Deutsche Bank is the last heavyweight contender. While the other European investment banks — Barclays, UBS and Credit Suisse among them — retreat to retail and private banking amid investor discontent and a regulatory squeeze, it is doing the opposite. It wants to become more like Goldman Sachs, not less.
德意志银行（Deutsche Bank，简称：德银）是最后一个重量级竞争者了。当巴克莱(Barclays)、瑞银(UBS)和瑞信(Credit Suisse)等其他欧洲投行在投资者的不满和监管的挤压下撤回到零售银行和私人银行业务的时候，德银正反其道而行之。德银想要变得更像高盛(Goldman Sachs)，而不是相反。

“I am not a very patient person,” Antony Jenkins, chief executive of Barclays,declared last month, hinting that lacklustre results at its investment bank may provoke him to cut it back. Deutsche is patient. Despite upheavals, setbacks and suspicion in its conservative home market, it has grown its investment bank over three decades, since buying Morgan Grenfell in 1989.
“我不是个很有耐心的人，”巴克莱首席执行官安东尼•詹金斯(Antony Jenkins)上月表示，暗示投行业务乏善可陈的业绩可能会促使他裁减投行部门。但德银有耐心。尽管遭遇了起伏、挫折和对德国保守的国内市场的怀疑，但德银自1989年收购摩根建富(Morgan Grenfell)后，30年来一直在做大投行业务。
I am glad that Deutsche has, and that it still wants to compete with what was once called the “bulge bracket” — banks and brokers led by Goldman Sachs andMorgan Stanley. Europe needs at least one global investment bank champion. Without one, it is in danger of leaning too much on Wall Street to shape and run capital markets that its companies — large and small — require.
以高盛和摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)为首的一批银行和券商一度被称为“bulge bracket”（指美国精英投行——译注）。德银一直想与这些投行竞争，对此我感到欣慰。欧洲至少需要一家全球性投行龙头。如果一家都没有，欧洲就会有过于依赖华尔街来塑造和运营欧洲企业（无论大小）所需要的资本市场的危险。
We have witnessed the excesses of financial trading and regulators have tightened the rules. They are right, but one effect is to reinforce US hegemony. “If it is not done by a large American financial institution, it will be done by a large non-American financial institution,” Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase,warned this month. The true risk is the opposite.
我们曾经见证金融交易的过分行为，监管者也已收紧了规则。这样做是正确的，但带来的一个效果是加强了美国的霸权。“如果这些事情不是由一家大型美国金融机构来完成，就会由一家大型的非美国金融机构来完成，”摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)首席执行官杰米•戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)本月警告称。然而真正的风险与之相反。
The top five fee-earners for investment banking services such as equity underwriting in the first quarter were all US banks — JPMorgan Chase, Goldman, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup — according to Thomson Reuters. When Wall Street is doing so splendidly, it is fair to ask whether they get more of a break from regulators than European rivals.
据汤森路透(Thomson Reuters)的数据，今年第一季度，股票承销等投行业务佣金收入前五名都是美国的银行：摩根大通、高盛、美银美林(Bank of America Merrill Lynch)、摩根士丹利和花旗(Citigroup)。在华尔街创下如此辉煌业绩的时候，应该问问它们是否从监管者那里获得了比欧洲竞争对手更多的喘息空间？
Europeans face new hurdles on Wall Street, such as the requirement to ringfence capital for US operations, but it is not the main problem. The Federal Reserve and other US regulators have also been tough on their own banks, especially the “too big to fail” banks, which have been forced to exceed global capital standards and pass repeated stress tests.
欧洲各银行在华尔街面临着新的障碍，比如要求在美经营的外资机构“圈护”资本，但这不是主要问题。美联储(Fed)和美国其他监管机构对本国银行也同样严厉，尤其是那些“大到不能倒”的银行，此类银行被迫超出全球资本标准，并经受一次又一次压力测试。
The real US advantage is twofold and old-established. First, its domestic market is far bigger; the pool of investment banking fees in the Americas was $11.5bn in the first quarter, compared with $5.3bn in Europe. “The costs of being global have risen greatly because of regulation, so having a profitable home market is a big advantage,” says Huw van Steenis, European banking analyst at Morgan Stanley.
美国真正的优势是双重而由来已久的。首先，美国的国内市场规模大得多；今年首季，美洲的投行佣金收入总额为115亿美元，而欧洲为53亿美元。“监管使全球化运营的成本大幅提高，因此拥有利润丰厚的国内市场是一项巨大优势，”摩根士丹利欧洲银行业分析师休•范斯蒂尼斯(Huw van Steenis)说。
Second, US banks led the field for decades before European banks challenged them with sheer financial weight — the capacity to lend companies money and deploy a lot of capital. As regulators have made this onerously expensive with new rules, the traditional expertise of Goldman and Morgan Stanley has come to the fore again.
