歐洲經濟怎能離開德意志銀行

Deutsche Bank is the last heavyweight contender. While the other European investment banks — Barclays, UBS and Credit Suisse among them — retreat to retail and private banking amid investor discontent and a regulatory squeeze, it is doing the opposite. It wants to become more like Goldman Sachs, not less.

德意志銀行（Deutsche Bank，簡稱：德銀）是最後一個重量級競爭者了。當巴克萊(Barclays)、瑞銀(UBS)和瑞信(Credit Suisse)等其他歐洲投行在投資者的不滿和監管的擠壓下撤回到零售銀行和私人銀行業務的時候，德銀正反其道而行之。德銀想要變得更像高盛(Goldman Sachs)，而不是相反。

“I am not a very patient person,” Antony Jenkins, chief executive of Barclays,declared last month, hinting that lacklustre results at its investment bank may provoke him to cut it back. Deutsche is patient. Despite upheavals, setbacks and suspicion in its conservative home market, it has grown its investment bank over three decades, since buying Morgan Grenfell in 1989.

“我不是個很有耐心的人，”巴克萊首席執行官安東尼•詹金斯(Antony Jenkins)上月表示，暗示投行業務乏善可陳的業績可能會促使他裁減投行部門。但德銀有耐心。儘管遭遇了起伏、挫折和對德國保守的國內市場的懷疑，但德銀自1989年收購摩根建富(Morgan Grenfell)後，30年來一直在做大投行業務。

I am glad that Deutsche has, and that it still wants to compete with what was once called the “bulge bracket” — banks and brokers led by Goldman Sachs andMorgan Stanley. Europe needs at least one global investment bank champion. Without one, it is in danger of leaning too much on Wall Street to shape and run capital markets that its companies — large and small — require.

以高盛和摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)爲首的一批銀行和券商一度被稱爲“bulge bracket”（指美國精英投行——譯註）。德銀一直想與這些投行競爭，對此我感到欣慰。歐洲至少需要一家全球性投行龍頭。如果一家都沒有，歐洲就會有過於依賴華爾街來塑造和運營歐洲企業（無論大小）所需要的資本市場的危險。

We have witnessed the excesses of financial trading and regulators have tightened the rules. They are right, but one effect is to reinforce US hegemony. “If it is not done by a large American financial institution, it will be done by a large non-American financial institution,” Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase,warned this month. The true risk is the opposite.

我們曾經見證金融交易的過分行爲，監管者也已收緊了規則。這樣做是正確的，但帶來的一個效果是加強了美國的霸權。“如果這些事情不是由一家大型美國金融機構來完成，就會由一家大型的非美國金融機構來完成，”摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)首席執行官傑米•戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)本月警告稱。然而真正的風險與之相反。

The top five fee-earners for investment banking services such as equity underwriting in the first quarter were all US banks — JPMorgan Chase, Goldman, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup — according to Thomson Reuters. When Wall Street is doing so splendidly, it is fair to ask whether they get more of a break from regulators than European rivals.

據湯森路透(Thomson Reuters)的數據，今年第一季度，股票承銷等投行業務佣金收入前五名都是美國的銀行：摩根大通、高盛、美銀美林(Bank of America Merrill Lynch)、摩根士丹利和花旗(Citigroup)。在華爾街創下如此輝煌業績的時候，應該問問它們是否從監管者那裏獲得了比歐洲競爭對手更多的喘息空間？

Europeans face new hurdles on Wall Street, such as the requirement to ringfence capital for US operations, but it is not the main problem. The Federal Reserve and other US regulators have also been tough on their own banks, especially the “too big to fail” banks, which have been forced to exceed global capital standards and pass repeated stress tests.

歐洲各銀行在華爾街面臨着新的障礙，比如要求在美經營的外資機構“圈護”資本，但這不是主要問題。美聯儲(Fed)和美國其他監管機構對本國銀行也同樣嚴厲，尤其是那些“大到不能倒”的銀行，此類銀行被迫超出全球資本標準，並經受一次又一次壓力測試。

The real US advantage is twofold and old-established. First, its domestic market is far bigger; the pool of investment banking fees in the Americas was $11.5bn in the first quarter, compared with $5.3bn in Europe. “The costs of being global have risen greatly because of regulation, so having a profitable home market is a big advantage,” says Huw van Steenis, European banking analyst at Morgan Stanley.

美國真正的優勢是雙重而由來已久的。首先，美國的國內市場規模大得多；今年首季，美洲的投行佣金收入總額爲115億美元，而歐洲爲53億美元。“監管使全球化運營的成本大幅提高，因此擁有利潤豐厚的國內市場是一項巨大優勢，”摩根士丹利歐洲銀行業分析師休•範斯蒂尼斯(Huw van Steenis)說。

Second, US banks led the field for decades before European banks challenged them with sheer financial weight — the capacity to lend companies money and deploy a lot of capital. As regulators have made this onerously expensive with new rules, the traditional expertise of Goldman and Morgan Stanley has come to the fore again.

