贝莱德是否大到不能倒？

    然而，基金行业假仁假义地攻击可怜的OFR，一副锄强扶弱的正义使者模样。而事实上，基金行业最担心的恐怕是这份报告最终会使得金融稳定监督委员会将贝莱德和富达（Fidelity）这样的大型基金公司划入“系统性”（金融机构）范畴。果真如此，这些公司将受到美联储更严格的监管。

    我认为基金行业的结论有些草率。要是我的话，我会让那帮游说者闪人，把雇他们的钱省下来给员工发圣诞节奖金。因为金融稳定监督委员会才刚刚开始分析OFR在报告中指出的问题，而且这个委员会可能有很多种方式来作出反应。其中有些问题可以通过加强信息披露得到解决。另外一些问题，比如杠杆率和流动性问题，可以通过美国证交会设定的一些简单而基本的标准得到解决。美国证交会本来就负责监管大型资产管理公司，以保护投资者的利益。一直以来，证交会还没有考虑过基金行业可能给金融体系带来的广泛风险，但这并不意味着它将来也不会考虑这个问题。

    诚然，金融稳定监督委员会最终可能会认定，个别资产管理公司规模太大，相互之间联系太密切，一旦出现问题，必然扰乱整个经济。但即便如此，也不一定非得将这些基金公司归为“系统性”机构，要求它们接受美联储的监管。

    更好的做法是，降低大型资产管理公司的复杂程度、缩小它们的规模、减少它们之间的相互联系。多德-弗兰克法案提出的“系统性称号”旨在使大型企业成为政府特别“关照”的对象，而严格的美联储监管则是对这些企业的惩罚。根据法律规定，这些企业还是能够通过重组和机构精简等措施来摆脱“系统性”机构的称号。

    这对所有人来说都会是一份不错的圣诞礼物。难道不是吗？（财富中文网）

    译者：项航  

    Yet, based on the fund industry's holier-than-thou attack on poor OFR, you would think they were trying to protect Cindy Lou's Christmas against the evil Grinch. The industry's biggest fear seems to be that this report is the precursor to the FSOC designating big firms like BlackRock and Fidelity as "systemic" meaning (gasp) that they would be subject to tougher regulation by the Federal Reserve Board.

    I think the industry is jumping to conclusions. If I were they, I'd save my money for employee Christmas bonuses and tell the lobbyists to stand down. The FSOC is only beginning to analyze the issues identified in the OFR report, and there are many different ways the regulators could respond. Some of the issues could be addressed with better disclosure. Others, like leverage and liquidity, could be addressed with some simple, basic standards set by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC already regulates the big asset managers to protect those who invest in their funds. The agency has not, traditionally, looked at this industry from the standpoint of broader risks to the financial system, but that doesn't mean it couldn't start.

    True, the FSOC might ultimately decide that some individual asset managers are too big and interconnected to fail without disrupting the broader economy. But the answer is not necessarily to designate them as "systemic" and push them into the arms of the Fed.

    A better alternative would be for those firms to become simpler, smaller, and less interconnected. Dodd-Frank's "systemic designation" was meant to put large firms on the government's "naughty list." Intrusive Fed supervision was meant to be their lump of coal. Under the law, they still have the option of getting on the "nice" list of un-systemic institutions by restructuring and downsizing.

    Now wouldn't that be a nice Christmas present for us all?