西方銀行在亞洲如何賺錢？

Ask a banker in Asia about the $25,000 fee that Morgan Stanley accepted for leading an $800m dairy deal in Vietnam, and eyebrows are raised. One wag even joked that he knew bankers who paid more for their suits. But, quickly, the surprise and the quips are replaced by another question: what else did Morgan Stanley receive to make the deal worth it?

問問亞洲銀行業(yè)者關(guān)于摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)擔(dān)當(dāng)越南一筆價(jià)值8億美元的奶制品業(yè)交易的首席財(cái)務(wù)顧問僅收費(fèi)2.5萬(wàn)美元的事，對(duì)方會(huì)驚訝地抬起眉毛。其中一個(gè)愛開玩笑的甚至打趣道，他認(rèn)識(shí)的銀行業(yè)者有的買西服都不止這么多錢。但是，驚訝和打趣很快被另一個(gè)問題取代：摩根士丹利還得到了什么值得它接下這單業(yè)務(wù)的東西?

A payday of $25,000 is a low absolute number by any standards for a bank that just collected $120m for advising on another deal: Monsanto’s takeover by Bayer. But it is hardly the lowest of lowballs in a region where tales abound of Indian flotations that paid a single rupee and Chinese tycoons who only grudgingly pay up, if at all.

對(duì)于這家為另外一筆交易——拜耳(Bayer)收購(gòu)孟山都(Monsanto)——收取1.2億美元咨詢費(fèi)的銀行來(lái)說，無(wú)論以何種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，2.5萬(wàn)美元的數(shù)額都是一個(gè)很低的絕對(duì)值。但是，在這個(gè)充斥著印度企業(yè)花1盧比完成股票發(fā)行以及中國(guó)大亨勉強(qiáng)付清費(fèi)用(甚至不付)故事的地區(qū)，這也算不上是最低的報(bào)價(jià)。

Morgan Stanley declined to comment on its reasons for accepting such a relatively small fee for leading the sale of a 9 per cent stake in Vinamilk, worth $830m. A western rival who was also prepared to do the deal for that fee said the banks involved would make additional money from brokerage charges on the sale of the shares.

對(duì)于為什么愿意以如此少的費(fèi)用擔(dān)當(dāng)Vinamilk售股交易(出售9%股份，價(jià)值8.3億美元)的首席財(cái)務(wù)顧問，摩根士丹利拒絕置評(píng)。一家也愿意以同等費(fèi)用為該交易提供財(cái)務(wù)咨詢的對(duì)手西方投行稱，相關(guān)銀行可以從股份出售的經(jīng)紀(jì)費(fèi)中賺取額外收益。

Even so, it is still an example of the difficulties of making money in Asia, where the most profitable opportunities are not usually found in the highest-profile deal work. In the US, the most lucrative market for investment banking, brokerage fees or profits from lending to an investor are the cherry on the cake. In Asia, they are — as the structure of the Vinamilk deal suggests — often the cake.

即便如此，這仍然表明了投行在亞洲賺錢的難度，在這里，利潤(rùn)最高的機(jī)會(huì)往往不在那些最引人注目的交易業(yè)務(wù)中。在美國(guó)這個(gè)投行最賺錢的市場(chǎng)，經(jīng)紀(jì)費(fèi)或來(lái)自向投資者放貸的利潤(rùn)，都是蛋糕上的櫻桃。而在亞洲，正如Vinamilk交易的結(jié)構(gòu)所示，這些收入往往就是蛋糕。

This partly reflects the fact that few banks will still accept loss-leading work in the hope of a payout down the line, as they once did — and certainly none will admit it. Rather, they have learnt to box clever and find other ways of covering costs, such as brokerage fees.

這部分反映出已經(jīng)沒有幾家銀行仍愿意接受虧本業(yè)務(wù)，以期未來(lái)會(huì)獲得巨額回報(bào)，正如許多銀行曾經(jīng)做的那樣——當(dāng)然沒有一家會(huì)承認(rèn)這點(diǎn)。相反，銀行學(xué)會(huì)了聰明地做業(yè)務(wù)，找到彌補(bǔ)成本的其他途徑，比如經(jīng)紀(jì)費(fèi)。

Morgan Stanley’s willingness to do this helped it snatch a deal from Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse two years ago; its loans to an investor helped it “steal” a $4.7bn private placement for Ping An, the insurer, at the eleventh hour.

摩根士丹利愿意聰明地做業(yè)務(wù)的態(tài)度，幫助它在兩年前從高盛(Goldman Sachs)和瑞信(Credit Suisse)手中搶走了一筆交易：摩根士丹利向一個(gè)投資者發(fā)放的貸款，幫助它在最后一刻“偷走了”保險(xiǎn)公司中國(guó)平安(Ping An)一筆價(jià)值47億美元的定向增發(fā)交易。

And costs need covering. Even as Asia produces record investment banking fees — up 15 per cent this year compared with a one-fifth drop in the US, according to Thomson Reuters — the total pool is still small. Asia has produced 17 per cent of the global investment bank fees pool this year while the US accounts for nearly half.

