金融業的薪水或將下降

Say the words "banker pay" to your average voter or politician and these days you will hear an angry hiss. After all, nothing stirs up so much resentment against modern capitalism as the sight of financiers still reaping fat rewards despite failing institutions. On Sunday, the public outrage at Stephen Hester's bonus persuaded the Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive to turn down a pay award (£1m) that would be considered miserly by other bank bosses in the UK and the US.

如今若與普通選民或政客談論“銀行家的薪酬”，你總能聽到憤怒的噓聲。畢竟，沒有什麼比看到金融家們在金融機構瀕臨倒閉時仍能拿到豐厚的薪酬更能激起人們對現代資本主義的憎恨了。上週日，蘇格蘭皇家銀行(RBS)行政總裁斯蒂芬•赫斯特(Stephen Hester)在公憤的壓力之下，決定放棄一筆100萬英鎊的獎金——儘管在其他英美銀行的老闆看來，這筆獎金簡直少得可憐。

However, is it possible to imagine a world where banking pay— and banking — is radically slimmed down? Anybody living in countries such as Japan or Sweden would undoubtedly say "yes"; in those economies, foreign financiers' salaries appear bloated. But perhaps a more interesting — and relevant — intellectual exercise is to peer at the US through a long historical lens; to imagine, if you like, a banking pay version of Back to the Future.

然而，我們能夠想象一個銀行業薪酬和銀行業規模大幅縮水的世界嗎？日本或瑞典等國的居民無疑會給出肯定的回答；在那些經濟體的居民看來，外國金融家的薪酬實屬虛高。不過，一個更有意思、也更有意義的思考或許是，在較長的時間尺度上對美國的情況進行審視。如果你願意的話，可以把它看作一部“銀行業薪酬版”的《回到未來》(Back to the Future)。

Take a look, for example, at the work by Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef, two US-based economists. They have researched trends in banker pay over the past 150 years and found that, in the early 20th century, financial sector pay relative to the rest of the private sector was roughly at parity (for, crucially, employees with similar levels of education). But then it rose sharply until it hit 1.7 times in 1929, the year of the Wall Street crash.

例如，我們可以讀一下兩位現居美國的經濟學家托馬斯•菲利蓬(Thomas Philippon)和阿里爾•雷謝夫(Ariell Reshef)的著作。他們對過去150年銀行家薪酬變化的趨勢進行了研究，結果發現：在20世紀初，金融業和私營部門其他行業支付給具有相似教育程度（這一點很關鍵）的員工的薪酬大體相當。但接下來，金融業薪酬就大幅上升，到華爾街崩盤的1929年，達到了其他行業的1.7倍。

That echoed a bigger increase in finance: the total cost of financial intermediation (all wages and profits paid to financial firms) had reached 6 per cent in 1930, up from just 2 per cent in 1870, according to separate research that Mr Philippon recently showed to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

這一上升與金融領域一項幅度更大的上升相呼應：菲利蓬最近提交給紐約聯儲(Federal Reserve Bank of New York)的另一份研究報告顯示，金融中介的總成本（支付給金融機構的全部薪酬和利潤）在1870年僅爲2%，在1930年則上升到了6%。

After the 1929 crash, this trend did not immediately reverse: for several years, financial pay remained high because pay in other parts of the economy fell and some bankers traded cannily during and after the crash. However, in the late 1930s the ratio slumped back towards parity and stayed there for the subsequent three decades; in the years following the second world war, American bankers were paid roughly the same as other professionals. But from the the late 1970s onwards, a new cycle turned: the total cost of financial intermediation jumped to 9 per cent in 2010 from 4 per cent in 1950. The ratio of financial sector pay to pay in the rest of the private sector hit 1.7 times in 2006 – in a delicious irony, the same level as in 1929.

1929年崩盤後，這個趨勢並未立即扭轉，隨後的若干年裏，金融業薪酬仍然很高。這是因爲，美國經濟其他領域的薪酬都已下降，而且在崩盤期間和之後，一些銀行家做的交易很精明。但在20世紀30年代末，金融業與其他行業薪酬之比又回落至1:1附近，並在之後的30年裏維持在這一水平；二戰結束後的幾年裏，美國銀行家薪酬與其他專業人士大致相當。但20世紀70年代末以來，我們又迎來了一個新的週期：金融中介總成本從1950年的4%躍升至2010年的9%；金融業薪酬在2006年達到了私營部門其他行業薪酬的1.7倍——頗有諷刺意味的是，這個水平與1929年相同。It is a matter of fierce dispute why banker pay swelled. Financiers are apt to blame it on the increased importance and complexity of finance: in a world of technological change and globalisation, so the argument goes, you need bright, highly skilled bankers. Many economists such as Mr Philippon, however, reject that. He reckons at least half of the pay jump represents "rent seeking" (skimming off fees), not innovation. "The technological development of the past 40 years (with IT in particular) should have disproportionately increased efficiency," he observes, noting that in companies such as Walmart, "efficiency" has reduced wages.

