2012-07-02 01:15:54frank
[行為] 從巴克萊銀行(Barclays Bank)被罰2.9億英鎊一案看高階主管的行為
[ 為官之道 ]
歐美這些銀行的高階經理人被稱為「肥貓」是很有道裡的，年薪以百萬美元作單位，每年紅利也是以百萬美元做單位，每年動輒領上千萬美元。賺錢時都是他們的功勞，犯了錯卻說這些錯是我們所管不到的，這些人能爬到高階主管，當然深諳為官之道。
有錯當然是顧問或其他經理人的錯，怎麼會是CEO的錯呢？在大公司是這樣，政府機關也是如此。就拿總統來說，永遠是睿智、清廉、勤政、愛民。有錯都是幕僚的錯，都是「底下的人」蒙蔽了他。既然是英明睿智、操守廉潔所有的功勞當然都歸他。
Barclays bank credit: Oli Scarff/Getty Images (taken from internet)
歐美這些銀行的高階經理人被稱為「肥貓」是很有道裡的，年薪以百萬美元作單位，每年紅利也是以百萬美元做單位，每年動輒領上千萬美元。賺錢時都是他們的功勞，犯了錯卻說這些錯是我們所管不到的，這些人能爬到高階主管，當然深諳為官之道。
有錯當然是顧問或其他經理人的錯，怎麼會是CEO的錯呢？在大公司是這樣，政府機關也是如此。就拿總統來說，永遠是睿智、清廉、勤政、愛民。有錯都是幕僚的錯，都是「底下的人」蒙蔽了他。既然是英明睿智、操守廉潔所有的功勞當然都歸他。
前幾天的新聞：摩根大通銀行(J.P. Morgan Chase )原先預估約20億美元的信用衍生性商品交易虧損，現在可能大幅膨脹到90億美元。
為什麼 J.P Morgan Chase 要遭做風險如此高的信用衍生性商品？這又是一個當銀行的高階經理人的好處，賠的是公司或投資人的錢，賺錢的話，可以分大把的紅利。不需太多知識或經驗都知道：要高獲利，當然就要承擔高風險。所以負責投資的「專業」經理人們總會把錢投入高風險項目中。不過這似乎是銀行業主管特有的好處－－賠是賠別人的錢，賺的話要分很多。但是政府機關的主管也是差不多，浮編預算，結算前亂花錢消化預算；一些工程做好沒多久就拆，不是要做一個更大的，就是做錯重做；還有一些「蚊子館」。花人民納稅的錢，照顧選民、「樁腳」或是「自己人」。就拿最讓總統看了感動掉淚的「夢想家」做例子就好了，引用第778期「今周刊」的報導：「這齣內容空洞且簡化處理意識形態的音樂劇，竟是文建會耗資二．三億元預算所打造，造成各界對此活動背後涉及的利益關係多所質疑。」
政府機關與大的企業的高階主管其責任似乎僅限於接受讚美、功勞與其酬賞。
Barclays bank credit: Oli Scarff/Getty Images (taken from internet)
Bankers' pay
Having it both ways
Jun 28th 2012, 10:10 by Buttonwood
THE arcane world of Libor rate setting has resulted in the biggest ever fine issued by the Financial Services Authority (£59 million) on Barclays and fines in America that bring the total up to £290 million. The FSA judgment is lengthy but worth a read for those baffled by the intricacies of the deal. One would have thought that a process which averaged a whole bunch of interest rate estimates, eliminating the outliers, would be free from manipulation, but that turned out to be wrong. The FSA suggests that, not only did Barclays submit bids that were designed to favour their own derivative positions (for example, a bet on the spread between three-month and six-month Libor) but submitted bids that helped out other traders and other banks (see pages 18-22). See also our report here.
The report doesn't say who these "senior managers" were, although it does note that the compliance department failed to deal adequately with the issue. But the chief executive Bob Diamond said
One might reasonably conclude that the senior management of a bank cannot possibly know what is going on at the level of the individual traders; banks are just too complex. Fair enough. But one cannot have it both ways. If bank executives cannot be held responsible for all the shenanigans that go on underneath them, nor can they be responsible for all the profits that result. A lot goes on at a bank that is entirely out of the CEO's control. So when Barclays makes a bumper profit, why should the CEO get an outsized bonus? The profits may be down to luck, or to rising markets, or to trades that the CEO cannot possibly be aware of.
