????在《華爾街改革和消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法案》，即《多德弗蘭克法案》通過(guò)五年之際，華爾街已逃出生天，并再度呈現(xiàn)出欣欣向榮之勢(shì)，只是其勢(shì)頭已不如從前。

????舉例來(lái)說(shuō)：今年上半年，美國(guó)各類金融交易產(chǎn)生的投行費(fèi)用達(dá)到了195億美元。在華爾街歷年來(lái)投行業(yè)務(wù)拿到的半年總費(fèi)用中，這一數(shù)字位居第二，僅比2007年創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的201億美元低3%。然而，就費(fèi)用構(gòu)成而言，它與10年前并沒(méi)有太大的變化（詳見(jiàn)上表）。

????這一標(biāo)志性的銀行改革法案是在金融危機(jī)后得以通過(guò)的，但它未能像一些人所期盼的那樣改變?nèi)A爾街的業(yè)務(wù)構(gòu)成，上述數(shù)字只是其中的例證之一。例如，交易業(yè)務(wù)仍是各大銀行巨頭大部分資金的主要來(lái)源。近5年前，《財(cái)富》雜志曾計(jì)算過(guò)各個(gè)大型銀行的交易收入/營(yíng)收占比。當(dāng)時(shí)算的是2009年（也就是《多德弗蘭克法案》通過(guò)一年之前）的數(shù)字。我對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行了更新，想看看《多德弗蘭克法案》在這5年間對(duì)華爾街帶來(lái)了多大的影響，至少對(duì)于交易業(yè)務(wù)有什么樣的影響。結(jié)果是：影響并不大。

????例如，2015年上半年，摩根大通26%的總營(yíng)收來(lái)自于交易活動(dòng)，這比2009年的20%又上漲了。美國(guó)銀行目前的交易收入/營(yíng)收占比也高于法案通過(guò)之前的比例，從17%升至18%，雖然上升的幅度并不大。

????說(shuō)到交易收入/營(yíng)收占比，高盛一直是華爾街各大公司中的領(lǐng)頭羊。在高盛，交易活動(dòng)看似僅占其業(yè)務(wù)的一小部分，但它仍是高盛的重頭戲。上半年，高盛58%的營(yíng)收源于交易活動(dòng)，較2009年的75%有所下降。同樣，摩根士丹利最近獲得了華爾街“高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)業(yè)務(wù)規(guī)避者”的美名。然而，其上半年36%的營(yíng)收仍來(lái)自于交易活動(dòng)。摩根士丹利于周一（7月20日）亮出了好于預(yù)期的收益業(yè)績(jī)，部分歸功于其高于預(yù)期的交易運(yùn)營(yíng)收入。

????這些大銀行仍將很大一部分資產(chǎn)注入到交易業(yè)務(wù)當(dāng)中。以摩根大通為例，該銀行擁有7240億美元的交易資產(chǎn)，其中包括金額巨大的衍生品業(yè)務(wù)，相對(duì)于2009年7410億美元的交易資產(chǎn)，該數(shù)字僅僅是略有下降。然而，摩根大通的總資產(chǎn)已從2萬(wàn)億美元增至2.45萬(wàn)億美元，交易資產(chǎn)/營(yíng)收占比也因而出現(xiàn)了下滑，目前略高于25%。美國(guó)銀行上半年的交易資產(chǎn)為2400億美元，較2009年的2630億美元也是略有縮水。

????然而，交易收入總體來(lái)說(shuō)還是出現(xiàn)了下滑。2015年上半年，包括花旗和富國(guó)銀行在內(nèi)的美國(guó)六家最大的銀行，斬獲了505億美元的交易營(yíng)收，較5年前下降了20%。

????此外，這一現(xiàn)象與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)存在多大的關(guān)系，我們很難斷定。華爾街的這些金融巨頭們至少在明面上不得不放棄其所謂的自營(yíng)交易業(yè)務(wù)，也就是銀行拿自己的錢直接交易，就像對(duì)沖基金那樣。而如今，銀行似乎大多通過(guò)幫助客戶完成交易來(lái)賺錢。但是，幫助客戶進(jìn)行交易也可能會(huì)讓銀行虧錢。例如，今年早些時(shí)候，花旗因瑞士法郎的突然升值出現(xiàn)了虧損。在交易額足夠大的情況下，即便交易資產(chǎn)的波動(dòng)性較低，銀行也可能會(huì)遭受損失。

