????我們作出了三個預測：之所以作出第一個預測，是因為我們了解金融機構的運作，但我們沒有證據；至于第二個預測，我們肯定它會發生，因為早有先例，而且最直接的受害者和最大的受益者近來一直都對這種純粹的推測叫嚷得最為大聲；作出第三個預測的理由是，如果是我們掌權，我們肯定會考慮這么做。

????這三個預測要么被行業專家大打折扣，要么被自由企業當作惡意攻擊而加以抨擊，要么被視為謬論而不予理睬。

1. 更多的洗錢活動

????首先，我們預測美國各大銀行將因為大量的洗錢活動而備受指責。美國境內的銀行和其他國家的銀行一樣，也蹚上了這灘渾水，洗錢已經成為了銀行業的一部分。我們預測，不久后將出現針對美國大型金融機構的嚴重洗錢指控。

????全球商業銀行處理的交易量非常巨大，難免有部分非法資金偷偷通過他們的風險管理網絡。國際銀行家的工作就是推銷資本，股票經紀人的工作就是推銷股票，而進行大規模洗錢的最好方法之一就是讓本地銀行提供信用額度，然后把它作為美國大型貨幣中心銀行的貸款擔保。

????銀行會聲稱，錢是可以互換的，指望銀行找到每分錢的源頭不現實。但國會有權力要求金融機構核實他們處理的每一分錢的合法性。噢，等等……他們已經這么做了。就是《美國愛國者法案》（USA PATRIOT Act）。該法案要求金融機構進行全面檢查，找出資產的最終擁有者，同時確保他們不會接收非法活動資金。如果這些措施被切實執行，我們一定會感到欣慰。對于金融機構來說，為了符合《美國愛國者法案》的規定，就必須證實自己流入、流出的每筆資金只來自或流向大型貨幣中心銀行。比如，大型國際銀行必須具備嚴密的防洗錢程序，經紀公司有權利用這一點，在接收此類銀行的電匯時不必再進行反洗錢檢查。有資格獲得這種信任的銀行包括匯豐銀行（HSBC）和渣打銀行（Standard Chartered）。面對恐怖主義的國際觸角，你現在還覺得安全嗎？

????請注意，風險管理是要花錢的。企業最看重成本，他們關注的不是對錯標準，而是不參與洗錢活動的金錢成本。洗錢與很多大型銀行的國際盈利活動有關，比如貸款和項目融資。因此，部署反洗錢功能只是個算術問題：組建、維持反洗錢部門的成本是多少？會有多少合法業務因為內部的反洗錢失察而受阻或喪失？洗錢活動被監管機構或執法部門發現的可能性有多大？如果被發現，可能需要付出多大的代價才能與監管機構或執法部門達成和解？計算的結果是：洗錢是門非常好的生意，它的風險微不足道。

2. 銀行業崩潰

????我們的第二個預測是，銀行業將會崩潰，而不是被分割開來。銀行將采取戰略措施，剝離、拆分和削減他們的業務。銀行早就該作出這種商業決定，高盛（Goldman Sachs）等公司已經采取了這方面的措施。

????公眾對商業趨勢的認識是最滯后的指標之一。即使大難臨頭，大多數人也毫無察覺?？纯慈藗儗?a href="../../../../global500/39/2012">花旗集團（Citi）前CEO斯坦福?韋爾所作評論的反應就知道了。他說，銀行應該被分隔開來。對此《華爾街日報》（Wall Street Journal）——他們應該更清楚些——寫到，韋爾“現在認為，廢除分隔商業銀行和投資銀行的《格拉斯-斯蒂格爾法案》（Glass-Steagall）是個錯誤”。曲解韋爾的話可能有助于報紙的發行量，但完全無助于澄清這場爭論。《紐約時報》（New York Times）引用貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns）前著名CEO艾斯?格林伯格的話說：“韋爾不是這個意思。”但尚不清楚格林伯格是否真的看到了那段談話，或者就像其他那些純粹的讀者一樣，他看到的只是斷章取義的談話。

????韋爾當然沒有說他對廢除《格拉斯-斯蒂格爾法案》使花旗集團得以誕生“感到遺憾”。恰恰相反，韋爾在回答消費者新聞與商業頻道（CNBC）記者安德魯?羅斯?索爾金的提問時說，他認為自己的方法符合當時的情況，但現在情況已經發生變化，因此應該采取新的方法。

????Three predictions: The first because we know how the money business works – though we do not have proof to hand. The second we are certain will happen – because it has long been the obvious step, and because those most directly affected by it, and who stand to benefit most from it, have been howling loudest at the mere suggestion. The third, because we would certainly consider doing it if we were in charge.

