富國銀行PK美利堅銀行

巴菲特喜歡富國銀行，因為它經營保守，穩重。

華爾街喜歡美利堅銀行，因為它勇敢，為了能夠獲得一位新的老總，決定再賣家當籌集所需的450億美元來償還欠納稅人的賬款。為此，自己還不得不再售出190億美元價值的新股。

新股發行，對於股東不應該是一件好事。但是，在自己活着都很困難的情況下，好死不如賴活着，恐怕也是一種選擇。

華爾街在美利堅銀行的勇敢之後，要求富國銀行也做同樣的事情，儘可能早地還清所欠政府的250億美元的TARF欠款。

哪知道，這個有巴菲特撐腰的富國銀行卻並不領情。

和兄弟的美利堅銀行相比，一則自己不需要新的領導，再者，現有團隊似乎也不像美國國際集團的高層那樣，為了自己的薪酬準備造反，三則，也似乎是，現有領導還樂於接受來自政府的壓力，在低薪環境打造一個實力更加強大的金融巨無霸。

華爾街不喜歡這樣的野心人物，這可能也是為什麼，富國銀行的股價被打壓的原因之一吧。

對於美利堅銀行的勇敢，標準普給予“五星”進行獎勵，對於富國銀行的頑固，則給予“三星”進行鞭策。

在一個人們還在談論，是不是會再來一次反春寒的時刻，在為了讓高層獲得高薪的動機驅使下，從長遠看，到底是美利堅銀行做得對還是富國銀行做的理性？就看你站的角度了。

反正，到目前為止，華爾街占到美利堅銀行一邊，孤獨的巴菲特老人則還是呆坐在富國銀行那邊。

按照常理，投資者是不應該和華爾街作對的，因為對手太強大。

所以，如果你認為華爾街對，就投資美利堅銀行。如果你認為巴菲特更靠譜一點，就投奔富國銀行。如果你對金融股沒有譜，又想投資美國的話，可能科技股是一個選擇。

附錄一：

Wells Fargo Keeps Mum On Timing For Repaying TARP

12/8/09，By Marshall Eckblad

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) Chief Executive John Stumpf declined Tuesday to describe the San Francisco bank's plan for when, and how, it intends to pay back its $25 billion in TARP funds.
Stumpf told investors at the Goldman Sachs U.S. Financial Services Conference in New York that Wells Fargo intends to repay the funds in "a shareholder-friendly manner." When asked for more specifics by two audience members, Stumpf said, "I think what I said in my presentation answers the question."
Bank of America Corp. (BAC) said last week it would repay its $45 billion in taxpayer funding and investors have since then been curious to know if and when Wells Fargo plans to do the same. Wells Fargo reluctantly accepted its own funds last year from the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program.
One investor asked Stumpf whether regulators are demanding higher capital ratios from the bank, which could force Wells Fargo to raise capital, either by selling new shares or holding onto profits.
"I have not read anything about new capital ratios," Stumpf said.
Stumpf reiterated Tuesday that Wells Fargo's acquisition of Wachovia Corp. - the larger rival that Wells Fargo purchased last year - is on schedule and ahead of its original budget. Stumpf also said some of the riskiest mortgages it inherited from Wachovia are now forecast to generate fewer losses than originally expected.
Stumpf signalled again Tuesday that he expects the bank's credit losses to peak in 2010.
"We expect credit losses to peak in 2010 with consumer losses potentially peaking in the first half of the year and gradually declining and commercial real-estate losses expected to peak later in 2010," Stumpf said.

附錄二：

Sovereign risks show why banks should wait

12/8/09， Marketwatch

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Banks across the globe are falling all over each other in an effort to get meddlesome government off their shareholder registers.
From Lloyds Banking Group (LYG) in Britain, to Bank of America (BAC) in the U.S., to reportedly Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC), scores of billions of dollars are being raised so, basically, bonuses can be paid.
Putting the bonus argument to one side -- big pause for breath there -- a more pertinent question has to be asked: Is everything so rosy that these safety nets can be just cast off?
What was a mortgage finance problem has morphed into the precipice of a government debt crisis -- whether it's Dubai, Greece, Ireland, or one of the big boys: Japan, the U.K., or, and this is where hell would truly break out, the U.S. See story on U.S. and U.K. credit ratings.
That's really not a huge surprise given that governments that have absorbed the toxic mortgage finance debt, though in the case of Dubai and Greece, it's more reckless spending than U.S. mortgages that are to blame. See Dubai story.
No matter: markets are ill prepared for either a Dubai or a Greek default. They are definitely not prepared for both.
Which leads back to bank balance sheets -- are they so superhealthy that they could absorb a new crisis?
If the recent Standard & Poor's report on risk-adjusted capital is to be believed, even after factoring in S&P's overly simplistic assumptions, the simple answer is no.
And the rosy glasses question needs to be put to European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, who arguably has triggered the Greek crisis. It's Trichet, perhaps egged on by his ultra-hawkish German colleagues, who has been in a rush to rid the ECB of emergency liquidity measures amid no indication of inflation whatsoever in the euro zone, unemployment just below 10%, and construction output dropping an annualized 8%. See Greece story.
The Greek banks clearly aren't prepared to be starved of ECB funding. And to what point?
Sure, the Greek government needs to tighten its belt. But why trigger a crisis right when economies are emerging from one?
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has taken the opposite tack, and to considerable criticism. The gold market, for one, is betting he's nuts. But it just may be Trichet that turns out to be loopy -- and the private-sector investors who are backing these mega-billion-dollar equity issuances from troubled lenders may rack up losses.

-- Steve Goldstein, London bureau chief