其次，在歐洲投行挑戰美國投行的地位之前，美國投行憑藉雄厚的財力（向企業出借資金和運用大量資本的能力）已引領這個領域數十年。隨着監管機構出臺的新規使業務變得繁重而昂貴，高盛和摩根士丹利的傳統訣竅再度使其脫穎而出。

Europe’s banks are now being forced to shrink. They are larger than US banks in relation to domestic economies because so much European financing is done by banks rather than capital markets. EU banks’ assets were 274 per cent of output in 2013, compared with 83 per cent for US banks, which can offload the balance sheet risk of mortgage loans to agencies such as Fannie Mae.

歐洲的銀行現在被迫削減自身規模。相對於國內經濟的規模，歐洲銀行比美國銀行規模更大，因爲歐洲的大量融資活動是由銀行，而非資本市場來完成的。2013年，歐洲銀行的資產是產出的274%，而美國的這一比率僅爲83%，美國的銀行可將資產負債表上的按揭貸款風險轉移給房利美(Fannie Mae)等機構。

So each week, banks unveil fresh cutbacks to comply with stricter leverage ratios. Credit Suisse has cut its balance sheet heavily and is now expected to go further underTidjane Thiam, its new chief executive. It may become more like UBS, which pleased investors by curbing financial trading.

於是，每一週都會有銀行公佈新的削減計劃，以滿足更嚴格的槓桿率要求。瑞信已大幅削減資產負債表的規模，預計在新任首席執行官迪德簡•蒂亞姆(Tidjane Thiam)治下，還將進一步縮減。瑞信可能會變得更像瑞銀，通過抑制金融交易來討好投資者。

Because this is happening piecemeal and gradually, it is easy to forget how significant a historical moment it is. Credit Suisse and UBS spent decades nurturing investment banks, from Credit Suisse acquiring First Boston in 1990 to Swiss Bank Corporation (which later merged with UBS) buying S.G. Warburg in 1995. Europe’s long challenge to Wall Street is fading.

由於這些情況是一點一點逐漸發生的，人們很容易忘記這是一個多麼重大的歷史性時刻。從瑞信1990年收購第一波士頓(First Boston)和瑞士銀行公司（Swiss Bank Corporation，後來與UBS合併）1995年收購華寶銀行(SG Warburg)銀行開始，瑞信和瑞銀花了數十年時間發展投行業務。曾經挑戰華爾街多年的歐洲正在敗退。

Thankfully, Deutsche does not have this choice. It lacks the strength in private banking of Swiss rivals, and German retail banking has low returns due to competition from public savings banks. Anshu Jain and Jürgen Fitschen, its co-chief executives, could abandon retail banking or, more likely, spin off its Postbank subsidiary to focus on commercial and investment banking, and asset management.

所幸德銀沒有這個選項。德銀不像瑞士同行那樣在私人銀行業務方面具有傳統實力，而國內的零售銀行業務被公共儲蓄銀行的競爭壓低了回報率。德銀的聯席首席執行官安舒•賈恩(Anshu Jain)和尤爾根•菲茨岑(Jürgen Fitschen)可能會放棄零售銀行業務，或者（更有可能的是）剝離該行旗下的德國郵政銀行(Postbank)，轉而專注於商業銀行、投資銀行和資產管理業務。

It is arguable that nationality in finance is not vital, that Goldman and other US banks have been in London and Frankfurt for a long time, and the name on the door is less significant than whether the institution supports European investors and companies. The City has always thrived by not being nationalistic or protectionist.

人們也可以說，在金融這個領域，國籍並不是最重要的，高盛和其他美國銀行已經在倫敦和法蘭克福立足了很長時間，相比這些機構能不能支持歐洲的投資者和企業，它們在大門口掛的牌子不那麼重要。倫敦金融城歷來繁榮興盛，是因爲它從不奉行民族主義或者保護主義。

But as the European Commission tries to forge a capital markets union to redress the continent’s reliance on bank-based lending, it requires institutions to support the transformation. Europe’s investment banks need not all be global in scale, there is an important role for domestic ones serving smaller companies and asset managers, but one or two would help.

但在歐盟委員會(European Commission)試圖建立資本市場聯盟以糾正歐洲對銀行放貸的依賴之際，需要有金融機構支持這一轉變。歐洲的投行不必都達到全球性規模（專注國內的投行能夠服務於規模較小的企業和資產管理公司，起到重要作用），但歐洲有一兩家全球性投行是有幫助的。

They would make it less likely that European finance dries up in a crisis as US banks retreat; less likely that rules are made in New York that Europe has to follow; and more likely that competition thrives. If no others accept the challenge, Deutsche should.

它們將使歐洲更有可能在美國同行在危機期間後撤的時候避免資金枯竭；更有可能使歐洲免於不得不遵守美國製定的規則的情況；還更有可能促進競爭的蓬勃發展。如果沒人接受這項挑戰，德銀應該站出來。