The ruling houses of the rising sun
Ask an Asia-based investment banker about the level of fees for mergers and acquisitions in recent years and you are likely to elicit a pained response: it is getting much worse every year.
"The low level of fees is the single issue New York always raises with us," says the Asia head of a large investment bank. "Although cost levels are lower in Asia than in the rest of the world, our bosses are rarely happy with the fees we deliver".
Such gloomy statements can be heard from senior bankers from Hong Kong to Singapore, and from Beijing to Manila. But one country appears to have held the wave of doom engulfing Asia's bankers at bay: Japan.
Average fees for initial public offerings in Japan have risen by a quarter over the past eight years and now stand at around 6.7 per cent - not far from the US level of 7.3 per cent, according to estimates by Dealogic, the research firm. As a result, Japan is nowAsia's most profitable market for equity underwriting.
Since 1998, banks have earned an estimated $2.9bn inIPO fees in the country - more than in China, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan put together, even though those markets witnessed a greater number of deals.
The main reason for the sharp discrepancy between Japan and the rest of the region is historical. Unlike the rest of Asia, the concept of a "house bank" is alive and well in Japan.
Equity markets have traditionally been dominated by three domestic brokers: Nomura Securities, Daiwa Securities and NikkoCordial. This triumvirate asserts control over the majority of equity business thanks to its strong historical relationships with Japan's corporations.Long-standing ties have enabled the banks to maintain a cartel-like control of deal pricing and to charge higher feesthan their Asian rivals.
As in the UK, companies like to have banks they can entrust with most of their capital market needs rather than launching a competition for every single piece of business.For example, Toyota Motors, the world's third largest carmaker, typically uses Nomura, with which it has traditional business ties, to service its financing needs. Companies related to the Mitsubishi industrial group will generally use Mitsubishi Securities, which is part of Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Group, the country's third largest bank.
Unlike the rest of Asia, the arrival of international investment banks in a market dominated by local players did not lead to a sharp reduction in fees.
"We are benefiting from the last great oligopoly in the world," says the head of equity of a foreign investment bank in Japan. "The foreigners are happy to play by the rules set by the local brokers."
"Investment banks perceive the rest of Asia as still up for grabs and use fees as a tool to win market share," says a senior Tokyo-based banker. "In Japan, the battle lines have already been drawn and you don't see the bloody free-for-all seen elsewhere in the region."
Without the "beauty parades" of dozens of banks that have become commonplace in Asian countries such as China, less established banks find it difficult to grab deals from the market leaders. A relatively new entrant such as Deutsche Bank has succeeded in winning IPOs in the rest of Asia, partly by using its large balance sheet and being aggressive on fees. But in Japan, Deutsche has failed to make an impact: it does not feature in the top 10 equity deals this year.
Some investment bankers warn of signs of an outbreak of "unhealthy competition" in Japan. Nomura and UBS are rumoured to be earning a fee of just 2.5 per cent for a landmark $3bn listing of the utility Electric Power Development (J-Power). And many fear that any unspoken pact among banks not to compete on fees could be eroded by a desire to win league table credit - a development seen in Japan's bond markets.
"Three years ago, no investment bank would have done a deal for less than $3m, now everybody looks at deals yielding $1m-$2m," says the head of equity of a US investment bank in Tokyo.
But until real cracks in the banks' unity begin to appear, investment bankers in the rest of Asia will continue to complain bitterly about their lot and gaze longingly towards Japan.
卖主垄断日本金融市场
要是问一位亚洲的投资银行家近年来并购收费的水平如何，您得到的可能是一个痛苦的答案：现在是一年不如一年了。
“经纪费用水平低，这是纽约方面一直指摘我们的唯一问题，”一家大投资银行亚洲区的负责人表示：“尽管亚洲的成本水平比世界其他地区要低，老板们难得对我们上缴的费用感到满意。”
从香港到新加坡，从北京到马尼拉都可以听到资深银行家发出这样悲观的论调。但是，有一个国家免受亚洲银行家的命运，这就是日本。
据研究公司Dealogic测算，过去8年间，日本首次公开发行（IPO）的承销费率平均提高了四分之一，现在已经达到约6.7%，与美国7.3%的水平相差不远。因此，日本现在已是亚洲利润最高的证券承销市场。
1998年以来，该国银行获得的首次公开发行承销费估计共达29亿美元，比中国、韩国、香港和台湾的总和还多，尽管这些市场上的交易也有大幅增长。
日本与亚洲其他国家之间存在着巨大差异，这主要是由于历史性原因形成的。与亚洲其他国家不同的是，日本依然存在并盛行“自家银行”（house bank）这一观念。
把持日本证券市场的是三大国内承销商：野村证券（Nomura Securities）、大和证券（Daiwa Securities）和日兴证券（Nikko Cordial）。这三家公司凭借与日本企业之间历史上形成的紧密联系，基本控制了大部分的证券业务。这种长期关系使得银行得以用类似于联盟的形式保持对证券市场的控制，并能够收取比与在亚洲的竞争对手更高的费用。
与英国的情况一样，日本企业更愿意将绝大部分资本市场需求都托付给同一银行，而不会让各银行在每个单独的业务领域上进行竞争。例如，较为典型的是：世界第三大汽车制造商丰田公司（Toyota Motors）雇佣与之有长期业务联系的野村证券来满足自身的融资需求。与三菱集团有联系的公司则一般会雇佣三菱证券（Mitsubishi Securities），三菱证券隶属日本第三大银行三菱东京财团（Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Group）。
与亚洲其他国家不同的是，即使国际投资银行加入这个由日本证券商把持的市场，也不会造成费用的急剧下跌。
“我们正从这个世界上最后一个卖主垄断的市场中获利，”日本一家外国投资银行证券部的负责人表示：“外来券商愿意按照当地玩家所制定的规则进行游戏。”
“投资银行认识到在亚洲其他地方要获得成功还是很容易的，它们将费用作为赢得市场份额的工具，”东京的一位资深银行家表示：“但在日本，战线早已划定了，因此这里看不到本地区其他地方所常见的血腥混战场面。”
在中国等亚洲国家，数十家银行开展“选美大赛”的现象已经司空见惯，而与之不同的是，在日本，开展业务时间不长的银行要从主导市场的券商手中分一杯羹绝非易事。德意志银行（Deutsche Bank）在日本相对算是初来乍到，它在亚洲其他地方承销IPO很成功，一定程度上是凭借其资产负债表所展示的雄厚实力以及在费用上的优势。但是德意志银行打入日本市场却遭到失败：它没能跻身本年度的十大证券承销商之一。
一些投资银行家警告说，日本出现了爆发“不良竞争”的征兆。有传言说，野村证券和瑞银证券（UBS）为具有重大意义的日本能源开发（J-Power）30亿美元股份安排上市，费用率仅为2.5%。很多人担心，某些银行会因为亟望提高排名，而撕毁银行之间为防止费用竞争而达成的内部协定――看来这是日本证券市场上的一股发展势头。
东京一家美国投资银行的证券部负责人表示：“三年前，没有一家投资银行愿意承接低于300万美元的业务，而现在每个人都盯着只有100万至200万美元的业务。”
但是，除非日本银行的联盟真正开始破裂，那些已进入亚洲其他地区的投资银行家只能继续苦苦抱怨运气太差，并且依然渴望地盯着日本市场。
