????交易業務的情況也沒有好多少。雖然第三季度由于市場動蕩，交易呈現快進快出的特點，但不少交易量似乎都來自毛利較低的電子交易。由于投資者回避高風險信貸工具，一度獲利豐厚的高收益率市場幾無聲息。第三季度高收益率市場活動環比縮減75%。與此同時，信貸市場其他領域的高息差和定價不一致也使得很多銀行的存量資產縮水，很可能完全抵消了經紀傭金。

????所有這些壞消息預計都會給銀行盈利帶來巨大沖擊。分析人士已調低了預測值，準備迎接疲弱的業績數據，這也拖低了所有大型銀行的股價。但如果比起政府全面實施沃爾克法可能給銀行業利潤率帶來的影響，短期盈利不佳的消息可謂無足輕重。雖然各大銀行都會受到沉重打擊，但兩家由投資銀行轉變而來的銀行控股公司——高盛和摩根士丹利將首當其沖。

????JP摩根(JP Morgan)的一項分析顯示，如果政府只瞄準自營性質的交易，高盛可能有14%的投行營收會受到影響。但如果政府同時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也會大打折扣，有40%的投行營收會受到強硬的沃爾克法則的影響。

????兩家銀行都已采取措施關閉明顯屬于自營性質的業務部門。2009年和2010年，高盛關閉了幾個自營交易部，目前正在逐步縮減一度寄予厚望的全球Alpha對沖基金。2008年抵押貸款危機導致嚴重虧損后，摩根士丹利關閉了大部分自營交易業務部門。但這兩家銀行都沒有采取措施，真正為可能嚴重沖擊其做市業務的沃爾克法則做好準備。過去一直有這樣的假設，認為政府在這方面會對它們網開一面。

????銀行控股公司

????但由于法則草案矛頭直指做市活動，這兩家銀行可能需要重新考慮戰略。鑒于經紀交易業務對這兩家銀行凈利潤的重要程度，它們顯然無法接受強硬的沃爾克法則。這是因為它們的確不是傳統的銀行。2008年，為了能參與政府救助項目，它們轉變成了銀行控股公司。當時貨幣市場和隔夜回購資金市場資金枯竭，它們需要通過貼現窗口獲得廉價的政府資金以避免可能出現的流動性危機。為此，它們基本上同意轉變成乏味的商業銀行，接受更多的監管監督。

????兩年后的今天，這兩家公司基本上沒有發生變化。高盛和摩根士丹利或許稱得上是銀行控股公司，但事實上也只是名義上而已。舉例來說，城里沒有高盛的零售銀行機構和ATM機，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、美國銀行(Bank of America)和花旗集團（Citigroup）等大型商業銀行形成了鮮明對比，大型商業銀行約有一半的資金源于存款。

????沃爾克法則瞄準的是商業銀行，而不是經紀交易商。純經紀交易商和非銀行關聯公司似乎不受沃爾克法則約束，可以自由交易，政府不會有太多干預。高盛、摩根士丹利回歸經紀交易商身份的轉換成本非常低。高盛已公開表示不會放棄銀行牌照，但據一位了解內情的人士稱，高盛內部進行過這樣的討論。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，市場壓力很大，兩家公司可能都害怕失去廉價的政府資金支持。政府這條生命線能隨時滿足他們一切借款需求，并相對保密。純經紀交易商則依賴多變的貨幣市場為其交易活動融資，沒有政府作為后盾，在當前震蕩多變的市場中要冒很高風險。

????高盛和摩根士丹利花了兩年時間才想清楚后金融危機時代的定位問題。如果它們希望保留銀行身份，就必須接受，將來以自有資金涉險時將不再擁有政府作為后盾。如果它們想賺取大筆交易利潤，就該承擔隨之而來的所有風險，放棄政府的廉價資金。眼下，兩家公司兩頭都想要。但強硬的沃爾克法則卻會讓這個美夢落空。

????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.