三大招人恨的经济预言

    我们作出了三个预测：之所以作出第一个预测，是因为我们了解金融机构的运作，但我们没有证据；至于第二个预测，我们肯定它会发生，因为早有先例，而且最直接的受害者和最大的受益者近来一直都对这种纯粹的推测叫嚷得最为大声；作出第三个预测的理由是，如果是我们掌权，我们肯定会考虑这么做。

    这三个预测要么被行业专家大打折扣，要么被自由企业当作恶意攻击而加以抨击，要么被视为谬论而不予理睬。

1. 更多的洗钱活动

    首先，我们预测美国各大银行将因为大量的洗钱活动而备受指责。美国境内的银行和其他国家的银行一样，也蹚上了这滩浑水，洗钱已经成为了银行业的一部分。我们预测，不久后将出现针对美国大型金融机构的严重洗钱指控。

    全球商业银行处理的交易量非常巨大，难免有部分非法资金偷偷通过他们的风险管理网络。国际银行家的工作就是推销资本，股票经纪人的工作就是推销股票，而进行大规模洗钱的最好方法之一就是让本地银行提供信用额度，然后把它作为美国大型货币中心银行的贷款担保。

    银行会声称，钱是可以互换的，指望银行找到每分钱的源头不现实。但国会有权力要求金融机构核实他们处理的每一分钱的合法性。噢，等等……他们已经这么做了。就是《美国爱国者法案》（USA PATRIOT Act）。该法案要求金融机构进行全面检查，找出资产的最终拥有者，同时确保他们不会接收非法活动资金。如果这些措施被切实执行，我们一定会感到欣慰。对于金融机构来说，为了符合《美国爱国者法案》的规定，就必须证实自己流入、流出的每笔资金只来自或流向大型货币中心银行。比如，大型国际银行必须具备严密的防洗钱程序，经纪公司有权利用这一点，在接收此类银行的电汇时不必再进行反洗钱检查。有资格获得这种信任的银行包括汇丰银行（HSBC）和渣打银行（Standard Chartered）。面对恐怖主义的国际触角，你现在还觉得安全吗？

    请注意，风险管理是要花钱的。企业最看重成本，他们关注的不是对错标准，而是不参与洗钱活动的金钱成本。洗钱与很多大型银行的国际盈利活动有关，比如贷款和项目融资。因此，部署反洗钱功能只是个算术问题：组建、维持反洗钱部门的成本是多少？会有多少合法业务因为内部的反洗钱失察而受阻或丧失？洗钱活动被监管机构或执法部门发现的可能性有多大？如果被发现，可能需要付出多大的代价才能与监管机构或执法部门达成和解？计算的结果是：洗钱是门非常好的生意，它的风险微不足道。

2. 银行业崩溃

    我们的第二个预测是，银行业将会崩溃，而不是被分割开来。银行将采取战略措施，剥离、拆分和削减他们的业务。银行早就该作出这种商业决定，高盛（Goldman Sachs）等公司已经采取了这方面的措施。

    公众对商业趋势的认识是最滞后的指标之一。即使大难临头，大多数人也毫无察觉。看看人们对花旗集团（Citi）前CEO斯坦福•韦尔所作评论的反应就知道了。他说，银行应该被分隔开来。对此《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal）——他们应该更清楚些——写到，韦尔“现在认为，废除分隔商业银行和投资银行的《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》（Glass-Steagall）是个错误”。曲解韦尔的话可能有助于报纸的发行量，但完全无助于澄清这场争论。《纽约时报》（New York Times）引用贝尔斯登（Bear Stearns）前著名CEO艾斯•格林伯格的话说：“韦尔不是这个意思。”但尚不清楚格林伯格是否真的看到了那段谈话，或者就像其他那些纯粹的读者一样，他看到的只是断章取义的谈话。

    韦尔当然没有说他对废除《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》使花旗集团得以诞生“感到遗憾”。恰恰相反，韦尔在回答消费者新闻与商业频道（CNBC）记者安德鲁•罗斯•索尔金的提问时说，他认为自己的方法符合当时的情况，但现在情况已经发生变化，因此应该采取新的方法。

    Three predictions: The first because we know how the money business works – though we do not have proof to hand. The second we are certain will happen – because it has long been the obvious step, and because those most directly affected by it, and who stand to benefit most from it, have been howling loudest at the mere suggestion. The third, because we would certainly consider doing it if we were in charge.

