????看漲者：海納國際集團(tuán)（Susquehanna Financial Group）高級分析師大衛(wèi)?希爾德

????摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）擁有強(qiáng)大的全球投資銀行業(yè)務(wù)和美國最龐大的零售經(jīng)紀(jì)業(yè)務(wù)。將來當(dāng)經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境好轉(zhuǎn)后，摩根士丹利的全球投資銀行業(yè)務(wù)將創(chuàng)造的利潤將大幅增加。當(dāng)然也有不確定因素：資本金要求最終將如何調(diào)整？哪些自營交易可獲準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行？den等但以有形資產(chǎn)估算值的52%買到這樣一家有實(shí)力的金融服務(wù)公司的股票，這樣的機(jī)會非常難得。另外，在08年金融危機(jī)之后，該公司的固定收益交易可能收縮過度，現(xiàn)在正在重新擴(kuò)張并帶來良好收益。而且，近期有關(guān)歐洲債務(wù)敞口的擔(dān)憂也可能過頭了。該股當(dāng)前價位為14美元，我們的12個月目標(biāo)價為27美元。

????看跌者：美國農(nóng)業(yè)銀行信貸證券公司（Credit Agricole Securities）分析師邁克?梅奧

????摩根士丹利現(xiàn)在手頭有一大堆事。公司正在重組銷售和交易業(yè)務(wù)，財(cái)富管理項(xiàng)目還在進(jìn)行中，資產(chǎn)管理業(yè)務(wù)的改組尚未啟動。公司事務(wù)千頭萬緒，再碰上這么多新到任的管理人員，很容易搞砸。該公司過去十年的大方向也是忽左忽右，搖擺不定，有時該少擔(dān)一些風(fēng)險的時候，公司卻承擔(dān)了太多的風(fēng)險。鑒于過去的風(fēng)險管理失誤曾造成賬面價值減記，我對該公司的有形資產(chǎn)賬面價值持保留態(tài)度。目前，這只股票可能看起來便宜，但在最差的2008年，該股股價僅及其宣稱賬面價值的25%。這是一家非常不善于應(yīng)對風(fēng)險的公司，而目前的市場風(fēng)險卻接近歷史高點(diǎn)。

????The bull: David Hilder, Senior Analyst, Susquehanna Financial Group

????Morgan Stanley (MS) has a great global investment-banking franchise and the largest retail brokerage force in the U.S. At some point, in a more robust economic environment, that franchise is going to generate a lot more profit. There are clearly uncertainties: what capital requirements are ultimately going to be or what type of proprietary trading will be allowed. But it's rare that you can buy a great financial services franchise for 52% of the company's estimate of its tangible value. Additionally, after the financial crisis, the company probably cut back too much on fixed-income trading, which it's now rebuilding with good results. And the recent fears of European exposure are likely overblown. The stock is trading at $14; our 12-month target is $27.

????The bear: Mike Mayo, Analyst, Credit Agricole Securities

????Morgan Stanley has many irons in the fire. It's restructuring sales and trading, wealth management is a work in progress, and the revamping of asset management is still to come. When you have that many irons in the fire, and many new executives, it's easier to get burned. The company has a decade-long record of flip-flops, and at times they took too much risk when they should've taken less. I question their tangible book value number, given past risk-management mishaps that caused book value to get written down. The stock may look cheap, but in a worst-case scenario, in 2008, it traded as low as 25% of its claimed book value. This is a company that's handled risk very poorly at a time when risk is close to an all-time high.