????交易業(yè)務(wù)的情況也沒有好多少,。雖然第三季度由于市場(chǎng)動(dòng)蕩，交易呈現(xiàn)快進(jìn)快出的特點(diǎn),，但不少交易量似乎都來(lái)自毛利較低的電子交易,。由于投資者回避高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)信貸工具，一度獲利豐厚的高收益率市場(chǎng)幾無(wú)聲息,。第三季度高收益率市場(chǎng)活動(dòng)環(huán)比縮減75%,。與此同時(shí)，信貸市場(chǎng)其他領(lǐng)域的高息差和定價(jià)不一致也使得很多銀行的存量資產(chǎn)縮水,，很可能完全抵消了經(jīng)紀(jì)傭金,。

????所有這些壞消息預(yù)計(jì)都會(huì)給銀行盈利帶來(lái)巨大沖擊。分析人士已調(diào)低了預(yù)測(cè)值,，準(zhǔn)備迎接疲弱的業(yè)績(jī)數(shù)據(jù),，這也拖低了所有大型銀行的股價(jià)。但如果比起政府全面實(shí)施沃爾克法可能給銀行業(yè)利潤(rùn)率帶來(lái)的影響,，短期盈利不佳的消息可謂無(wú)足輕重,。雖然各大銀行都會(huì)受到沉重打擊，但兩家由投資銀行轉(zhuǎn)變而來(lái)的銀行控股公司——高盛和摩根士丹利將首當(dāng)其沖,。

????JP摩根(JP Morgan)的一項(xiàng)分析顯示,，如果政府只瞄準(zhǔn)自營(yíng)性質(zhì)的交易，高盛可能有14%的投行營(yíng)收會(huì)受到影響,。但如果政府同時(shí)也重拳出擊造市交易,，這一比例將躍升至52%。摩根士丹利的凈利潤(rùn)也會(huì)大打折扣,，有40%的投行營(yíng)收會(huì)受到強(qiáng)硬的沃爾克法則的影響。

????兩家銀行都已采取措施關(guān)閉明顯屬于自營(yíng)性質(zhì)的業(yè)務(wù)部門,。2009年和2010年,，高盛關(guān)閉了幾個(gè)自營(yíng)交易部，目前正在逐步縮減一度寄予厚望的全球Alpha對(duì)沖基金,。2008年抵押貸款危機(jī)導(dǎo)致嚴(yán)重虧損后,，摩根士丹利關(guān)閉了大部分自營(yíng)交易業(yè)務(wù)部門,。但這兩家銀行都沒有采取措施，真正為可能嚴(yán)重沖擊其做市業(yè)務(wù)的沃爾克法則做好準(zhǔn)備,。過去一直有這樣的假設(shè),，認(rèn)為政府在這方面會(huì)對(duì)它們網(wǎng)開一面。

????銀行控股公司

????但由于法則草案矛頭直指做市活動(dòng),，這兩家銀行可能需要重新考慮戰(zhàn)略,。鑒于經(jīng)紀(jì)交易業(yè)務(wù)對(duì)這兩家銀行凈利潤(rùn)的重要程度，它們顯然無(wú)法接受強(qiáng)硬的沃爾克法則,。這是因?yàn)樗鼈兊拇_不是傳統(tǒng)的銀行,。2008年，為了能參與政府救助項(xiàng)目,，它們轉(zhuǎn)變成了銀行控股公司,。當(dāng)時(shí)貨幣市場(chǎng)和隔夜回購(gòu)資金市場(chǎng)資金枯竭，它們需要通過貼現(xiàn)窗口獲得廉價(jià)的政府資金以避免可能出現(xiàn)的流動(dòng)性危機(jī),。為此,，它們基本上同意轉(zhuǎn)變成乏味的商業(yè)銀行，接受更多的監(jiān)管監(jiān)督,。

????兩年后的今天,，這兩家公司基本上沒有發(fā)生變化。高盛和摩根士丹利或許稱得上是銀行控股公司,，但事實(shí)上也只是名義上而已,。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，城里沒有高盛的零售銀行機(jī)構(gòu)和ATM機(jī),，也看不到任何摩根士丹利的借記卡,。兩家公司只有10%的資金源于客戶存款，與JP摩根,、美國(guó)銀行(Bank of America)和花旗集團(tuán)（Citigroup）等大型商業(yè)銀行形成了鮮明對(duì)比,，大型商業(yè)銀行約有一半的資金源于存款。

????沃爾克法則瞄準(zhǔn)的是商業(yè)銀行,，而不是經(jīng)紀(jì)交易商,。純經(jīng)紀(jì)交易商和非銀行關(guān)聯(lián)公司似乎不受沃爾克法則約束，可以自由交易,，政府不會(huì)有太多干預(yù),。高盛、摩根士丹利回歸經(jīng)紀(jì)交易商身份的轉(zhuǎn)換成本非常低,。高盛已公開表示不會(huì)放棄銀行牌照,，但據(jù)一位了解內(nèi)情的人士稱，高盛內(nèi)部進(jìn)行過這樣的討論,。問題是：阻止他們邁出這一步的到底是什么,？

