????韋爾顯然是對的。銀行不只是大到不能倒（這是公共政策問題），而且是大到無法進行有效的管理（這是盈利問題）。我們應該從對沖基金行業吸取教訓。在這個行業里，有很多最為成功的基金經理向他們的投資者返還資金，因為他們的基金已經大到難以駕馭。各種類型的金融機構都有一個最佳的規模，而“倫敦鯨”的教訓告訴我們，就連杰米?迪蒙的管理能力都有個限度。布蘭克費恩和韋爾在前，迪蒙等人是否會跟進？我們希望銀行業能夠出現新的架構。

????韋爾指出，公眾對金融機構缺乏信任，這是贊成將存款業務和風險業務分離的有力論據。沃克爾規則（Volcker Rule）的執行情況將極其混亂，聰明的銀行家將會提早劃清界限。少數記性好的華爾街高管常常是最成功的。這不應該和銀行家們對自身名譽的擔心相混淆。銀行高管們意識到，他們的行業周期與公眾的喜好和厭惡息息相關，必須跟上公眾情緒的變化，這樣才能保持流動性。勞埃德?布蘭克費恩或許會對自己被稱為“一只纏繞在人臉上的巨大吸血烏賊”一事不予理會，但他將迅速采取行動，使市場繼續依賴高盛這個交易商。

????行動很快就會到來。韋爾在消費者新聞與商業頻道上的露面是個試探氣球，向銀行業發出了許可。華爾街高管們針對重新實施《格拉斯-斯蒂格爾法案》的所有呼號和憤怒都只是在說：“別把我扔進暴風驟雨中。”他們將在方便的時候按照自己的計劃拆分自己執掌的金融機構，在這個過程中不會放過每一分利潤。不要指望國會會為了公眾的利益采取行動。但在進行預測的時候，可以打賭，華爾街一定會充分利用每一個機會。

3. 股利減少

????最后，我們的第三個預測是，大公司支付的股利將會減少。

????《金融時報》（Financial Times）說股票正在勝過債券：“對52個機構投資者的調查顯示，高收益率債券和高息股票都越來越受青睞，此外還有房地產和基礎設施，以及發達和新興市場的投資級企業貸款。”這與太平洋投資管理公司（PIMCO）董事總經理比爾?格羅斯的說法恰恰相反。他宣稱“股票已死”。1979年8月，就在20世紀最漫長牛市到來前夕，《商業周刊》（Business Week）登載了一篇著名的封面故事，標題就是《股票已死》。從那時到現在，這個短語始終在華爾街回響。

????格羅斯說：“從歷史上看，股票年均實際回報率為6.6%，比GDP增速高了3%。”他的觀點是：GDP增速只有3.5%，但回報率卻是6.6%，這意味著你獲得了超過3%的“幽靈”回報。格羅斯說，輸家是貸款人、勞動者和政府。對那些遭遇債權契約被取消、失業或者稅收增加的人來說，這是個很有吸引力的觀點。

????相關報道正在競相爭奪媒體的頭版頭條版面——盡管邏輯告訴我們，股票不能在已死的同時又受到青睞。正如我們親愛的已故父親常說的那樣，這也是賽馬比賽的組成部分。

????但在這場比賽中殺出了一匹黑馬——不負責任的美國政策不斷推遲“美元之死”。要求審查美聯儲的國會議員或許有點道理。但我們認為，美聯儲應該要求審查國會。國會給伯南克的工具非常有限，但卻要求他解決國會和白宮所有人員加起來都不知從何入手的問題。只有一把錘子和直尺的伯南克必須弄明白如何砍、鉆、擰、斜切、刨、推平、斜接和組裝一個被首要責任人惡意忽視的經濟。國會的職責是通過負責任的財政政策，然后授予美聯儲控制韁繩的權力，好讓馬兒不致脫離賽道。

????然而，國會已經放棄了自己的職責。面對這種情況，美聯儲用盡方法也無法提振美元。美國企業界不是啞巴。即使是在美國的信用評級從AAA被下調至AA之后，“無風險”投資仍然能夠以負回報率將自己推銷出去。在這種環境下，獲得AAA信用評級的公司為什么要犧牲自己來拯救美國國債收益率？政府和銀行都不愿意拿錢出來的時候，美國企業界是否應該挺身而出呢？看看近3.5%的IBM股票收益率，請捫心自問：“為什么？”

