????巴克萊已經(jīng)把公司最顯赫的兩個(gè)人撤掉了。

????雖然最高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層的改變是重大的行動(dòng)，從銀行付出的代價(jià)來看卻是相對(duì)微小的。真正的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是進(jìn)一步的民事訴訟、股東及投資者的憤怒和客戶的覺醒。

????風(fēng)險(xiǎn)并不在于銀行已經(jīng)同意支付給英國金融服務(wù)管理局的4.5億美元罰金。為了全面看待這個(gè)問題，我們只需了解，巴克萊的運(yùn)營現(xiàn)金流在過去12個(gè)月超過600億美元。危機(jī)管理公司Lexicon Communications Corp的總裁兼首席執(zhí)行官斯蒂芬?芬克說：“4.5億美元的罰單對(duì)巴克萊不過是九牛一毛罷了?！睂?shí)際上，對(duì)任何主要銀行來說這都是九牛一毛。監(jiān)管者如此輕微的罰款根本不能阻止違法行為。

????更重大的問題是，價(jià)格操縱的潛在利益高于被逮住的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。芬克認(rèn)為，在進(jìn)一步的民事訴訟中賠錢以及失去良好商譽(yù)的威脅才是嚴(yán)重的問題。至于解雇幾名高管，“那只是走走過場(chǎng)。如果問題是系統(tǒng)性的，解雇一兩個(gè)人并不能解決問題。當(dāng)然我沒有說一定會(huì)是這樣。”

????因?yàn)楸O(jiān)管者在未來的嚴(yán)密注視，銀行需要避免這類利率操縱。但除非有某種更廣泛的、文化上或者財(cái)務(wù)上的激勵(lì)，能使得銀行逆潮流而行，遵守規(guī)則，否則，它們還是會(huì)甘冒風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，事后選擇象征性的補(bǔ)救措施，而不是真正地解決問題

????Barclays has taken away its faces.

????And while the change of leadership in the top is certainly a major move, it's a relatively small price for the bank to pay. The real risks are further civil lawsuits, shareholder and investor anger, and disillusioned customers.

????The risk, however, is not the $450 million in fines the bank has already agreed to pay the UK's Financial Services Authority. To put that in perspective, the bank's operating cash flow, trailing 12 months, is well over $60 billion. "A $450 million fine, that's a drop in the bucket for Barclays," says Steven Fink, president and CEO of crisis management firm Lexicon Communications Corp. It would be a drop in the bucket for any major bank, actually. Such a small financial penalty from regulators won't prevent unlawful behavior.

????The larger problem, then, is that the potential profits from price-fixing probably outweigh the risk of getting caught. The threat of losing money from further civil litigation and losing the good will of the public are serious issues for these banks, Fink says. But, as for firing a couple of executives, "That's only window dressing. If the problem is systemic, and I'm not saying it is, but just getting rid of one or two people doesn't solve the problem."

????Banks will also have to avoid this kind of rate fixing, if only because in the future, regulators will be watching for it. But until there is some larger, cultural, or monetary incentive for a bank to go against the grain and play by the rules, they may all take the risk and opt for more symbolic fixes than real ones.