型上市公司只需要对外宣称，鉴于形势的不确定性，他们认为节约使用资源才是慎重的做法。这些公司的股票将遭受暂时的打击，但他们将撑过艰难时期。但是突然之间，所有这些“慎重”的蓝筹股投资组合将变成客户诉讼。

    这些剧烈的变化就像是把腌菜从罐子里拿出来。第一个很难拿，但拿出来后，其他的就会不断地掉出来，掉出来，掉出来……

    译者：千牛絮

    Weill is obviously right. The banks are not merely too big to fail – which is a public policy problem. They are too big to manage efficiently, which is a profitability problem. Take the lesson from the hedge fund industry, where many of the most successful managers are returning cash to their investors because their funds have grown unwieldy. There is an optimal size to every type of financial institution, and the lesson of the London Whale is that even Jamie Dimon may have hit his limit. Where Blankfein and Weill lead the way, can the likes of Dimon be far behind? Look for a new structure to emerge.

    Weill points to the undermining of public confidence in the financial markets as a compelling point in favor of separating deposit taking from risk taking. Too, the implementation of the Volcker Rule will be unbelievably messy, and smart bankers will make a clean break early. The few Wall Street executives with long memories are often the most successful. This should not be confused with bankers' concern with their reputations. Bank executives realize that their industry cycles in and out of favor with the public and they need to keep step with that sentiment in order to stay liquid. Lloyd Blankfein may brush off being called a "giant face-sucking vampire squid," but he will act swiftly to keep the markets relying on Goldman as counterparty.

    The move will come – Weill's CNBC appearance was the trial balloon and grants permission to the industry – all the screams and outrage of Wall Street execs pushing back against a reintroduction of Glass-Steagall is just so much "don't throw me in the briar patch." They will break up their institutions in their own good time, on their own plan, and will suck out every penny of profit in the process. You can't count on Congress to act in the public interest – but when it comes to predictability, you can bet on Wall Street to capitalize on an opportunity.

3. Dividend cuts

    Finally, our third prediction is that major corporations will cut their dividends.

    The Financial Times says equities are edging out bonds: A "survey of 52 institutional investors showed a shift towards high-yield bonds and high-dividend equities, together with real estate and infrastructure, alongside investment grade corporate credit in both developed and emerging markets." This contrasts with PIMCO's Bill Gross, who proclaimed the Death of Equities – a phrase that resonates on Wall Street ever since the famous August 1979 Business Week cover story of that title which came on the eve of the greatest prolonged bull market of the century.

    Gross says "the 6.6% historical real return from stocks" comes from "skimming 3% off the top." Here's his argument: GDP growth is only 3.5%, but your return is 6.6%, meaning you are reaping over 3% phantom return. The losers, says Gross, are lenders, labor, and government. To anyone who has seen bond covenants canceled, been laid off from their job, or seen their taxes go up, this is a compelling argument.

    These stories are competing for head space in the press – and while logic dictates that equities can't be both dead and in favor at the same time, that is also, as our dear departed Dad used to say, what makes horse racing.

    But there is a darker horse in this race -- feckless U.S. policy which continues to prolong the Death of the Dollar. Those in Congress pushing to audit the Fed may have a point. But we think the Fed should push for an audit of Congress. Bernanke has been given a limited toolkit and instructed to fix what all of Congress and the White House combined can not even begin to address. Armed with only a hammer and straightedge, Bernanke has to figure out how to cut, drill, screw, bevel, plane, level, miter and join an economy that is maliciously neglected by those most responsible for its welfare. Congress's job is to enact responsible fiscal policies, then to empower the Fed to draw the reins now to this side, now that, to keep the horses in the middle of the path.

    Instead, Washington has abdicated its responsibility, in the face of which no amount of Fed soldiering can strengthen the dollar. Corporate America is not dumb. In an environment where the Risk Free investment can allow itself to sell at a negative return, even after allowing its rating to be cut from AAA to AA, why should AAA companies knock themselves out to beat the yield on Treasurys? Should corporate America dole out its cash when neither the government nor the banks will? Look at IBM yielding almost 3.5% and ask yourself: "Why?"

    If you oversee managed equity funds, or retail brokerage accounts, you should be sensitive to outlier events. All it takes is one major listed company to announce they believe it prudent to husband their resources, given the uncertainty of the environment. The stock will take a temporary hit, but they'll tough it out. And all of a sudden, all those "prudent" blue chip portfolios will turn into customer lawsuits.

    These kind of tumultuous changes are like getting pickles out of a jar. That first one is so hard to get. But once it comes out, the rest just keep spilling and spilling and spilling…