????就銀行改造而言，《多德弗蘭克法案》在某些方面發(fā)揮了積極的作用?？赡芷渲凶钣辛Φ囊稽c(diǎn)莫過(guò)于提升銀行自持資金的要求，目的是為了應(yīng)對(duì)損失的出現(xiàn)。這是件好事，因?yàn)殂y行仍可能會(huì)因交易業(yè)務(wù)而出現(xiàn)大量虧損。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：馮豐

????校對(duì)：詹妮

????Five years after the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (aka. Dodd-Frank) was passed, Wall Street has survived, and it’s thriving again, though not quite as much as it used to.

????One example: investment banking fees collected on U.S. deals in the first half of this year totaled $19.5 billion. That’s the second highest amount of fees that Wall Street firms have ever collected in any six-month period. And it’s only 3% lower than the $20.1 billion in fee investment banks collected in the first half of 2007, which was the most ever. And the breakdown of fees doesn’t look all that different from a decade ago (see chart above).

????That just one sign the landmark banking reform bill that was passed in the wake of the financial crisis has not changed the business of Wall Street as much as some hoped. Trading, for instance, still makes up a large portion of money that is brought in by the big banks. Nearly five years ago, Fortune computed the percentage of revenue each of the big banks got from trading. The numbers were for 2009, the year before Dodd-Frank. I updated the numbers to see how Dodd-Frank had reshaped Wall Street in its first half decade, at least when it came to trading. The answer: Not much.

????JPMorgan Chase JPM -0.23% , for instance, generated 26% of its total revenue from trading activities in the first half of 2015. That‘s up from 20% in 2009. Bank of America also gets more of its revenue from trading than before Dodd-Frank, though not much more, 18% vs. 17%.

????Goldman Sachs & Co. GS -0.42% was always the Wall Street bank that got the most of its revenue from trading. And there, trading activities do appear to a smaller portion of how Goldman makes its money, but it’s still a lot of what the bank does. In the first half of this year, Goldman made 58% of its revenue from trading activities, down from around 75% in 2009. Morgan Stanley MS 0.10% , too, which has recently got a reputation for eschewing Wall Street’s riskier businesses, got 36% of its revenue from its trading desk in the first half of 2015. That bank reported better-than-expected earnings on Monday, in part because revenue from trading operations was higher than expected.

????And the big banks still devote a good portion of their assets to their trading businesses. At JPMorgan, for instance, the bank has $724 billion in trading assets, which includes its large derivatives book. That’s only down slightly from the $741 billion it had in its trading business in 2009. But JPMorgan’s overall assets have grown to $2.45 trillion from $2 trillion. So trading assets have shrunk to just over a quarter of the total. At Bank of America BAC -0.22% , trading assets are also down only slightly, to $240 billion from $263 billion in 2009.

????Overall, though, trading revenue is down. The nation’s six biggest banks, which also includes Citigroup Inc. C 0.42% and Wells Fargo & Co. C 0.42% , generated $50.5 billion in trading revenue in the first half of 2015. That’s down 20% from five years ago.

????Also, it’s not clear what this says about risk. Wall Street’s biggest have had to ditch, at least formally, their so-called proprietary trading operations, which is when the banks are directly trading their own money, like a hedge fund would. Instead, the banks now appear to make most of their money completing client transactions. But banks can still lose money facilitating client trades. Earlier this year, for instance, Citigroup lost money when the Swiss Franc suddenly rose in value. A lot of money can still be lost in trading low-volatility assets if the volumes are big enough.

????Dodd-Frank has reshaped the banks in other meaningful ways. Perhaps the biggest is that all of the banks are required to hold more capital to protect against losses than they used to. And that’s good news. Because their trading operations could still lose them a lot of money.