人們就銀行家薪酬大幅上升的原因展開了激烈的爭論。金融家們傾向於將薪酬激增歸因於金融業的重要性和複雜性提高了。他們論證道，一個以技術變革和全球化爲特點的世界，需要聰明、技能高超的銀行家。但許多經濟學家，例如菲利蓬，卻不認同這種觀點。菲利蓬認爲，至少有一半的薪酬上升反映的是“尋租”（即攫取費用），而不是創新。他說：“過去40年中的技術發展（尤其是IT領域的發展），應當已經在很大程度上提高了效率。”他指出，在沃爾瑪(Walmart)等企業，“效率”壓低了工資水平。

The crucial question, though, is whether history might repeat itself and produce a big pay swing, as in the post-war years. Right now, it seems hard to imagine; after all, the experience of the past few decades has made it seem almost normal for bankers to be highly paid.

但關鍵問題是，歷史會不會重演，會不會像戰後的若干年那樣再次出現大幅的薪酬波動。就目前而言，這一點似乎還難以想象；畢竟，過去幾十年的經驗說明，銀行家拿高薪幾乎是再正常不過的事情。

But as this year's bonus round comes to an end, there are some hints of change. The sector is shrinking: an estimated 60,000 jobs were cut last year. Staff are being paid in stock deferred over a longer time, and pay appears to be falling. Morgan Stanley, for example, has declared plans to cap the amount of bonus that its staff can receive immediately at $125,000; Goldman Sachs has announced that it is cutting 2011 compensation by 21 per cent; JPMorgan Chase has cut the total pay pool for its investment bankers by 36 per cent year on year. Indeed, the consensus among bank executives in Davos last week was that total compensation for mid — to senior — level employees in 2011 was about 30 per cent lower than 2010 – and perhaps 60 per cent below the 2007 peak. "There is a big change now," claims one Wall Street CEO.

不過，隨着本年度發放獎金的週期接近尾聲，我們已經看到了一些變化的跡象。銀行業規模正在縮小，去年大約削減了6萬個工作崗位。銀行開始以鎖定期更久的股票來支付員工薪酬，與此同時，薪酬似乎正在下降。例如，摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)已宣佈計劃將員工可立即拿到的獎金上限設爲12.5萬美元；高盛(Goldman Sachs)則宣佈會將2011年度的薪酬削減21%；摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)也把投行業務的總薪酬池同比削減了36%。事實上，銀行業高管上週在達沃斯形成的共識是，2011年度中高級員工的薪酬比2010年大約降低了30%，與2007年的峯值相比可能降低了60%。一位華爾街機構的首席執行官稱：“現在局面發生了巨大的變化。”

Now, this decline is still far too small to pacify critics. And it remains tough to calculate the precise squeeze, since banks pay their employees in different ways and — crucially — many financiers are leaving regulated banks for work in shadow banks, where pay is even more opaque.

就目前而言，這樣的降幅還過於微小，不足以平息批評意見。而且，因爲銀行向員工支付薪酬的方式多種多樣，更關鍵的是，許多金融家正在脫離受監管的銀行業，轉投薪酬更不透明的影子銀行，所以，計算準確的薪酬降幅仍然十分困難。

But, what is clear is that the squeeze almost certainly has further to go, as regulation bites, deleveraging takes hold and western economies ail. Sadly, it probably will not take the pay ratio to 1950s levels; technology now enables financiers to hop across borders and around rules, skimming fees in opaque ways. But — just as 70 years ago — a cycle has turned; albeit slowly. By 2017, bank pay could look very different from 2007; and modern capitalism will look all the better for it.

但顯而易見的是，隨着監管效果開始顯現、去槓桿化持續進行、西方經濟陷入困境，金融家薪酬縮水的幅度肯定還會加大。遺憾的是，金融業與其他行業的薪酬比率多半不會降至20世紀50年代的水平；如今，金融家們憑藉技術手段可以跨越國界、規避法規，以不透明的方式收取費用。不過，正如70年前那樣，一個新的週期已經到來——儘管運行得有些緩慢。到2017年，銀行業薪酬可能會與2007年相去甚遠，而現代資本主義的狀況卻會因此好很多。

譯者:王柯倫