其次，在欧洲投行挑战美国投行的地位之前，美国投行凭借雄厚的财力（向企业出借资金和运用大量资本的能力）已引领这个领域数十年。随着监管机构出台的新规使业务变得繁重而昂贵，高盛和摩根士丹利的传统诀窍再度使其脱颖而出。
Europe’s banks are now being forced to shrink. They are larger than US banks in relation to domestic economies because so much European financing is done by banks rather than capital markets. EU banks’ assets were 274 per cent of output in 2013, compared with 83 per cent for US banks, which can offload the balance sheet risk of mortgage loans to agencies such as Fannie Mae.
欧洲的银行现在被迫削减自身规模。相对于国内经济的规模，欧洲银行比美国银行规模更大，因为欧洲的大量融资活动是由银行，而非资本市场来完成的。2013年，欧洲银行的资产是产出的274%，而美国的这一比率仅为83%，美国的银行可将资产负债表上的按揭贷款风险转移给房利美(Fannie Mae)等机构。
So each week, banks unveil fresh cutbacks to comply with stricter leverage ratios. Credit Suisse has cut its balance sheet heavily and is now expected to go further underTidjane Thiam, its new chief executive. It may become more like UBS, which pleased investors by curbing financial trading.
于是，每一周都会有银行公布新的削减计划，以满足更严格的杠杆率要求。瑞信已大幅削减资产负债表的规模，预计在新任首席执行官迪德简•蒂亚姆(Tidjane Thiam)治下，还将进一步缩减。瑞信可能会变得更像瑞银，通过抑制金融交易来讨好投资者。
Because this is happening piecemeal and gradually, it is easy to forget how significant a historical moment it is. Credit Suisse and UBS spent decades nurturing investment banks, from Credit Suisse acquiring First Boston in 1990 to Swiss Bank Corporation (which later merged with UBS) buying S.G. Warburg in 1995. Europe’s long challenge to Wall Street is fading.
由于这些情况是一点一点逐渐发生的，人们很容易忘记这是一个多么重大的历史性时刻。从瑞信1990年收购第一波士顿(First Boston)和瑞士银行公司（Swiss Bank Corporation，后来与UBS合并）1995年收购华宝银行(SG Warburg)银行开始，瑞信和瑞银花了数十年时间发展投行业务。曾经挑战华尔街多年的欧洲正在败退。
Thankfully, Deutsche does not have this choice. It lacks the strength in private banking of Swiss rivals, and German retail banking has low returns due to competition from public savings banks. Anshu Jain and Jürgen Fitschen, its co-chief executives, could abandon retail banking or, more likely, spin off its Postbank subsidiary to focus on commercial and investment banking, and asset management.
所幸德银没有这个选项。德银不像瑞士同行那样在私人银行业务方面具有传统实力，而国内的零售银行业务被公共储蓄银行的竞争压低了回报率。德银的联席首席执行官安舒•贾恩(Anshu Jain)和尤尔根•菲茨岑(Jürgen Fitschen)可能会放弃零售银行业务，或者（更有可能的是）剥离该行旗下的德国邮政银行(Postbank)，转而专注于商业银行、投资银行和资产管理业务。
It is arguable that nationality in finance is not vital, that Goldman and other US banks have been in London and Frankfurt for a long time, and the name on the door is less significant than whether the institution supports European investors and companies. The City has always thrived by not being nationalistic or protectionist.
人们也可以说，在金融这个领域，国籍并不是最重要的，高盛和其他美国银行已经在伦敦和法兰克福立足了很长时间，相比这些机构能不能支持欧洲的投资者和企业，它们在大门口挂的牌子不那么重要。伦敦金融城历来繁荣兴盛，是因为它从不奉行民族主义或者保护主义。
But as the European Commission tries to forge a capital markets union to redress the continent’s reliance on bank-based lending, it requires institutions to support the transformation. Europe’s investment banks need not all be global in scale, there is an important role for domestic ones serving smaller companies and asset managers, but one or two would help.
但在欧盟委员会(European Commission)试图建立资本市场联盟以纠正欧洲对银行放贷的依赖之际，需要有金融机构支持这一转变。欧洲的投行不必都达到全球性规模（专注国内的投行能够服务于规模较小的企业和资产管理公司，起到重要作用），但欧洲有一两家全球性投行是有帮助的。
They would make it less likely that European finance dries up in a crisis as US banks retreat; less likely that rules are made in New York that Europe has to follow; and more likely that competition thrives. If no others accept the challenge, Deutsche should.
它们将使欧洲更有可能在美国同行在危机期间后撤的时候避免资金枯竭；更有可能使欧洲免于不得不遵守美国制定的规则的情况；还更有可能促进竞争的蓬勃发展。如果没人接受这项挑战，德银应该站出来。