????All three of our predictions, to the extent they ever come up for public discussion, are loudly discounted by industry pundits, or attacked as vicious assaults on free enterprise, or dismissed as preposterous.

1. More money laundering

????First, we predict that major U.S. banks will be accused of extensive money laundering activities. Banks on U.S. soil swim in the same polluted waters as their global counterparts, and money laundering is part of the environment. We predict there will soon be serious charges of money laundering brought against major U.S. financial institutions.

????Global commercial banks process such an immense flow of transactions that it is inescapable that some illicit funds should slip through their risk management nets. The job of a global banker is to sell money, no less than the job of the stockbroker is to push stocks, and one of the best ways to launder large sums of cash is to get your local bank to write you a line of credit against it, then take that line and post it as collateral for your loan from a major U.S. money center institution.

????The banks will argue that cash is fungible, and it is unrealistic to expect them to trace every dollar to its source. But Congress has the ability to require financial institutions to verify the bona fides of every cent they process. Oh, wait… they already did that. It's called the USA PATRIOT Act, and it requires financial institutions to undertake exhaustive checks to identify the ultimate owners of assets and ensure they do not take in funds that are the proceeds of illegal activities. You will be relieved to know that these steps have actually been implemented. In order for a financial institution to be in compliance with the PATRIOT Act, it must verify that all funds transferred in or out only come from or go to a major money center bank. Brokerage firms, for example, are entitled to rely on the fact that a major international bank is required to have iron-clad procedures to prevent money laundering, and may thus accept wires from such banks without further anti money laundering (AML) checks. Banks that qualify for such reliance would include HSBC and Standard Chartered. Do you now feel safe from the global reach of terror?

????Note too that risk management costs money. And businesses weigh cost centers, not versus standards of Right and Wrong, but versus the dollar cost of not engaging in the activity. Money laundering is associated with many major banks' international profit-making activities – from loan portfolios to project finance. Therefore the calculation to deploy an AML function is simple arithmetic: What does it cost to hire and support an AML department? What is the volume of legitimate business that will be impeded or lost as a result of internal AML oversight? What is the likelihood of money laundering activities actually being found out by a regulator or law enforcement? If found, what is the likely cost to settle with said regulator or law enforcement? The result of the calculation: money laundering is very good business, and the risks are inconsequential.

2. Bank break-ups

????Our second prediction is that the banks will break up. Not that they will be broken up. The banks will move strategically to divest, spin off and slice and dice their business – it is by now an overdue business decision, and firms such as Goldman Sachs (GS) have already made steps in that direction.

????Public awareness of trends in business is among the most lagging of lagging indicators. Even when they are hit over the head, most folks don't get it. Witness the reaction to comments made by former Citi CEO Sanford Weill that the banks should be broken up. The Wall Street Journal – folks who should know better – wrote Weill "now believes it was a mistake to scrap the Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking." Mischaracterization of Weill's remarks may sell newspapers, but it fails utterly to clarify the debate. The New York Times quotes legendary former Bear Stearns CEO Ace Greenberg as saying "this was not Sandy," though it is not clear that Greenberg actually saw the conversation or if, like the rest of us mere readers, he was given out-of-context quotes.

????Weill certainly did not say he "regretted" scrapping Glass-Steagall to create Citigroup (C). Quite the opposite. Responding to CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin, Weill said he believed his formula was right for its time, but that times have changed and a new formula should prevail (Full disclosure: Hedgeye CEO, Keith McCullough, is a contributor and guest host on CNBC, and other Hedgeye analysts are featured guests from time to time.)