????如果你負責監管股票基金或者零售經紀賬戶，你應該會對異常事件非常敏感。在這個時候，大型上市公司只需要對外宣稱，鑒于形勢的不確定性，他們認為節約使用資源才是慎重的做法。這些公司的股票將遭受暫時的打擊，但他們將撐過艱難時期。但是突然之間，所有這些“慎重”的藍籌股投資組合將變成客戶訴訟。

????這些劇烈的變化就像是把腌菜從罐子里拿出來。第一個很難拿，但拿出來后，其他的就會不斷地掉出來，掉出來，掉出來……

????譯者：千牛絮

????Weill is obviously right. The banks are not merely too big to fail – which is a public policy problem. They are too big to manage efficiently, which is a profitability problem. Take the lesson from the hedge fund industry, where many of the most successful managers are returning cash to their investors because their funds have grown unwieldy. There is an optimal size to every type of financial institution, and the lesson of the London Whale is that even Jamie Dimon may have hit his limit. Where Blankfein and Weill lead the way, can the likes of Dimon be far behind? Look for a new structure to emerge.

????Weill points to the undermining of public confidence in the financial markets as a compelling point in favor of separating deposit taking from risk taking. Too, the implementation of the Volcker Rule will be unbelievably messy, and smart bankers will make a clean break early. The few Wall Street executives with long memories are often the most successful. This should not be confused with bankers' concern with their reputations. Bank executives realize that their industry cycles in and out of favor with the public and they need to keep step with that sentiment in order to stay liquid. Lloyd Blankfein may brush off being called a "giant face-sucking vampire squid," but he will act swiftly to keep the markets relying on Goldman as counterparty.

????The move will come – Weill's CNBC appearance was the trial balloon and grants permission to the industry – all the screams and outrage of Wall Street execs pushing back against a reintroduction of Glass-Steagall is just so much "don't throw me in the briar patch." They will break up their institutions in their own good time, on their own plan, and will suck out every penny of profit in the process. You can't count on Congress to act in the public interest – but when it comes to predictability, you can bet on Wall Street to capitalize on an opportunity.

3. Dividend cuts

????Finally, our third prediction is that major corporations will cut their dividends.

????The Financial Times says equities are edging out bonds: A "survey of 52 institutional investors showed a shift towards high-yield bonds and high-dividend equities, together with real estate and infrastructure, alongside investment grade corporate credit in both developed and emerging markets." This contrasts with PIMCO's Bill Gross, who proclaimed the Death of Equities – a phrase that resonates on Wall Street ever since the famous August 1979 Business Week cover story of that title which came on the eve of the greatest prolonged bull market of the century.

????Gross says "the 6.6% historical real return from stocks" comes from "skimming 3% off the top." Here's his argument: GDP growth is only 3.5%, but your return is 6.6%, meaning you are reaping over 3% phantom return. The losers, says Gross, are lenders, labor, and government. To anyone who has seen bond covenants canceled, been laid off from their job, or seen their taxes go up, this is a compelling argument.

????These stories are competing for head space in the press – and while logic dictates that equities can't be both dead and in favor at the same time, that is also, as our dear departed Dad used to say, what makes horse racing.

????But there is a darker horse in this race -- feckless U.S. policy which continues to prolong the Death of the Dollar. Those in Congress pushing to audit the Fed may have a point. But we think the Fed should push for an audit of Congress. Bernanke has been given a limited toolkit and instructed to fix what all of Congress and the White House combined can not even begin to address. Armed with only a hammer and straightedge, Bernanke has to figure out how to cut, drill, screw, bevel, plane, level, miter and join an economy that is maliciously neglected by those most responsible for its welfare. Congress's job is to enact responsible fiscal policies, then to empower the Fed to draw the reins now to this side, now that, to keep the horses in the middle of the path.

????Instead, Washington has abdicated its responsibility, in the face of which no amount of Fed soldiering can strengthen the dollar. Corporate America is not dumb. In an environment where the Risk Free investment can allow itself to sell at a negative return, even after allowing its rating to be cut from AAA to AA, why should AAA companies knock themselves out to beat the yield on Treasurys? Should corporate America dole out its cash when neither the government nor the banks will? Look at IBM yielding almost 3.5% and ask yourself: "Why?"

????If you oversee managed equity funds, or retail brokerage accounts, you should be sensitive to outlier events. All it takes is one major listed company to announce they believe it prudent to husband their resources, given the uncertainty of the environment. The stock will take a temporary hit, but they'll tough it out. And all of a sudden, all those "prudent" blue chip portfolios will turn into customer lawsuits.

????These kind of tumultuous changes are like getting pickles out of a jar. That first one is so hard to get. But once it comes out, the rest just keep spilling and spilling and spilling…