????但這可能有些失實(shí)?！都~約時(shí)報(bào)》的文章稱,，可口可樂和其他鋁材用戶已經(jīng)開始從金屬生產(chǎn)商（很可能是礦業(yè)公司）那里直接購買鋁材，以此規(guī)避倉儲(chǔ)費(fèi)用,。因此,，對于可口可樂以及通用汽車來說，鋁價(jià)很可能并沒有明顯上漲,，甚至根本就沒有上漲,。對于普通消費(fèi)者而言,，罐裝汽水或汽車的成本也是如此。為了證明這一點(diǎn),，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》指出,，鋁價(jià)從2008年到2011年飆升，而高盛集團(tuán)倉庫中鋁庫存也從5萬噸上升到85萬噸,。

????但《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》沒有提到的是,，2007年末至2008年初經(jīng)濟(jì)大衰退（Great Recession）開始時(shí)，鋁價(jià)大跌,，之后才出現(xiàn)上面提到的飆升,。即便如此，鋁價(jià)也沒有完全恢復(fù)到原來的水平,。更重要的是,，自2011年年中起，鋁價(jià)開始下跌,，而與此同時(shí)高盛的鋁材庫存卻仍然在持續(xù)增長,。

????正如《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道所述，可口可樂可能對現(xiàn)貨市場上鋁價(jià)（倫敦金屬交易所的報(bào)價(jià)）的上漲表示過不滿,，但是這很可能因?yàn)榭煽诳蓸泛推渌圃焐桃粯酉矚g借助金融工具對沖大宗商品價(jià)格波動(dòng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn),。如果交易市場價(jià)格高于鋁材實(shí)際價(jià)格，可口可樂就要支付更多的費(fèi)用用于對沖風(fēng)險(xiǎn),。但是事實(shí)上,，即使是成本上升，可口可樂公司仍可能通過對沖鋁價(jià)波動(dòng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)來省錢,。否則可口可樂公司為什么繼續(xù)對沖,？

????《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的這篇報(bào)道在指責(zé)高盛集團(tuán)為幕后黑手時(shí)，最大的問題就在于用了經(jīng)不起推敲的證據(jù)來證明基本上所有大宗商品市場都由華爾街操縱這一觀點(diǎn),。這篇報(bào)道只是稱,，根據(jù)高盛集團(tuán)內(nèi)部的一份備忘錄，投機(jī)者把每桶石油價(jià)格推高了33%,。這篇報(bào)道沒有指出的是,，同時(shí)也有大量研究表明，投機(jī)活動(dòng)并沒有導(dǎo)致汽油價(jià)格或其他普通消費(fèi)價(jià)格的上漲,。

????文中還將監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)對摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）的指控作為證據(jù),。監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)稱，摩根大通利用收購貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns）獲得的發(fā)電廠資產(chǎn)操縱加利福尼亞電價(jià),。但這種情況似乎屬于違法行為,。

????華爾街欺詐的確似乎會(huì)拖累經(jīng)濟(jì),，但僅局限于欺詐,。華爾街的公司有很多途徑可以參與到大宗商品市場中，這些途徑有些是合法的，有些是非法的,。

????最終,，我們要辯論的并不是高盛有沒有違規(guī)（《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》稱沒有證據(jù)表明高盛違規(guī)），而是投機(jī)者是否可以去押注影響我們生活的基本材料的價(jià)格,。我們所說的投機(jī)者不僅僅是指像高盛集團(tuán)一樣的大型機(jī)構(gòu),。過去的幾年中，允許普通個(gè)人對石油和其他大宗商品進(jìn)行投資的交易所交易基金（ETF）已經(jīng)蓬勃發(fā)展,。

????我認(rèn)為,，雖然大量投資者的參與流動(dòng)性市場會(huì)使得成本增加，但是由他們的參與決定石油,、電力,、鋁材或者股票的價(jià)格是一件好事。盡管有些情況下,，我們的這個(gè)前提假設(shè)也許是錯(cuò)的,。而有關(guān)華爾街是大宗商品市場害蟲的論調(diào)也肯定存在。國會(huì)和聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備委員會(huì)（ Federal Reserve）顯然也正在調(diào)查這個(gè)問題,，同時(shí)考慮提出新的法規(guī),。不過，希望它們不要把《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》針對高盛集團(tuán)的這篇報(bào)道拿來當(dāng)成推進(jìn)變革的理由,。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：默默

????But that's probably not even the real story. The NYT article says that Coke and other aluminum users have started buying directly from producers of the metal, presumably mining companies, in order to get around rising warehouse costs. So the price of aluminum to Coke and GM, and the cost of a can of soda or a car to an average consumer, probably isn't going up much, or at all. To prove its point, the NYT states that the price of aluminum spiked from 2008 to 2011 as the stockpiles of aluminum in Goldman's warehouses rose from 50,000 tons to 850,000.

????What the NYT doesn't mention is that the spike came only after a much bigger plunge in the price of aluminum in late 2007 and early 2008 at the start of the Great Recession. It still hasn't fully recovered. What's more, aluminum prices have fallen since mid-2011, even as Goldman's stockpiles have continued to grow.

????Coke may have, as the article states, complained about the rising cost of the aluminum in the so-called spot market, which is the price that gets quoted on exchanges like the LME. But that's probably because Coke and other manufactures like to hedge against commodity price swings. If the price in the traded market is higher than the actual price of the metal, Coke would have have to pay more for their hedges. But the fact that Coke can hedge its price still likely saves the company money, even at the higher price. Why else would Coke continue to hedge?

????But perhaps the biggest problem with the NYT's case against Goldman is that it uses its flimsy evidence against the investment bank to justify the argument that basically all commodity markets are being manipulated by Wall Street. The article states plainly, according to a Goldman internal memo no less, that speculators have driven up the price of a barrel of oil by 33%. What the article, again, does not say is that there is a mountain of studies on the other side of that debate that have found that speculators do little to drive up the costs that you and I pay at the pump or elsewhere.

????The article also lumps in as evidence the case being made by regulators that JPMorgan Chase (JPM) used power plants it inherited from Bear Stearns to manipulate electricity prices in California. In that instance, it appears that laws were broken.

????And there Wall Street fraud does seem to be a drag on the economy. But that's always the case with fraud. There are a number of ways Wall Street firms can jump into the commodities markets. Some of them are illegal, and some of them are not.

????In the end, the debate we should be having is not over whether Goldman is breaking any rules -- the NYT article says there is no evidence to suggest it is -- but whether speculators should be able to bet on the price of basic materials that affect our lives. And the speculators we are talking about are not just large institutions like Goldman. In the past few years, ETFs that allow average individual investors to bet on the price of oil and other commodities have flourished.

????My guess is that liquid markets in which lots of investors get to participate to determine the price of oil or electricity or aluminum or stocks is a good thing despite the costs that go along with it. But maybe there are cases where that assumption is wrong. And the idea that Wall Street is bad for the commodities market is certainly in the air. Congress and the Federal Reserve are apparently looking into this question and thinking of proposing new regulations. Hopefully, they won't be using the NYT's case against Goldman as evidence that change is needed.