????一切的根源可能在于觀念,。目前，市場(chǎng)壓力很大,，兩家公司可能都害怕失去廉價(jià)的政府資金支持,。政府這條生命線能隨時(shí)滿足他們一切借款需求，并相對(duì)保密,。純經(jīng)紀(jì)交易商則依賴多變的貨幣市場(chǎng)為其交易活動(dòng)融資,，沒有政府作為后盾，在當(dāng)前震蕩多變的市場(chǎng)中要冒很高風(fēng)險(xiǎn),。

????高盛和摩根士丹利花了兩年時(shí)間才想清楚后金融危機(jī)時(shí)代的定位問題,。如果它們希望保留銀行身份，就必須接受,，將來(lái)以自有資金涉險(xiǎn)時(shí)將不再擁有政府作為后盾,。如果它們想賺取大筆交易利潤(rùn)，就該承擔(dān)隨之而來(lái)的所有風(fēng)險(xiǎn),，放棄政府的廉價(jià)資金,。眼下，兩家公司兩頭都想要,。但強(qiáng)硬的沃爾克法則卻會(huì)讓這個(gè)美夢(mèng)落空,。

????It wasn't much better on the trading side of the business. While trading velocity was strong in the third quarter due to all the volatility in the markets, much of the flow seem to be coming from lower-margin electronic trading activity. The once lucrative high yield market went virtually silent as investors shied away from risky credit instruments. Activity in that market was down 75% in the third quarter compared with the previous quarter. Meanwhile, wide spreads and incongruent pricing in the rest of the credit markets led to many banks to take negative inventory marks, which will most likely outweigh broker commissions.

????All this bad news is expected to weigh heavily on bank earnings. Analysts have slashed their estimates in preparation for the weak numbers, dragging down the share prices at all the major banks. But this short-term blip in profits pales in comparison to what could happen to the banks' bottom line if the Volcker Rule is fully enforced by the government. While all the major banks will be hit hard, the two investment-banks-turned-bank-holding-companies, Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS), are expected to experience the most pain.

????Goldman could see 14% of its total investment banking revenue impacted if the government focuses solely on trades that are proprietary in nature, according to an analysis by JP Morgan (JPM). But if the government clamps down hard on market making as well, that number jumps to 52%. Morgan Stanley's bottom line would also be eviscerated, with 40% of its investment banking revenue impacted by a strong Volcker Rule.

????Both banks have taken steps to close business units that are clearly proprietary in nature. Goldman shuttered several of its prop desks in 2009 and 2010 and is currently winding down its once high-flying Global Alpha hedge fund. Morgan Stanley closed most of its prop trading units after experiencing heavy losses as a result of the mortgage meltdown in 2008. But neither has taken steps to seriously prepare for a strong Volcker Rule where their market-making activities could be seriously impacted. It was always assumed that the government would go easy on them in that regard.

????Bank holding companies

????But with the draft rule clearly focused on market-making, the banks may need to rethink their strategy. A strong Volcker Rule would clearly be unacceptable to both banks given how important the broker dealer operations are to their bottom lines. That's because they are really not traditional banks. In 2008, the two became bank holding companies so they could have access to the government's bailout programs. The money market and overnight repo funding markets dried up and they needed access to cheap government funds through the discount window in order to resolve what could have been an insolvency crisis. In return, they basically agreed to become boring commercial banks, which would open them up to more regulatory oversight.

????Two years later, little has changed for the firms. Goldman and Morgan may be bank holding companies, but it's really in name only. For example, there aren't any Goldman Sachs retail bank branches or ATMs around town and there are no Morgan Stanley debit cards in sight. The firms receive just 10% of their funding needs through customer deposits. That's in contrast to the large commercial banks, like JP Morgan, Bank of America (BAC) and Citigroup (C), which derive around half of their funding needs from deposits.

????The Volcker Rule is aimed at the commercial banks, not the broker dealers. Pure play broker dealers and non-bank affiliates appear to be exempt from Volcker and can trade as they like without much government interference. There would be very little switching costs for Goldman and Morgan to go back to being broker dealers. Goldman has said publicly it would not give up its bank charter, but internally there have been discussions about doing just that, according to a person familiar with the firm's thinking. The question is: what's holding them back?

????It all comes down to perception. The firms may be afraid to give up cheap funding from the government at a time of severe market stress. The government lifeline allows them to borrow whatever they want, whenever they want it, and in relative secrecy. Pure-play broker dealers are dependent on the fickle money markets to fund their trading activities and don't have access to that government backstop -- a dangerous game in today's volatile markets.

????Goldman and Morgan have had two years to figure out what they want to be in the post-financial crisis world. If they want to be banks, they should accept that the government will no longer be backstopping them while they gamble for their own account. If they want to make big trading profits, then they should accept all the risks that go along with that proposal and give up the government lifeline. For now, the firms are hoping to have their cake and eat it too. But a strong Volcker Rule just might take the cake away.