The Volcker Rule

睇來, 好多人還再期望在股市中可以大炒特炒會好失望, 因為好多對沖基金在自摺中, 就連索羅斯最成功的手下在高峰期中都要收手, 又何來資金再玩大風險玩意呢 ? 驚就驚 D 基金推高股市散貨, 還是小心為妙 !

finance.yahoo.com

Why Wall Street Banks Are Breaking Up With Hedge Funds

The official story line behind Wall Street firms selling off hedge funds is that the moves are driven by the Volcker Rule, which severely limited the level of investments banks can make in hedge funds and private equity funds.

But the truth is more complex. The romance between banks and hedge funds-which had led to expensive buyouts for banks and big paydays for many former bankers who had become hedge fund moguls-soured long before the Volcker Rule, which has yet to take effect. Even if the rule wasn't in the pipeline, many top executives at the banks now look on the acquisitions of hedge funds as mistakes or perhaps even scams.

When we broke the news that Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS - News) was selling off FrontPoint, we noted that FrontPoint was founded by former Morgan Stanley executives. In short, it was a deal between closely related, long-term insiders.

The same could be said of many of the acquisitions of hedge funds by banks during the boom years. In case after case, the hedge fund managers were brought back into the bank and given important management positions.

We can just about squint our eyes and see those "acquisitions" as merely huge signing bonuses for the founders of the funds. If the payouts were disclosed as bonuses, they may have prompted more scrutiny and perhaps shareholder outrage. But since they were characterized as acquisitions of important and valuable assets, they largely escaped the attention of the pitchforkers.

Did any of these deals work out? Certainly Citigroup's (NYSE:C - News) acquisition of Vikram Pandit's Old Lane did not. It was closed less than a year after Citigroup purchased it. The FrontPoint deal lasted much longer but insiders say it never performed as well as hoped.

The failed romance between banks and hedge funds seems to have permanently soured many top Wall Street executives on similar acquisitions.

"The Volcker Rule is largely beside the point. Hedge funds are best when owned by the principals. I can't see these deals ever coming back," a top Wall Streeter told us over lunch in an executive dining room overlooking Midtown's skyline.

The waiter came to take the orders. He asked for a salad appetizer, and then a second appetizer salad for the entrée. Wall Street's appetite has certainly changed.

The Volcker Rule

為了避免重演次貸金融海嘯的慘況，美國總統歐巴馬(Barack Obama)近日宣布，將採用由前Fed主席伏克爾(Paul Volcker)提出的建議，進行大規模的金融改革行動，亦稱之為「伏克爾法則」(Volcker Rule)。第一金投信總經理俞大鈞表示，伏克爾法則未來若在美國國會通過執行，將直接衝擊美國金融產業，短期市場動盪難免，但長期來看若能重建金融秩序，將可緩和投資市場過度劇烈波動的風險，未來影響層面仍待觀察。

伏克爾法則主要為限縮金融業規模與自營交易的計畫，以限制金融業對風險承擔的胃口，進而避免金融風暴重演，為歐巴馬上任以來，對金融業採取重大的改革行動之一，歐巴馬誓言絕不再讓美國納稅人淪為「大到不能倒」銀行所挾持的人質，以力挽節節敗退的民調，希望能重拾民心。

　俞大鈞指出，伏克爾法則未來若在美國國會通過執行，將直接影響目前兼具商業銀行和投資銀行的大型金融公司，包括摩根大通(JP Morgan)和美國銀行(Bank of America)等金融巨擘將被迫選擇經營方向，即在商業銀行和自營商交易之間擇一為之。換言之，高盛集團或摩根大通等華爾街鉅子可能被迫出脫旗下的私募基金業務，也必須停止四處收購；摩根士坦利(Morgan Stanley)預估，若此舉成真未來對美國銀行、摩根大通和花旗銀行(Citi)的EPS將有2-5%的影響。

　在市場交易方面，在美國股市當中，有60%的成交量來自於超短線積極操作的交易，20%來自於造市者交易，自營交易與避險基金則佔剩餘 20%的一部分，因此伏克爾法則計劃影響的部份應在20%以下。此外，目前銀行90%的自營交易是來自於執行客戶交易，換言之，只有10%的營收是來自於銀行使用自有資產操作。若限制的部份只在後者(端視政府如何定義)，則影響低於5%。

至於對全球流動性的影響的部份，也是最難進行評估的層面，根據高盛(Goldman Sachs)的估計，美國前三大銀行(BAC, JP Morgan, Citi)擁有30%的存款，但總負債(資產)卻佔45%，此項政策將驅使大型銀行持續去槓桿化，並且被迫降低貸款量，加上自營交易的限制，將使這些大型銀行的流動性降低，風險貼水上升，並使得附買回交易市場萎縮，進而使房貸抵押債券(MBS)與公債市場流動性降低。

由於伏克爾法則對美金融業將造成直接衝擊，未來仍需觀察該政策公佈細節和美國國會表決時程，及美國國會的生態變化和市場反應狀況而定，但預計短期投資市場動盪難免，未來影響層面將有待後續發展觀察。
# 2010-01-29
# 新聞速報
# 【時報記者任珮云台北報導】