????在我看來，這件事的有趣之處在于沃爾克規(guī)則（Volcker rule）究竟發(fā)揮了多大的作用——這項規(guī)則理應阻止華爾街從事瑞銀集團在Facebook股票上實施的那種巨額冒險行為，究竟還有多大金額的賭博行為依然在華爾街上演。許多華爾街公司表示，它們已經(jīng)逐步減少了所謂的自營交易業(yè)務，但鑒于華爾街在Facebook股票上遭受的巨額損失，真實的情況似乎并非如此。更重要的是，瑞銀集團表示，這筆損失發(fā)生在它的做市交易部門，而這恰恰是沃爾克規(guī)則允許銀行從事的一項業(yè)務。這項規(guī)則尚未正式生效。但很顯然，即使沃爾克規(guī)則生效之后，華爾街依然有辦法讓大量風險交易行為脫離監(jiān)管當局的視線。

????譯者：任文科

????For me, the interesting thing here is what this says about the Volcker rule, which is supposed to stop firms from making the type of huge risky gamble that UBS seems to have made on Facebook, and how much gambling is still going on on Wall Street in general. A number of Wall Street firms say they have wound down their so-called proprietary trading desks, but given the large losses in Facebook, that doesn't seem to be the case. What's more, UBS is saying it sustained its loss in its market making unit, which is a business that is allowed under Volcker. The rule is not in effect yet. But it's clear that even after it is, Wall Street will continue to be able to hide a good deal of its risky trading from regulators.