评论
打印
Is Europe’s biggest bank too big to manage? Or have its management and board simply not been up to the job? Politicians and pundits are pressing the issue. HSBC’s senior executives are ducking the question. Yes, they acknowledge, mistakes were made, controls were lax, practices were inappropriate and the organisation’s structure was flawed. But it was not their fault and they are working hard to put things right.
欧洲最大的银行已经庞大到无法管理了吗？抑或该行管理层和董事会根本没能力胜任这一工作？政客和评论人士抓住这个问题不放，汇丰(HSBC)的高管们则在回避这个问题。没错，他们承认，该行犯过错，控制机制不严，操作实践不合适，组织结构存在缺陷。但这并非他们的过错，而且他们正努力纠正错误。
Whether it was their fault or not depends on whether they were responsible for the areas concerned and what one means by responsible. Start with the facts. Douglas Flint, the present chairman, was appointed group finance director and board member in 1995. He appeared qualified for the role. According to the bank’s website: “Mr Flint specialised in banking, financial reporting, treasury and securities operations, group reorganisations and litigation support while at KPMG.”
是否是他们的错，取决于有关领域是否由他们负责，以及“负责”的含义是什么。让我们从事实说起。汇丰现任董事长范智廉(Douglas Flint)在1995年被任命为集团财务总监和董事会成员。从履历来看，他有资格胜任这一职务。汇丰官网是这样介绍的：“范智廉在毕马威(KPMG)期间，专门负责银行业务、财务报告、财资及证券交易、集团重组及诉讼支持等工作。”
Yet it was during his tenure that HSBC made the Mexican and Swiss acquisitions that have proved so costly. The first was[OR ‘WERE’?] at the centre of 10 years of money laundering; the second has spawned a series of scandals. And let us not forget the 2003 purchase of Household Finance — the US-based subprime powerhouse and source of significant write-offs. True, the board as a whole makes the final decision to acquire. It would be an odd board indeed that made such acquisitions without the specific blessing of its finance director.
然而正是在他的任期内，汇丰在墨西哥和瑞士作出了最终代价高昂的收购。在墨西哥的收购令汇丰长达10年深陷洗钱风暴，在瑞士的收购酿成了一系列丑闻。而且我们不要忘记2003年汇丰收购了Household Finance——这家美国次级贷款巨头后来成了重大资产减记的源头。没错，收购的最终决定是董事会集体作出的。但是，如果没有财务总监的明确支持，董事会进行这类收购也太奇怪了。
So the bank’s most senior official was in a position of responsibility. Does it follow that he was responsible and therefore accountable? Not according to him. The chairman claims that HSBC’s federated structure (since revamped) made it impossible for board members to know how the bank’s different businesses were operating. Yet was he not part of the executive team that created the structure and was charged with making it work?
所以汇丰最高官员担任着有重大责任的职位。这是不是进而意味着他要负责，因而是可追究责任的？他的说法不是这样的。这位董事长称，汇丰的联邦式结构（现已改组）令董事会成员无法了解该行不同业务部门是如何运作的。可是，难道他不是高管团队的一分子吗？创建这一结构并负责使其有效运行的难道不是这个团队吗？
In a public statement, Mr Flint said: “We deeply regret and apologise for the conduct and compliance failures highlighted which were in contravention to our own policies as well as our expectations of us.” Well said. But management and chairmanship involves more than setting out policies. It involves ensuring they are carried out and that the culture is conducive to doing so.
范智廉在一份公开声明中表示：“我们对相关的行为和合规失败深感遗憾，并为其道歉，这些失败违反了我行的政策，也不符合我行对自身的期望。”这话说得很好。可是管理层和董事长的职责不光是制定政策，还涉及到确保这些政策得到执行，确保企业文化有利于政策的执行。
The idea that management cannot be expected to manage complex institutions is little more than an argument for breaking them up to more manageable sizes. And the notion of being responsible but not accountable does not wash. The Oxford English Dictionary lists responsible and accountable as synonyms. The public get it. Their political representatives get it. What will it take for the board of Britain’s largest bank to get it? They need not wait for new laws to link accountability and responsibility. Indeed, it is incumbent upon the board of Britain’s leading financial institution to set an example.
与其说不能期望管理层去管理复杂机构，还不如说应该把这些机构分拆成更易管理的规模。有关负责却不可追究责任的说法也是站不住脚的。牛津英语词典将“responsible”（有责任的）和“accountable”（可追究责任的）列为同义词。公众明白这一点，他们的政治代表明白这一点。怎样才能让英国最大银行的董事会明白这一点呢？他们不必等待新的法律将负责和可追究责任联系到一起。的确，这家英国一流金融机构的董事会应义不容辞地树立起榜样。
So is HSBC too big to manage? Or were management and board not up to the job? Stuart Gulliver, the current chief executive, is trying hard to disprove the former by undoing much of what was approved by the latter. Restoring accountability at every level of the organisation will be crucial to success. And here the chairman can make a contribution — albeit in a manner he may dislike.
那么，汇丰是大到无法管理了吗？抑或该行的管理层和董事会不胜任工作？现任首席执行官欧智华(Stuart Gulliver)正通过逆转董事会作出的大量决定来极力反驳前一个疑问。在集团的各个层面重建责任追究机制将是成功的关键。在这方面，汇丰集团董事长可以作出贡献，尽管可能要以他不喜欢的方式。
In a speech in April 2013, Mr Flint said: “[banking] supervisors should care more about tone from the top, how ethics and values are taught and reinforced, how values are enforced and rewarded, and how an organisation looks for and adapts to changing expectations within the communities it serves.” The tone at the top is set by the chairman and the board. For the good of his own reputation as well as that of his institution and British banking, Mr Flint should go.
2013年4月，范智廉在一次讲话中说：“（银行业）监督人员应该更加关心上层的调子，关心如何弘扬和强化道德观和价值观，如何执行和奖励价值观，以及一个组织如何在所服务社区内寻找和适应不断变化的期望。”上层的调子是由董事长和董事会定的。为了其个人、其机构乃至英国银行业的名誉，范智廉应该走人。
The writer is a senior fellow at Better Markets. He is a former member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee
本文作者是Better Markets的高级研究员，曾任英国央行(Bank of England)金融政策委员会(Financial Policy Committee)委员
