倫敦金融城蠶食華爾街地位

“London is a real competitor to New York,” said Michael Bloomberg, the outgoing New York mayor, on Sunday – and not for the first time.

“倫敦是紐約的真正競爭對手，”即將卸任的紐約市長邁克爾?布隆伯格(Michael Bloomberg)最近表示。他已經不是第一次這麼說了。

With his pro-Wall Street policies under threat from a more leftwing successor, Mr Bloomberg has been warning that the other caPital of global finance could seize more ground from its US rival.

由於更爲左翼的繼任者將威脅到自己的親華爾街政策，布隆伯格一直警告稱，作爲另一大全球金融中心的倫敦將進一步蠶食華爾街的地位。

“You’ve got to keep making your society open and you’ve got to keep providing opportunities,” he told CNN.

“必須保持社會開放，必須不斷提供機會，”他對美國有線電視新聞網(CNN)表示。

Just last week, the UK embraced three US financial phenomena that are now regarded with scepticism on this side of the Atlantic: bad banks; mortgage guarantees; and closer ties to JPMorgan. Should New York be worried? Or should London?

就在兩週前，英國對來自美國的三種金融現象敞開懷抱，但這些概念如今在美國受到質疑：壞賬銀行、抵押貸款擔保和加強與摩根大通(JPMorgan)的關係。該擔心的是紐約還是倫敦？

Of the three phenomena, the least controversial was the decision to create an internal “bad bank” at Royal Bank of Scotland to house the crisis-era assets that stymied its recovery.

三種現象中最無可非議的是蘇格蘭皇家銀行(RBS)決定設立內部“壞賬銀行”，接納阻礙其復甦的危機時期資產。

Citigroup did this more than four years ago – and has since sold down the portfolio so that it represents only 6 per cent of the balance sheet and is close to profitability. The question is why it took RBS so long. Citi went through the same financial crisis, suffered from a similar near-death experience and even owned some of the same toxic mortgage assets.

4年多前，花旗集團(Citigroup)曾經這樣做過。之後它出售了部分危機時期的資產，餘下部分現僅佔集團資產負債表的6%，並且接近盈利。問題是，RBS爲何花了這麼久才建立壞賬銀行？花旗經歷了同樣的金融危機，遭遇了相似的“瀕死”體驗，甚至擁有相同類型的不良抵押貸款資產。

For all the endless hand-wringing that preceded the RBS decision, Citi has shown that the move is not life changing: there is no magic way of making the bad assets vanish. The only hope is that the process encourages the bank to get rid of the bad stuff faster, while fooling investors into concentrating on only the “good” part of the business.

儘管在RBS決定開設壞賬銀行之前，人們經歷了無休無止的絕望，但花旗的經驗表明，開設壞賬銀行並非扭轉乾坤之舉：沒有什麼靈丹妙藥能讓不良資產自己消失。唯一的希望是，在哄騙投資者只關注RBS“好”的一面的同時，此舉能促進該行更快地甩掉不良資產。

It is difficult to see this tactic working in other contexts. Imagine walking into a branch of RBS or Citi seeking a loan, pointing out that you have shifted a mountain of your existing credit card debt to the “bad” part of your balance sheet and asking the manager to focus on the “good” bit. But it did help Citi underscore that there was a functioning business buried under the trash.

這種策略很難在其他情景下奏效。試想：你走進RBS或花旗的一家分行尋求貸款，言明你已經將堆成山的現有信用卡債務轉移到了資產負債表的“不良”部分，要求信貸經理只關注“好”的部分。但在這種做法的幫助下，花旗確實強化了一種印象：在一團糟的局面下，還埋藏着一家正常運轉的企業。

Second, the UK has introduced “Help to Buy” – a government mortgage guarantee scheme, used for the first time last week.

第二，英國推出了“購房援助計劃”(Help to Buy)。這項政府抵押貸款擔保計劃兩週前首次投入使用。

So, at the same time as RBS adopts Citi’s solution to the problem of bad mortgage securities, the UK is also adopting the US system that helped create the problem in the first place.

