富国银行PK美利坚银行

巴菲特喜欢富国银行，因为它经营保守，稳重。

华尔街喜欢美利坚银行，因为它勇敢，为了能够获得一位新的老总，决定再卖家当筹集所需的450亿美元来偿还欠纳税人的账款。为此，自己还不得不再售出190亿美元价值的新股。

新股发行，对于股东不应该是一件好事。但是，在自己活着都很困难的情况下，好死不如赖活着，恐怕也是一种选择。

华尔街在美利坚银行的勇敢之后，要求富国银行也做同样的事情，尽可能早地还清所欠政府的250亿美元的TARF欠款。

哪知道，这个有巴菲特撑腰的富国银行却并不领情。

和兄弟的美利坚银行相比，一则自己不需要新的领导，再者，现有团队似乎也不像美国国际集团的高层那样，为了自己的薪酬准备造反，三则，也似乎是，现有领导还乐于接受来自政府的压力，在低薪环境打造一个实力更加强大的金融巨无霸。

华尔街不喜欢这样的野心人物，这可能也是为什么，富国银行的股价被打压的原因之一吧。

对于美利坚银行的勇敢，标准普给予“五星”进行奖励，对于富国银行的顽固，则给予“三星”进行鞭策。

在一个人们还在谈论，是不是会再来一次反春寒的时刻，在为了让高层获得高薪的动机驱使下，从长远看，到底是美利坚银行做得对还是富国银行做的理性？就看你站的角度了。

反正，到目前为止，华尔街占到美利坚银行一边，孤独的巴菲特老人则还是呆坐在富国银行那边。

按照常理，投资者是不应该和华尔街作对的，因为对手太强大。

所以，如果你认为华尔街对，就投资美利坚银行。如果你认为巴菲特更靠谱一点，就投奔富国银行。如果你对金融股没有谱，又想投资美国的话，可能科技股是一个选择。

附录一：

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.

附录二：

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