经济学人299:德意志证券交易所和纽约泛欧证券交易所

搜索关注在线英语听力室公众号：tingroom，领取免费英语资料大礼包。

　　对于德意志证券交易所和纽约泛欧证券交易所的CEO而言，本周在达沃斯经济论坛上的碰面谈的可都是正经事儿。去年12月初，欧盟委员会官员透露，欧盟极可能以反垄断为由，否决一起德交所和纽交所规模达95亿美元的合并交易。两家交易所目前都在极力游说欧盟27名执委会委员忽视反垄断官员的建议，批准这一交易。裁决将于2月1日作出。

　　On the face of it, investors⁴ should support the commission’s recommendation to stymie⁵ the deal. Its competition wing is mandated⁶ to stop mergers⁸ that are likely to raise prices, reduce quality or dull innovation. In this case the concern is that the exchanges’ derivatives⁹ businesses—DB’s Eurex and NYSE Euronext’s Liffe—would share over 95% of European trading for some assets. There may also be concerns that a merged¹⁰ exchange would be able to force investors to use its clearing facilities (for which it could ratchet up charges) once trades have been made.

　　乍一看，投资者们应当支持欧盟委员会否决交易的建议。欧盟委员会的反垄断部有权喊停任何可能导致价格升高、质量下降或者阻碍创新的并购交易。此次交易的主要问题在于两家交易所的衍生品交易所业务—德交所的欧洲期货交易所和纽交所的伦敦国际金融期货交易所，两者瓜分了欧洲期权期货交易95%的市场份额。人们还担心，一旦合并成功，新的交易所将强制投资者使用其清算系统（逐步抬高交易费用）。

　　But there are reasons to think that the deal could be beneficial to investors. Exchanges are platforms on which buyers and sellers can meet, so a lower number of exchanges, which increases the potential for buyer-seller matches, can be better than a fragmented system. In addition, making all trades on one exchange could lower investors’ costs. This is because some assets (gold and equities¹¹, say) tend to be negatively correlated, so risks offset¹² each other somewhat. An investor³ wagering¹³ that both gold and equities will go up should need to provide less collateral¹⁴ if a single exchange is used. Economists¹⁵ advising the exchanges estimate investors could reduce collateral-posting by €3 billion ($3.9 billion), a likely annual cost saving of roughly €300m.

　　但也有理由相信，该交易可能对投资者有利。交易所为买卖双方提供了交易平台，所以比起分崩离析，交易所的数量越少，买卖双方碰面成交的几率越大。此外，在一家交易所完成所有交易可以降低投资者的成本。因为许多交易品（例如黄金和股票）的涨跌呈负相关关系，所以从某种程度上来说，相互之间的风险可以互相抵消。如果只在一家交易所交易的话，既希望黄金上涨又希望股票价格上涨的投资者可以提供较少的抵押品。促成此次交易的经济学家预计，投资者每年可以减少30亿欧元（39亿美元）抵押品投入，节省3亿欧元的成本。

　　Nor would a merger⁷ necessarily mean increases in trading charges. The biggest investors are vital to the exchanges (the five largest NYSE clients make over 20% of total trades). These investors could move to non-European venues¹⁶ if charges rise, or they could set up their own platforms to deal with each other. And since costs of entry are not prohibitive, plenty of other established exchanges could be tempted¹⁷ into Europe if venues there started to look very profitable. The threats of switching or entry should keep prices to large investors competitive. And since regulators would take a dim view of any price discrimination, small investors should be protected from high charges, too.

　　而且合并并不意味着交易费用一定会上升。大客户对两家交易所都很重要(纽交所的前五大客户占了总交易份额的20%)。如果交易费用上涨，他们很可能转向其他非欧洲的交易所，或者自建平台相互交易。而且由于进入成本不高，许多交易所在看到欧洲有利可图时很可能受到诱惑加入分一杯羹。以上两种风险将确保大客户的交易费用不会上升。同时，由于监管当局反对价格歧视，小投资者们也将受到保护免遭高交易费用的“勒索”。

　　If these are all decent points for the exchanges to make, other arguments are weaker. The exchanges suggest regulation will be easier post-merger, so the deal supports financial stability. This is disingenuous¹⁸. Regulators are wary¹⁹ of mammoth²⁰ institutions that are too big to handle. And in a crisis some diversity in the system tends to enhance stability.

　　如果以上支持合并的论点还算有理有据，其他的论调可就有点儿牵强附会了。两家交易所宣称，合并之后监管将更加方便，所以合并又一轮金融稳定。这可不靠谱。监管者们对于大型机构十分警觉，担心它们规模太大难以控制。而且，经济危机时期，分散经营更有利于增强稳定性。

　　Nor should investors be particularly impressed by the DB-NYSE argument that Europe must have a unified²¹ exchange to compete with large or quickly growing exchanges in Chicago, Hong Kong and Brazil. The idea that competition law should be overridden²² by industrial policy to create a local champion that exploits economies of scale has often been used in merger cases. But the evidence does not support it: increasing size does not always make a more efficient firm, and governments have a mixed record when it comes to picking winners. The commission should allow the merger only if the benefits for investors stack up, not because Frankfurt is jealous of Chicago.

　　德交所和纽交所鼓吹，欧洲必须有一个统一联合的交易所，以应对来自芝加哥、香港和巴西的大规模高速发展的交易所的竞争，投资者们更不应该被这种观点煽动。在并购案中，充分利用规模经济创造地方龙头企业的工业政策应当压倒反垄断法律的说法可谓老生常谈了。但这可没有相关的支持证据：企业规模扩大并不一定更加有效率，政府更偏袒哪一方也很难说。如果合并对投资者确实有利，欧盟委员会才应该赞成这一交易，而不应该仅仅出于法兰克福对芝加哥的嫉妒。

分享到：