金融业的薪水或将下降

Say the words "banker pay" to your average voter or politician and these days you will hear an angry hiss. After all, nothing stirs up so much resentment against modern capitalism as the sight of financiers still reaping fat rewards despite failing institutions. On Sunday, the public outrage at Stephen Hester's bonus persuaded the Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive to turn down a pay award (£1m) that would be considered miserly by other bank bosses in the UK and the US.

如今若与普通选民或政客谈论“银行家的薪酬”，你总能听到愤怒的嘘声。毕竟，没有什么比看到金融家们在金融机构濒临倒闭时仍能拿到丰厚的薪酬更能激起人们对现代资本主义的憎恨了。上周日，苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)行政总裁斯蒂芬•赫斯特(Stephen Hester)在公愤的压力之下，决定放弃一笔100万英镑的奖金——尽管在其他英美银行的老板看来，这笔奖金简直少得可怜。

However, is it possible to imagine a world where banking pay— and banking — is radically slimmed down? Anybody living in countries such as Japan or Sweden would undoubtedly say "yes"; in those economies, foreign financiers' salaries appear bloated. But perhaps a more interesting — and relevant — intellectual exercise is to peer at the US through a long historical lens; to imagine, if you like, a banking pay version of Back to the Future.

然而，我们能够想象一个银行业薪酬和银行业规模大幅缩水的世界吗？日本或瑞典等国的居民无疑会给出肯定的回答；在那些经济体的居民看来，外国金融家的薪酬实属虚高。不过，一个更有意思、也更有意义的思考或许是，在较长的时间尺度上对美国的情况进行审视。如果你愿意的话，可以把它看作一部“银行业薪酬版”的《回到未来》(Back to the Future)。

Take a look, for example, at the work by Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef, two US-based economists. They have researched trends in banker pay over the past 150 years and found that, in the early 20th century, financial sector pay relative to the rest of the private sector was roughly at parity (for, crucially, employees with similar levels of education). But then it rose sharply until it hit 1.7 times in 1929, the year of the Wall Street crash.

例如，我们可以读一下两位现居美国的经济学家托马斯•菲利蓬(Thomas Philippon)和阿里尔•雷谢夫(Ariell Reshef)的著作。他们对过去150年银行家薪酬变化的趋势进行了研究，结果发现：在20世纪初，金融业和私营部门其他行业支付给具有相似教育程度（这一点很关键）的员工的薪酬大体相当。但接下来，金融业薪酬就大幅上升，到华尔街崩盘的1929年，达到了其他行业的1.7倍。

That echoed a bigger increase in finance: the total cost of financial intermediation (all wages and profits paid to financial firms) had reached 6 per cent in 1930, up from just 2 per cent in 1870, according to separate research that Mr Philippon recently showed to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

这一上升与金融领域一项幅度更大的上升相呼应：菲利蓬最近提交给纽约联储(Federal Reserve Bank of New York)的另一份研究报告显示，金融中介的总成本（支付给金融机构的全部薪酬和利润）在1870年仅为2%，在1930年则上升到了6%。

After the 1929 crash, this trend did not immediately reverse: for several years, financial pay remained high because pay in other parts of the economy fell and some bankers traded cannily during and after the crash. However, in the late 1930s the ratio slumped back towards parity and stayed there for the subsequent three decades; in the years following the second world war, American bankers were paid roughly the same as other professionals. But from the the late 1970s onwards, a new cycle turned: the total cost of financial intermediation jumped to 9 per cent in 2010 from 4 per cent in 1950. The ratio of financial sector pay to pay in the rest of the private sector hit 1.7 times in 2006 – in a delicious irony, the same level as in 1929.

1929年崩盘后，这个趋势并未立即扭转，随后的若干年里，金融业薪酬仍然很高。这是因为，美国经济其他领域的薪酬都已下降，而且在崩盘期间和之后，一些银行家做的交易很精明。但在20世纪30年代末，金融业与其他行业薪酬之比又回落至1:1附近，并在之后的30年里维持在这一水平；二战结束后的几年里，美国银行家薪酬与其他专业人士大致相当。但20世纪70年代末以来，我们又迎来了一个新的周期：金融中介总成本从1950年的4%跃升至2010年的9%；金融业薪酬在2006年达到了私营部门其他行业薪酬的1.7倍——颇有讽刺意味的是，这个水平与1929年相同。It is a matter of fierce dispute why banker pay swelled. Financiers are apt to blame it on the increased importance and complexity of finance: in a world of technological change and globalisation, so the argument goes, you need bright, highly skilled bankers. Many economists such as Mr Philippon, however, reject that. He reckons at least half of the pay jump represents "rent seeking" (skimming off fees), not innovation. "The technological development of the past 40 years (with IT in particular) should have disproportionately increased efficiency," he observes, noting that in companies such as Walmart, "efficiency" has reduced wages.

