????這回不是倫敦鯨，但像摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）一樣，高盛（Goldman Sachs）也栽在了自營交易上。

????今年第二季度，高盛自營股票交易虧損1.12億美元。雖然比不上摩根大通58億美元的巨額損失，但跟高盛自己第一季度盈利9億美元的業績比起來仍然可是說是大幅下跌。而且高盛表示，虧損數字中已經包括了私募股權業務取得的收益，這意味著高盛所持公開上市股票的損失應該顯著超出1億美元。

????高盛自營債券交易的表現相對好一些，但也沒好到哪里去。第二季度債券交易利潤下降62%至2.22億美元。總體而言,高盛第二季度自營交易收入環比驟降90%，減少到1.69億美元。

????高盛長期以來一直被視為一家交易公司，自營業務一貫優于競爭對手。從2009年到2010年，高盛連續多個季度沒有一個交易日出現過虧損。

????第二季度的情況顯然不是這樣，但直到目前也還不清楚到底是什么原因，高盛的一位發言人拒絕對公司具體的投資事項發表評論。過去幾個月里，高盛曾表示打算強化歐洲業務。沒錯，說的就是遭受債務危機和經濟放緩雙重打擊的歐洲。但此次高盛表示，第二季度對歐洲持謹慎立場。

????另一個可能的解釋是Facebook。第二季度高盛通過出售部分Facebook持股獲得了2.35億美元。這幾乎是高盛一年前投資額的兩倍。但像其他銀行一樣，不管是否出售，高盛都需要定期對這些投資的賬面價值進行調整。Facebook IPO之前的一年，其股票在非公開交易市場的價格已經出現了上漲。從一些非公開交易來看，Facebook的股價甚至一度超過最終于今年5月IPO時的價格38美元。IPO之后，Facebook股價最近已跌至27.50美元。這一價格可能低于高盛在第一季度末給予這項投資的估值，結果造成了損失。

????鑒于多德-弗蘭克法案（Dodd-Frank）的沃克爾法則（Volcker rule）以及其他限制銀行進行風險性投資的監管改革，高盛稱已經縮減了交易業務。但沃克爾法則目前尚未正式實施。而且，也不清楚高盛相比自營交易大賺其錢的第一季度做了哪些改變。高盛第二季度的風險價值（value-at-risk）為9,200萬美元，環比基本持平；風險價值是一家公司在一個交易日內可能發生的損失，基本上反映其交易量的多少。

????有人猜測，高盛已將部分風險性交易轉到了沃克爾法則允許的造市商業務。但這項業務第二季度的收入也環比下降了46%。

????金融危機以來，高盛流失了很多一流的交易員，這些人紛紛轉投對沖基金或其他公司。如今，這個問題的后果可能終于開始顯現。高盛的業績總體好于預期，完全是因為過去一個月來分析師們下調高盛盈利預測的幅度超過了其競爭對手。現在，至少有一點是明確的，高盛看來已不是曾經的利潤大戶了。

????好消息是高盛可能已經意識到了這一點。高盛首席財務官戴維?溫納告訴分析師們，他預計年底前公司前將削減5億美元費用，主要將通過裁員大量高薪雇員來實現。但當一位分析師問到，高盛計劃什么時候調低公司的高薪，使其下降到與其他華爾街公司相一致的水平時，溫納卻含糊其辭，大致意思是高盛雇員的價值更高。要讓自詡為宇宙主宰者的人們認清現實需要一個緩慢的過程。

????譯者：早稻米

????It's no London Whale, but, like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs (GS) had its own trading flop.

????Goldman's stock traders lost $112 million of the firm's own money in the second quarter. It's not even in the same tank, or really ocean, as JPMorgan's $5.8 billion loss, but it was a huge drop from the nearly $900 million in profit the bank made from trading stocks in the first quarter. And Goldman said that loss includes gains it made in its private equity business, which means its losses from its public stock holdings could have been considerably larger than just $100 million.

????Goldman's bond traders did better, but not much. Profits from debt trading fell 62% in the quarter to $222 million. In all, revenue from Goldman's own trading operations plunged 90% to $169 million in the quarter from three months ago.

????Goldman has long been known as a trading house, and has generally done a better job than rivals at producing consistent profits investing the firm's own money. The bank had a string of quarters in 2009 and 2010 in which it went without a single down trading day.

????That was clearly not the case this quarter, but it's not clear what caused the firm problems, and a Goldman spokesman declined to comment on the firm's specific investments. In the past few months, Goldman has said that it's looking to beef up its business in Europe, which has been hit by debt concerns and an economic slowdown. But Goldman said it took a cautious stance on Europe in the quarter.

????Another possible explanation could be Facebook (FB). Goldman raised $235 million selling a portion of its investment in Facebook during the quarter. That was nearly double what Goldman paid for those shares just over a year ago. But Goldman, like other banks, has to constantly reprice on their books the value of its investments whether it sells them or not. In the year leading up to Facebook's IPO, the private value of the shares rose. Some private transactions seemed to suggest that Facebook's shares were worth more than the $38 the company eventually sold its stock at in its May IPO. Since then, Facebook's shares have fallen to a recent $27.50. That could be lower than where Goldman marked its investment at the end of the first quarter, producing a loss.

????Goldman has said it has shrunk its trading business in preparation for Dodd-Frank's Volcker rule and other regulatory reforms that will make it harder for banks to make risky bets. But the Volcker rule hasn't been put into place yet. And it's not clear what changed from a quarter ago, when so-called principal transactions, which is when the bank risks its own money rather than completing a trade for a customer, was a big money maker. Goldman's value-at-risk, which tracks how much the firm could lose in one day and generally is seen as a measure of how much trading the firm is doing, was $92 million in the quarter, basically unchanged from the quarter before.

????Some have guessed that Goldman has shifted a portion of its risky trading into its market making unit, a business that is allowed under the Volcker rule. But that unit saw a drop in revenue in the second quarter as well, down 46% from the first three months of the year.

????Goldman has lost a lot of its top traders to hedge funds and elsewhere since the financial crisis, and that could be finally catching up with the firm. Overall, Goldman's earnings were better than analyst expected. But that's only because in the past month, analysts had cut their estimatesfor what Goldman could earn more than any of the firm's rivals. What's clear, is that at least for now, Goldman no longer appears to be the profit powerhouse it once was.

????The good news is that the firm may be starting to realize that. Chief financial officer David Vinar told analysts that he expects the firm will cut $500 million in expenses by the end of the year, mostly by laying off a number of the firm's higher paid employees. Still, when asked by an analyst when Goldman plans to bring its high compensation in line with other Wall Street firms, Vinar demurred, basically saying that Goldman employees were worth more. Self-realization for masters of the universe is a slow process.