成本也的確需要彌補(bǔ)。盡管亞洲產(chǎn)生了創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的投行費(fèi)用——根據(jù)湯森路透(Thomson Reuters)的數(shù)據(jù)，今年亞洲的投行費(fèi)用收入增長(zhǎng)了15%，相比之下美國(guó)下滑了五分之一——但總值仍然較小。今年，全球投行在亞洲獲得的費(fèi)用收入占總額的17%，而在美國(guó)獲得的金額占了將近一半。

“It’s fair to say the Asian growth story didn’t play out in certain ways where we needed it to,” says one long-time dealmaker, in reference to the period since 2010, which marked the last aggressive push by western banks.

“平心而論，亞洲增長(zhǎng)故事并沒有按我們所需要的方式展開，”一名資深交易撮合者表示，他指的是自2010年以來(lái)的這段時(shí)期，也就是西方銀行最近一次對(duì)亞洲發(fā)起攻勢(shì)的時(shí)期。

Staffing levels are certainly under threat. Goldman cut 15 per cent of its investment banking force and had considering axing up to 30 per cent. Rivals see it as the bank reducing its workforce to match their own staffing levels, not a retreat per se. But even those rivals talk at best about “selective” hiring and many bankers say privately they are bracing for cuts. For the banks, Asia’s low fees and market fragmentation are hard to change. Banks need locally based teams in each market they want to target and there is little crossover, say, between a team in Seoul and one in Shanghai. That carries high fixed costs.

員工數(shù)量肯定在面臨威脅。高盛已裁減15%的投行員工，而且曾考慮最多裁員30%。該行的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手認(rèn)為它裁員是為了將員工數(shù)量減至對(duì)手銀行的水平，而不是真正的撤退。然而，即便是那些競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手談?wù)摰囊仓炼嗍?ldquo;選擇性”招聘，很多銀行業(yè)者私下表示，他們對(duì)裁員有心理準(zhǔn)備。對(duì)于這些銀行而言，亞洲的低費(fèi)率和市場(chǎng)分散狀況很難改變。銀行需要在每個(gè)它們希望瞄準(zhǔn)的市場(chǎng)建立本地化團(tuán)隊(duì)，不同地區(qū)的團(tuán)隊(duì)(例如首爾的團(tuán)隊(duì)和上海的團(tuán)隊(duì))之間幾乎沒有交叉。這帶來(lái)了高額的固定成本。

Fee structures show little sign of movement. In Asia, equity capital raisings reliably account for the biggest single pool of work for the international banks, producing on average 40 per cent of their total fee pool. But even in Hong Kong, which has topped the global initial public offering rankings for five of the past eight years, fees are just between 1 per cent and 3 per cent of a deal, compared with between 5 per cent and 7 per cent in New York.

費(fèi)用結(jié)構(gòu)幾乎沒有改變的跡象。在亞洲，股票融資穩(wěn)居投行的第一大業(yè)務(wù)，平均占到總費(fèi)用收入的40%。然而即便在過去8年有5年奪得全球首次公開發(fā)行(IPO)冠軍的香港，費(fèi)率也只有交易額的1%至3%，而紐約則有5%至7%。

Equity fees have also been overtaken by those from debt deals this year — a factor unlikely to cheer the bigger banks that have invested less in building bond desks as they seek big IPO payouts. That leaves China’s M&A boom as the region’s bright spot. Fees are nowhere near the levels on western deals but some bankers believe they are, in fact, rising. “They are realising there are things we can do that they can’t do on their own,” says one bank’s regional head for dealmaking. “Sometimes we’re seeing US-level fees and sometimes lower — but the trend is up.”

今年，來(lái)自債券交易的費(fèi)用收入已超過股票交易，這一因素不太可能鼓舞較大銀行，它們對(duì)債券交易部門的投入較少，因?yàn)樗鼈兿Ｍ麖腎PO中賺取大筆費(fèi)用。這令中國(guó)的并購(gòu)熱潮成為該地區(qū)的亮點(diǎn)。亞洲交易的費(fèi)用水平遠(yuǎn)不及西方交易，但一些銀行業(yè)者相信，亞洲的費(fèi)用水平事實(shí)上正在上漲。“他們漸漸意識(shí)到，有些我們能做到的事情是他們靠自己無(wú)法完成的，”一家銀行的交易撮合區(qū)域主管表示，“有時(shí)，我們看到費(fèi)用水平跟美國(guó)相當(dāng)，有時(shí)比美國(guó)低——但趨勢(shì)是上升的。”

In a region where banks are prepared to assign top teams to a project for $25,000 plus the expectation of brokerage fees, optimism, anywhere, is welcomed. One Asia hand not on the Vinamilk deal sighed: “Vietnam won’t be the first government to ask for something for no money — and it won’t be the last.”

在這個(gè)銀行愿意為了2.5萬(wàn)美元的酬勞外加有望獲得的經(jīng)紀(jì)費(fèi)，就將最優(yōu)秀的團(tuán)隊(duì)投入一個(gè)項(xiàng)目的地區(qū)，無(wú)論在哪里，樂觀都是受歡迎的。一名未能參與Vinamilk交易的亞洲投行員工嘆息道：“越南不會(huì)是第一個(gè)要求免費(fèi)服務(wù)的政府，它也不會(huì)是最后一個(gè)。”