全球銀行無意撤出亞洲市場

Twenty-six banks involved in a single equity raising sounds like a foolhardy strategy in most parts of the world.

在世界大部分地區，26家銀行參與一筆股權融資交易聽起來像是魯莽的策略。

But not in Asia.

但在亞洲，情況並非如此。

Here it makes sense to cram on to the ticket of Postal Savings Bank of China’s $8bn initial public offering with more than two dozen rivals.

在這裏，與20多個對手扎堆參與中國郵儲銀行(PSBC) 80億美元首次公開發行(IPO)是有道理的。

A crowded market is not the only thing banks have to contend with in the populous and diverse continent.

在這個人口多、差異大的大洲，市場擁擠並非銀行要應對的唯一問題。

Growth is slowing, costs and risks are higher and bankers face difficult negotiations with clients that refuse to pay the going international rate.

增長在放慢，成本和風險在增加，銀行家與客戶談判很困難，因爲客戶拒絕按當前國際標準付費。

So why are most of the world’s top banks determined to stay in the region — where they invested heavily from the start of the millennium — when they can make easier money back home?

那麼，當大多數世界頂級銀行在本土賺錢更容易時，它們爲何決定留在亞洲呢？從本世紀初開始，世界頂級銀行對亞洲進行了大筆投資。

Many would argue that they are not.

很多人會辯稱，這些銀行並沒有決心堅守亞洲。

Big banks’ cuts in Asia — from Goldman Sachs’ recent cull of 15 per cent of its Asia ex-Japan investment bankers to the sharp reductions that Barclays, Deutsche Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland have taken to their businesses — have been well documented.

各大銀行近來紛紛縮減亞洲業務：高盛(Goldman Sachs)把亞洲（不含日本）投資銀行家人數減少15%，巴克萊(Barclays)、德意志銀行(Deutsche Bank)和蘇格蘭皇家銀行(RBS)更是大幅縮減業務。

Eight of the top foreign banks in the region cut front office headcount by between 10 and 15 per cent from 2012 to 2015, according to data compiled by consultant McLagan.

諮詢機構麥理根(McLagan)彙編的數據顯示，從2012年到2015年，落戶亞洲的8家頂級外資銀行把前臺員工數量減少了10%至15%。

Guy Mozokowski, a US banking analyst at Autonomous, says: Asia is not something the firms have spoken about much of late — but actions speak louder than words, and we’ve seen reports . . . that make it pretty clear that the firms are downsizing in Asia investment banking.

Autonomous的美國銀行業分析師蓋伊.莫佐科夫斯基(Guy Mozokowski)說：亞洲並非各公司近來談論很多的話題——但事實勝於雄辯，我們看到很多報告表明……各公司在削減亞洲投行業務。

But reports of scaling back do not capture the full story, with banks once again looking to grow in certain sectors and countries in Asia Pacific.

但是，有關縮減的報告並未體現全貌，因爲有些銀行再度尋求在亞太地區的某些行業和國家擴大業務。

This is perhaps unsurprising in a region where revenues at 12 of Europe’s and the US’s biggest banks have risen by about 15 per cent — to $81bn — in the past decade, according to data from Capital IQ.

對亞太而言，這或許並不令人意外。資本智商公司(Capital IQ)數據顯示，過去10年期間，12家歐美大銀行的亞太營收增長了約15%，至810億美元。

Barclays is selectively hiring.

巴克萊正在有選擇地招聘員工。

Credit Suisse and UBS are aggressively expanding, particularly in wealth management.

瑞信(Credit Suisse)和瑞銀(UBS)正在大舉擴張，尤其是在財富管理領域。

Standard Chartered is upgrading its talent so that it can serve a broader range of industries.

渣打(Standard Chartered)正進行人才升級，以便能爲更多行業服務。

Even Goldman, home to the most recent cuts, will not countenance the idea that it is in retreat.

甚至最近削減業務的高盛，也不會支持它在撤退的說法。

We have to be nimble, it’s absolutely not about pulling back, says one senior executive.

我們必須變得靈活，我們絕對不是要後撤，一名高管表示。

We have not pulled out of a single business or region.

我們沒有撤出任何業務或地區。

There’s a fascination with the business that does not seem to go away, says Gokul Laroia, Morgan Stanley’s co-chief executive for Asia Pacific on banks’ staying power.

銀行業務具有一種魔力，看起來不會消失，摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)負責亞太業務的聯合首席執行官高浩澧(Gokul Laroia)在談到銀行的後勁時表示。

There is no denying that the market has some unattractive features.

這並非否認該市場存在某些不招人喜歡的特點。

Fees in Asia are typically 45 to 60 per cent lower than in the US and Europe across deal sizes, according to Dealogic data.

Dealogic數據顯示，無論交易規模大小，亞洲投行業務的收費通常比美歐低45%至60%。

Lower fee income is exacerbated by the high cost of operating across several jurisdictions, languages and legal systems and the compliance risks, and it is not hard to see why Asia is perceived as a profitability desert.

在多個司法管轄區運營、應付多種語言、司法體系以及合規風險的高昂成本，加重了收費低的困難，我們不難看出，爲何亞洲被視爲一塊盈利沙漠。

So what do Asia-based investment bankers see in the region? To begin with, bankers do not have to make money in Asia for their Asian strategies to work.

那麼，常駐亞洲的投資銀行家在當地看到了什麼？首先，銀行家們未必在亞洲賺到錢，纔算是亞洲戰略奏效。

There is an explicit understanding and appreciation that you cannot be a global investment bank without an Asian presence, says Reid Marsh, head of APAC investment banking at Barclays, which has made big cuts in Asia.

有一種大家心知肚明的觀點是，你必須有亞洲業務，纔算得上一家全球投行，巴克萊亞太投行業務主管裏德.馬什(Reid Marsh)說。該行已大幅削減了亞洲業務。

Bankers say that means the real economics of their businesses is better than the published numbers.

銀行家們表示，這意味着，他們業務的實際經濟效益要好於公佈的數字。

Others point out that banks can find fee sweet spots — for instance, by advising the US buyer of Chinese assets instead of the (penny-pinching) Chinese seller.

其他銀行家指出，銀行可以找到收費甜蜜點——比如，在美國企業收購中國資產時，向美國買方而不是（吝嗇的）中國賣方提供諮詢。

As for rising competition, while Chinese banks dominate the league tables for total Asian investment banking fees, once Chinese activity is stripped out, the data tells a different story.

至於說競爭加劇，儘管在總體亞洲投行收費排行榜上占主導地位的是中資銀行，但把中資銀行參與的交易剔除後，數據就呈現出不同的面貌。

For example, in Asia excluding China, US and European banks have the top four places in the Mergermarket league table that ranks banks by the value of the deals they have worked on so far this year.

例如，歐美銀行在今年迄今的Mergermarket亞洲（不含中國）交易排行榜上佔據了前四名。該榜單的排名依據是銀行參與的交易規模。

Western banks argue for the exclusion of China on the basis that they do not contest much of the domestic Chinese business, either for M&A or for raising money.

西方銀行支持在排名時把中國剔除掉，理由是它們並不參與大部分中國國內業務，無論是併購(M&A)還是融資業務。