DAVOS, Switzerland – Usually, it is the banks that are fighting efforts to impose new regulations on the industry. Now, it is foreign governments fighting against bank regulations in the United States.
通常是銀行反對主管當局針對它們推出新規定，如今則是各國政府群起反對美國政府推出新的銀行法規。

At the World Economic Forum here last month, Wall Street’s top bankers found a curious ally in their battle to end – or perhaps modify – the Volcker Rule, that part of last year’s Dodd-Frank financial regulation law that says that banks are not allowed to participate in “proprietary trading.” Translation: Banks can’t make risky bets with their own money. The idea, rooted in ending the too-big-to-fail phenomenon, is to separate the risky casino element of Wall Street from the utility role of helping finance the economy.
美國政府去年公布陶德－法蘭克金融法案，附帶的伏克爾法規明文規定銀行不得從事自營交易。在上個月的瑞士達弗斯全球經濟論壇會議中，華爾街金融界大咖發現，他們致力促成該規定的廢止或修改的這場戰爭，一個奇怪的盟友已經向他們靠攏。該法規禁止銀行以自有資金從事有風險的投資，旨在終結「大到不能倒」的現象，作法是把華爾街的高風險賭博元素與共同為經濟注入融資的實用角色區隔開來。

Yet finance ministers from around the world lined up in Davos to speak with Timothy Geithner, the United States Treasury secretary, about an element of the rule that has them apoplectic: United States banks – and possibly certain foreign banks that do business in America – would be restricted in trading foreign government bonds. Yet the rule, conveniently, provides an exemption for United States government securities.
然而各國財政部長相繼在會議期間與美國財長蓋納見面，磋商該規定中一個令他們不悅的環節：美國銀行 ─ 甚至可能包括在美國做生意的部分外國銀行 ─ 買賣外國政府公債時將受到限制。然而另一方面，這項規定卻並不及於美國政府債券。

The measure, which is still open foe comment, is likely to increase borrowing costs for foreign governments, reduce liquidity and make the market for foreign government bonds more volatile, the opponents charge.
反對者聲稱，這項仍然開放討論的規定可能使外國政府的舉債成本增加、流動性降低，外國政府債券市場也更容易出現變動。

Amid negotiations to resolve the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, anything that could increase borrowing costs for countries like Italy, Portugal or Spain, understandably, has government leaders on edge.
在歐洲國家緊密磋商如何解決主權債務危機之際，任何可能導致義大利、葡萄牙或西班牙等歐元國舉債成本增加的風吹草動，想必都會使各國領導人坐立難安。

George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain, wrote a letter to Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, “in practice the regulations would appear to make it more difficult and costlier to provide market-making services in non-U.S. sovereign markets,”
英國財政大臣奧斯本最近致函美國聯準會主席柏南克指出：「在實際操作上，這些規定將使我們更難以在非美國的主權市場提供造市服務，成本也會變得更高。」

Japanese officials said the rule “could lead to the exit from Tokyo of Japanese subsidiaries of U.S. banks.” Ominously, Japanese officials wrote to United States agencies “We could also see the same picture in sovereign bond markets worldwide at this critical juncture.”
日本官員聲稱，該規定「可能使美國銀行的日本子公司撤離東京」。日本官員致函美國主管當局，語帶預示意味指出：「值此關鍵時刻，我們也可能看到全球各地的主權債券市場出現同樣的局面。」

Canada’s five largest banks sent a letter to the Federal Reserve and four other agencies arguing that the rule may be illegal under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
加拿大五大銀行聯名致函美國聯準會與另外四個主管當局指出，這項規定可能違反美自由貿易協定。

These foreign ministers have a point. Think about it like this: When a bank sells a 30-year bond from say, France, the buyer often sells back an older bond, which would sit until sold. Under the rule, keeping that bond in inventory would constitute a proprietary trade, not market making. And therein lies the problem: Taking the biggest American banks out of the market for foreign government bonds, will drive the prices up.
各國部長言之有據。不妨如此設想：如果一家銀行賣出30年期的法國政府債券，買家通常回賣更早期的債券，而在賣出之前，後者通常按住不動。按照伏克爾規定，留住該債券構成自營交易而不是造市。問題由此產生：如果美國主要銀行撤出外國政府債券市場，價格必然提高。

The Treasury Department concluded the impact of the rule on liquidity across markets broadly would be limited.
美國財政部認為，該規定對市場整體流動性影響有限。

Of course, the outsize bet that MF Global took on foreign government bonds is a lesson in why the rule should exist. Jon Corzine, MF Global’s chief executive, made a highly leveraged bet-the-firm gamble on European bonds. Concerned counterparties effectively closed the firm by no longer trading with it.
當然，美國老牌期貨經紀商明富環球因為持有巨額歐洲債券而破產的教訓，是伏克爾規定應該存在的理由。明富環球執行長柯辛曾經對歐洲債券進行賭博式的高度槓桿操作。憂心忡忡的交易對手決定不再與明富環球交易，最後導致它破產。

Still, it may be worth the United States government’s considering alternatives to the way the Volcker Rule is drafted. Otherwise it could help exacerbate – rather than prevent – the next crisis.
儘管如此，美國政府還是可以斟酌伏克爾規定的替代擬訂方式，否則可能不僅不能預防危機出現，反會使下一次危機更為嚴重。

原文參照：
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/volcker-rule-stirs-up-opposition-overseas/

2012-02-21聯合報/G9版/UNITEDDAILYNEWS 陳世欽譯 原文參見紐時週報八版左