英國主管機關從交易員的往來電子郵件中查出，各銀行交易員讓銀行間「貸款利率」固定，同時賭央行利率走向，從中獲利。交易員還在金融危機前故意把利率維持在低水準，讓外界誤以為銀行體質健全。
據了解英國的駿懋、匯豐和蘇格蘭皇家銀行也因為交易員操匯率遭到調查。
巴克萊被判罰款以後，銀行高層表示今年將不領獎金。不過，罰款造成股東的損失，銀行高層並沒有意思要補償。
http://news.chinatimes.com/world/11050404/132012062801183.htm
以上報導摘自中國時報網頁，版權仍為中國時報所有。
Jun 28th 2012, 10:10 by Buttonwood
THE arcane world of Libor rate setting has resulted in the biggest ever fine issued by the Financial Services Authority (£59 million) on Barclays and fines in America that bring the total up to £290 million. The FSA judgment is lengthy but worth a read for those baffled by the intricacies of the deal. One would have thought that a process which averaged a whole bunch of interest rate estimates, eliminating the outliers, would be free from manipulation, but that turned out to be wrong. The FSA suggests that, not only did Barclays submit bids that were designed to favour their own derivative positions (for example, a bet on the spread between three-month and six-month Libor) but submitted bids that helped out other traders and other banks (see pages 18-22). See also our report here.
＂When the crisis hit in 2007-2008, everybody was concerned about banks' financing costs. The workings of the money markets suddenly became the subject of headlines. At this stage, the FSA says that senior management at high levels within Barclays were concerned over the negative media perception of Barclays’ LIBOR submissions in September 2007;
Those concerns led to instructions being given by less senior managers to Barclays’ Submitters to lower their LIBOR submissions at particular times of market stress in late 2007 and early 2008 in order to avoid negative media comment;
For the majority of the time the instructions operated to reduce Barclays’ submissions such that they did not stand out too far from the submissions of other contributing banks. Barclays believed that other banks were making LIBOR submissions that were too low and did not reflect market conditions. Barclays’ LIBOR submissions continued to be high relative to other contributing banks’ submissions during the financial crisis＂
The report doesn't say who these "senior managers" were, although it does note that the compliance department failed to deal adequately with the issue. But the chief executive Bob Diamond said
＂Nothing is more important to me than having a strong culture at Barclays; I am sorry that some people acted in a manner not consistent with our culture and values. To reflect our collective responsibility as leaders, Chris Lucas, Jerry del Missier, Rich Ricci and I have voluntarily agreed with the Board to forgo any consideration for an annual bonus this year. ＂
The implication is that the "some people" were not those at the top of the company but that the executives have done the decent thing by forgoing their bonuses.
One might reasonably conclude that the senior management of a bank cannot possibly know what is going on at the level of the individual traders; banks are just too complex. Fair enough. But one cannot have it both ways. If bank executives cannot be held responsible for all the shenanigans that go on underneath them, nor can they be responsible for all the profits that result. A lot goes on at a bank that is entirely out of the CEO's control. So when Barclays makes a bumper profit, why should the CEO get an outsized bonus? The profits may be down to luck, or to rising markets, or to trades that the CEO cannot possibly be aware of.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/06/bankers-pay?fsrc=scn%2Fgn_ec%2Fhaving_it_both_ways
The story was taken from the web site of "The Economist" at above URL. The copyright remains with The Economist or its author.
相關新聞
操縱利率自肥 巴克萊銀行被罰兩億九千萬英鎊
英國「巴克萊銀行」交易員，涉嫌操縱利率、坑殺房貸客戶自肥，被英國和美國主管機關罰款兩億九千萬英鎊，大約折合台幣一百三十億。英國主管機關從交易員的往來電子郵件中查出，各銀行交易員讓銀行間「貸款利率」固定，同時賭央行利率走向，從中獲利。交易員還在金融危機前故意把利率維持在低水準，讓外界誤以為銀行體質健全。
據了解英國的駿懋、匯豐和蘇格蘭皇家銀行也因為交易員操匯率遭到調查。
巴克萊被判罰款以後，銀行高層表示今年將不領獎金。不過，罰款造成股東的損失，銀行高層並沒有意思要補償。
http://news.chinatimes.com/world/11050404/132012062801183.htm
以上報導摘自中國時報網頁，版權仍為中國時報所有。
下一篇：[語言] 不學詩，無以言