因此，在RBS仿效花旗的做法解決不良抵押貸款證券問題時，英國也在採納美國的機制，儘管正是這一機制當初在美國促成危機。

The US government has been helping people to buy houses for decades – through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, institutions that guarantee home loans against default. Their role in stoking the crisis by helping people with low deposits buy houses they could not afford is raw in the US. But the UK is adopting its scheme amid worries about a new housing bubble.

美國幾十年來一直在幫助人們買房，房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)兩家機構爲住房貸款提供違約擔保。“兩房”幫助存款不足的人們購買他們承擔不起的住房，在促成美國危機中所起的作用顯而易見。但英國卻在對新一輪房地產泡沫的擔憂中實行類似計劃。

Again, the timing looks odd – but then the US has been paralysed by how to replace Fannie and Freddie for five years, ever since they came close to collapse in the financial crisis.

還是那句話，英國對時機的選擇令人費解。但“兩房”在金融危機中幾近倒閉，在之後5年裏，如何替代它們的問題一直令美國無所適從。

Despite the anger – mainly from Republicans – at their vast government bailouts in 2008, there is still no firm proposal to close down Fannie and Freddie. It is easy to say the government should pull back from housing; but harder to do so when it still supports 90 per cent of the market during a fragile recovery.

儘管2008年政府對“兩房”的大規模紓困引發憤怒（主要來自共和黨人），但迄今仍沒有關閉“兩房”的切實提議。讓政府撤出房地產說起來容易做起來難，因爲在脆弱的復甦期間，它仍支撐着90%的市場。

And the third of the US phenomena to cross the Atlantic is embracing JPMorgan Chase. In the US, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of the bank, is in negotiations with the Department of Justice to pay a record $13bn penalty to settle allegations it mis-sold mortgage securities. JPMorgan is the subject of multiple investigations by different law enforcement agencies, some of them criminal in nature.

第三個漂洋過海來到英國的現象是向摩根大通示好。摩根大通首席執行官傑米?戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)正與美國司法部(US Department of Justice)談判，將支付創紀錄的130億美元罰金，了結關於抵押貸款證券不當銷售的指控。摩根大通是多家執法機構調查的對象，其中一部分是刑事調查。

At a recent meeting of chief executives at the White House, participants said Mr Dimon was sensitive to the fact he was in the doghouse – abandoning his customary combativeness and sitting meekly in the corner.

近期多家公司的首席執行官在白宮會晤。與會者稱戴蒙敏感地注意到他受到的冷遇——他沒有了慣常的好鬥本性，只是溫和地坐在一角。

But, last week, Mr Dimon was feted by Prince Andrew at Buckingham Palace, by Boris Johnson, the London mayor, and by George Osborne, the UK chancellor.

但兩週前，戴蒙卻在白金漢宮受到安德魯王子(Prince Andrew)的接見，並與倫敦市長鮑里斯?約翰遜(Boris Johnson)和英國財相喬治?奧斯本(George Osbourne)會晤。

His London hosts required no such bashfulness – despite the fact that JPMorgan’s troubles began with the “London whale” trading debacle and now range from allegations of manipulating commodities markets to investigations into hiring practices in Asia.

倫敦的東道主們可不需要戴蒙表現得這麼侷促，儘管摩根大通的麻煩始於“倫敦鯨”(London whale)交易醜聞，而目前已經擴大——摩根大通現在既面對操縱大宗商品市場的指控，又受到對它在亞洲招聘行爲的調查。

“The US gave us JPMorgan, we gave you Piers Morgan, and the UK got the better deal,” Mr Johnson said at a dinner, according to Politico. Well, perhaps. The real threat to Wall Street is the same as it ever was: the potential that the City of London is more open, less judgmental, with a climate of sunny optimism. But that’s the risk for London, too.

據Politico網站消息，約翰遜在晚宴上稱：“美國給了我們摩根大通，我們給了美國皮爾斯?摩根(Piers Morgan)，佔便宜的是英國。”或許是這樣。華爾街面臨的真正威脅與過去並無不同：倫敦金融城(City of London)可能變得更加開放、較少指手畫腳，同時洋溢着陽光樂觀的氣息。但這同樣是倫敦的風險所在。