????然而，基金行業(yè)假仁假義地攻擊可憐的OFR，一副鋤強扶弱的正義使者模樣。而事實上，基金行業(yè)最擔心的恐怕是這份報告最終會使得金融穩(wěn)定監(jiān)督委員會將貝萊德和富達（Fidelity）這樣的大型基金公司劃入“系統(tǒng)性”（金融機構）范疇。果真如此，這些公司將受到美聯(lián)儲更嚴格的監(jiān)管。

????我認為基金行業(yè)的結論有些草率。要是我的話，我會讓那幫游說者閃人，把雇他們的錢省下來給員工發(fā)圣誕節(jié)獎金。因為金融穩(wěn)定監(jiān)督委員會才剛剛開始分析OFR在報告中指出的問題，而且這個委員會可能有很多種方式來作出反應。其中有些問題可以通過加強信息披露得到解決。另外一些問題，比如杠桿率和流動性問題，可以通過美國證交會設定的一些簡單而基本的標準得到解決。美國證交會本來就負責監(jiān)管大型資產管理公司，以保護投資者的利益。一直以來，證交會還沒有考慮過基金行業(yè)可能給金融體系帶來的廣泛風險，但這并不意味著它將來也不會考慮這個問題。

????誠然，金融穩(wěn)定監(jiān)督委員會最終可能會認定，個別資產管理公司規(guī)模太大，相互之間聯(lián)系太密切，一旦出現(xiàn)問題，必然擾亂整個經濟。但即便如此，也不一定非得將這些基金公司歸為“系統(tǒng)性”機構，要求它們接受美聯(lián)儲的監(jiān)管。

????更好的做法是，降低大型資產管理公司的復雜程度、縮小它們的規(guī)模、減少它們之間的相互聯(lián)系。多德-弗蘭克法案提出的“系統(tǒng)性稱號”旨在使大型企業(yè)成為政府特別“關照”的對象，而嚴格的美聯(lián)儲監(jiān)管則是對這些企業(yè)的懲罰。根據(jù)法律規(guī)定，這些企業(yè)還是能夠通過重組和機構精簡等措施來擺脫“系統(tǒng)性”機構的稱號。

????這對所有人來說都會是一份不錯的圣誕禮物。難道不是嗎？（財富中文網）

????譯者：項航??

????Yet, based on the fund industry's holier-than-thou attack on poor OFR, you would think they were trying to protect Cindy Lou's Christmas against the evil Grinch. The industry's biggest fear seems to be that this report is the precursor to the FSOC designating big firms like BlackRock and Fidelity as "systemic" meaning (gasp) that they would be subject to tougher regulation by the Federal Reserve Board.

????I think the industry is jumping to conclusions. If I were they, I'd save my money for employee Christmas bonuses and tell the lobbyists to stand down. The FSOC is only beginning to analyze the issues identified in the OFR report, and there are many different ways the regulators could respond. Some of the issues could be addressed with better disclosure. Others, like leverage and liquidity, could be addressed with some simple, basic standards set by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC already regulates the big asset managers to protect those who invest in their funds. The agency has not, traditionally, looked at this industry from the standpoint of broader risks to the financial system, but that doesn't mean it couldn't start.

????True, the FSOC might ultimately decide that some individual asset managers are too big and interconnected to fail without disrupting the broader economy. But the answer is not necessarily to designate them as "systemic" and push them into the arms of the Fed.

????A better alternative would be for those firms to become simpler, smaller, and less interconnected. Dodd-Frank's "systemic designation" was meant to put large firms on the government's "naughty list." Intrusive Fed supervision was meant to be their lump of coal. Under the law, they still have the option of getting on the "nice" list of un-systemic institutions by restructuring and downsizing.

????Now wouldn't that be a nice Christmas present for us all????