????如果說摩根大通和其他銀行的損失部分賴多德弗蘭克法案，這顯然也非本意，但出人意料的是這結(jié)果也不壞。比方說，監(jiān)管機構(gòu)沒有能力一一核查銀行的每項交易來確保這是不是自營交易。但隨著銀行需要撤離純粹對沖業(yè)務(wù)，該法案允許對沖基金做得更靈活一些，痛擊越界銀行，這也是一個好事情。這才是真正的市場監(jiān)管。只要損失沒有嚴(yán)重到要拖垮一家銀行就行，比方說摩根大通遭受的20億美元損失。

????但不同于約翰?保爾森豪賭樓市和索羅斯阻擊英鎊升值，這種交易不可能產(chǎn)生巨額收益。據(jù)報道，另外一家對沖基金B(yǎng)lueCrest Capital也是摩根大通的交易對手，它擁有一個封閉式共同基金，任何人都可以購買。這個名為BlueCrest AllBlue的基金在倫敦證交所（London Stock Exchange）上市交易，擁有BlueCrest對沖基金同摩根大通對賭交易的約三分之一。但對于購買了該基金并期望能夠在摩根大通的失誤上大賺一筆的任何人，到目前為止都要失望了。自從摩根大通上周披露了交易損失的信息以來，這只封閉基金凈資產(chǎn)僅增加了1.2%。根本就不是什么交易巨鯨。

????譯者：早稻米

????If losses at JPMorgan and other banks are being created in part by Dodd-Frank, it certainly is an unintended consequence, but surprisingly it might not be a bad one. Regulators, for instance aren't going to be able to police every trade at a big bank to make sure it is not proprietary trading. But as the banks have mission creep away from pure hedging, the fact that the law allows hedge funds to be more nimble and deliver a smackdown to banks that get out of line is a good thing. True market regulation. That is as long as the losses suffered by the banks, as is the case in this instance with JPMorgan's $2 billion hit, are not big enough to cause a bank to fail.

????But unlike say John Paulson's bet against housing, or Soros against the pound, this trade is unlikely to produce a huge haul. BlueCrest Capital, another hedge fund firm that is reportedly making money taking the opposite trade of JPMorgan, has a closed end mutual fund that anyone can buy into. The fund, BlueCrest AllBlue, which is traded on the London Stock Exchange, has about a third of its funds in the BlueCrest hedge fund that has the anti-JPMorgan trade on. But anyone that has bought into the fund hoping to make a big haul on JPMorgan's misfortune has so far been mostly disappointed. The closed-end fund's net asset value is up just 1.2% since JPMorgan disclosed the news of its trading losses last week. Not a whale of a trade.