    All three of our predictions, to the extent they ever come up for public discussion, are loudly discounted by industry pundits, or attacked as vicious assaults on free enterprise, or dismissed as preposterous.

1. More money laundering

    First, we predict that major U.S. banks will be accused of extensive money laundering activities. Banks on U.S. soil swim in the same polluted waters as their global counterparts, and money laundering is part of the environment. We predict there will soon be serious charges of money laundering brought against major U.S. financial institutions.

    Global commercial banks process such an immense flow of transactions that it is inescapable that some illicit funds should slip through their risk management nets. The job of a global banker is to sell money, no less than the job of the stockbroker is to push stocks, and one of the best ways to launder large sums of cash is to get your local bank to write you a line of credit against it, then take that line and post it as collateral for your loan from a major U.S. money center institution.

    The banks will argue that cash is fungible, and it is unrealistic to expect them to trace every dollar to its source. But Congress has the ability to require financial institutions to verify the bona fides of every cent they process. Oh, wait… they already did that. It's called the USA PATRIOT Act, and it requires financial institutions to undertake exhaustive checks to identify the ultimate owners of assets and ensure they do not take in funds that are the proceeds of illegal activities. You will be relieved to know that these steps have actually been implemented. In order for a financial institution to be in compliance with the PATRIOT Act, it must verify that all funds transferred in or out only come from or go to a major money center bank. Brokerage firms, for example, are entitled to rely on the fact that a major international bank is required to have iron-clad procedures to prevent money laundering, and may thus accept wires from such banks without further anti money laundering (AML) checks. Banks that qualify for such reliance would include HSBC and Standard Chartered. Do you now feel safe from the global reach of terror?

    Note too that risk management costs money. And businesses weigh cost centers, not versus standards of Right and Wrong, but versus the dollar cost of not engaging in the activity. Money laundering is associated with many major banks' international profit-making activities – from loan portfolios to project finance. Therefore the calculation to deploy an AML function is simple arithmetic: What does it cost to hire and support an AML department? What is the volume of legitimate business that will be impeded or lost as a result of internal AML oversight? What is the likelihood of money laundering activities actually being found out by a regulator or law enforcement? If found, what is the likely cost to settle with said regulator or law enforcement? The result of the calculation: money laundering is very good business, and the risks are inconsequential.

2. Bank break-ups

    Our second prediction is that the banks will break up. Not that they will be broken up. The banks will move strategically to divest, spin off and slice and dice their business – it is by now an overdue business decision, and firms such as Goldman Sachs (GS) have already made steps in that direction.

    Public awareness of trends in business is among the most lagging of lagging indicators. Even when they are hit over the head, most folks don't get it. Witness the reaction to comments made by former Citi CEO Sanford Weill that the banks should be broken up. The Wall Street Journal – folks who should know better – wrote Weill "now believes it was a mistake to scrap the Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking." Mischaracterization of Weill's remarks may sell newspapers, but it fails utterly to clarify the debate. The New York Times quotes legendary former Bear Stearns CEO Ace Greenberg as saying "this was not Sandy," though it is not clear that Greenberg actually saw the conversation or if, like the rest of us mere readers, he was given out-of-context quotes.

    Weill certainly did not say he "regretted" scrapping Glass-Steagall to create Citigroup (C). Quite the opposite. Responding to CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin, Weill said he believed his formula was right for its time, but that times have changed and a new formula should prevail (Full disclosure: Hedgeye CEO, Keith McCullough, is a contributor and guest host on CNBC, and other Hedgeye analysts are featured guests from time to time.)