人们就银行家薪酬大幅上升的原因展开了激烈的争论。金融家们倾向于将薪酬激增归因于金融业的重要性和复杂性提高了。他们论证道，一个以技术变革和全球化为特点的世界，需要聪明、技能高超的银行家。但许多经济学家，例如菲利蓬，却不认同这种观点。菲利蓬认为，至少有一半的薪酬上升反映的是“寻租”（即攫取费用），而不是创新。他说：“过去40年中的技术发展（尤其是IT领域的发展），应当已经在很大程度上提高了效率。”他指出，在沃尔玛(Walmart)等企业，“效率”压低了工资水平。

The crucial question, though, is whether history might repeat itself and produce a big pay swing, as in the post-war years. Right now, it seems hard to imagine; after all, the experience of the past few decades has made it seem almost normal for bankers to be highly paid.

但关键问题是，历史会不会重演，会不会像战后的若干年那样再次出现大幅的薪酬波动。就目前而言，这一点似乎还难以想象；毕竟，过去几十年的经验说明，银行家拿高薪几乎是再正常不过的事情。

But as this year's bonus round comes to an end, there are some hints of change. The sector is shrinking: an estimated 60,000 jobs were cut last year. Staff are being paid in stock deferred over a longer time, and pay appears to be falling. Morgan Stanley, for example, has declared plans to cap the amount of bonus that its staff can receive immediately at $125,000; Goldman Sachs has announced that it is cutting 2011 compensation by 21 per cent; JPMorgan Chase has cut the total pay pool for its investment bankers by 36 per cent year on year. Indeed, the consensus among bank executives in Davos last week was that total compensation for mid — to senior — level employees in 2011 was about 30 per cent lower than 2010 – and perhaps 60 per cent below the 2007 peak. "There is a big change now," claims one Wall Street CEO.

不过，随着本年度发放奖金的周期接近尾声，我们已经看到了一些变化的迹象。银行业规模正在缩小，去年大约削减了6万个工作岗位。银行开始以锁定期更久的股票来支付员工薪酬，与此同时，薪酬似乎正在下降。例如，摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)已宣布计划将员工可立即拿到的奖金上限设为12.5万美元；高盛(Goldman Sachs)则宣布会将2011年度的薪酬削减21%；摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)也把投行业务的总薪酬池同比削减了36%。事实上，银行业高管上周在达沃斯形成的共识是，2011年度中高级员工的薪酬比2010年大约降低了30%，与2007年的峰值相比可能降低了60%。一位华尔街机构的首席执行官称：“现在局面发生了巨大的变化。”

Now, this decline is still far too small to pacify critics. And it remains tough to calculate the precise squeeze, since banks pay their employees in different ways and — crucially — many financiers are leaving regulated banks for work in shadow banks, where pay is even more opaque.

就目前而言，这样的降幅还过于微小，不足以平息批评意见。而且，因为银行向员工支付薪酬的方式多种多样，更关键的是，许多金融家正在脱离受监管的银行业，转投薪酬更不透明的影子银行，所以，计算准确的薪酬降幅仍然十分困难。

But, what is clear is that the squeeze almost certainly has further to go, as regulation bites, deleveraging takes hold and western economies ail. Sadly, it probably will not take the pay ratio to 1950s levels; technology now enables financiers to hop across borders and around rules, skimming fees in opaque ways. But — just as 70 years ago — a cycle has turned; albeit slowly. By 2017, bank pay could look very different from 2007; and modern capitalism will look all the better for it.

但显而易见的是，随着监管效果开始显现、去杠杆化持续进行、西方经济陷入困境，金融家薪酬缩水的幅度肯定还会加大。遗憾的是，金融业与其他行业的薪酬比率多半不会降至20世纪50年代的水平；如今，金融家们凭借技术手段可以跨越国界、规避法规，以不透明的方式收取费用。不过，正如70年前那样，一个新的周期已经到来——尽管运行得有些缓慢。到2017年，银行业薪酬可能会与2007年相去甚远，而现代资本主义的状况却会因此好很多。

译者:王柯伦