????渣打銀行（Standard Chartered）或許會倒霉，但肯定不會出局。這家銀行行看上去遇到了大麻煩，美國監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)正在調(diào)查它同伊朗伊斯蘭共和國的業(yè)務(wù)往來，但它的所作所為絕不是個(gè)別現(xiàn)象。很多大型的國際銀行都已經(jīng)和伊朗建立了業(yè)務(wù)往來，違反了美國的制裁條例——其中大多數(shù)也為此支付了高額罰金。

????這或許就是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)原因，周一紐約州監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)嚴(yán)懲渣打銀行后，雖然近兩天渣打股價(jià)遭受重?fù)簦珎惗爻堑母呒夈y行家和投資組合經(jīng)理們似乎并不怎么擔(dān)心。有報(bào)道稱渣打銀行可能失去在紐約州經(jīng)營和交易的牌照，此類說法也一概被視為“不經(jīng)之談”。

????與此同時(shí)，倫敦城的投資經(jīng)理們都深信，渣打銀行的信用狀況可靠，就算是跟那些深陷丑聞（從操縱Libor利率到內(nèi)幕交易）、焦頭爛額的銀行比起來，它當(dāng)前的股票價(jià)值也算得上便宜。不過，在渣打銀行解決這個(gè)問題前，或者撥出足以解決這個(gè)問題的現(xiàn)金前，該行的股票和債券價(jià)格預(yù)計(jì)仍將比同行便宜。

????就在不久之前，歐洲大銀行們還在夸耀它們與伊朗相關(guān)實(shí)體間的緊密關(guān)系。銀行家們定期前往迪拜和德黑蘭，向毛拉和當(dāng)?shù)毓賳T大獻(xiàn)殷勤，希望能從該國業(yè)務(wù)中分得一杯羹。作為全球主要的石油出口國，伊朗存在大量以美元結(jié)算的巨額交易，需要一種途徑使這些現(xiàn)金能夠通過國際銀行系統(tǒng)進(jìn)行循環(huán)。這項(xiàng)業(yè)務(wù)的利潤率高，而風(fēng)險(xiǎn)相對較低——正是銀行愛聽的。

????但這對于銀行也并不是全無風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。2004年瑞銀（UBS）被美國官員盯上，指控它有七年時(shí)間與伊朗、古巴、利比亞和南斯拉夫這四個(gè)“流氓”國家進(jìn)行交易——所有這些都違反了美國的制裁條例。瑞銀迅速與美國監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)達(dá)成了和解，向美國財(cái)政部（the US Treasury）支付了1億美元罰金。瑞銀在與這四個(gè)國家的交易中究竟獲得了多少收益始終沒有披露，但普遍認(rèn)為，美國政府的罰金差不多只是個(gè)零頭。即便交了罰金，瑞銀仍然繼續(xù)與伊朗交易，直到2006年底才正式抽身。

????有一段時(shí)間，這對伊朗不是個(gè)問題，還是有很多歐洲銀行愿意幫助伊朗通過銀行體系轉(zhuǎn)移大量美元資金。直到奧巴馬政府決定加強(qiáng)對伊朗銀行業(yè)施壓，希望藉此迫使德黑蘭放棄所謂的核武器計(jì)劃，一切都改變了。一位曾在那個(gè)時(shí)期同伊朗有業(yè)務(wù)往來的倫敦銀行家告訴《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）說：“銀行基本上都收到過警告，稱政府不會再睜一只眼閉一只眼。”從2009年9月到上個(gè)月，美國聯(lián)邦監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)至少已經(jīng)處罰了六家在過去十年中與伊朗進(jìn)行交易的國際銀行，其中有好幾家英國銀行：勞埃德銀行（Lloyd's TSB）支付罰金3.50億美元，巴克萊（Barclays）罰金1.76億美元，匯豐（HSBC）尚未受到罰款處罰。渣打銀行只不過是排在它們后面的又一家將受到處罰的銀行。

????不光是英國銀行受到處罰。美國聯(lián)邦政府也處治過一些歐洲銀行，像法興銀行（Societe General）和瑞信（Credit Suisse）就分別支付了10萬美元和5.36億美元罰金。甚至連美國的銀行也被發(fā)現(xiàn)染指伊朗業(yè)務(wù)，摩根大通（JP Morgan）就因違反美國制裁條例而被處罰金8,800萬美元，其中包括與伊朗相關(guān)的交易。

????渣打此番的不同之處在于，指控是由紐約州單獨(dú)提起的。通常在此類調(diào)查占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位的華盛頓監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)往往會采取更謹(jǐn)慎的做法，會在宣布違規(guī)的同時(shí)公布罰金，以免銀行處于很大的不確定性中。如果聯(lián)邦官員先公布違規(guī)后公布罰金，政府可能會對罰金的數(shù)額做出暗示。比如，由于類似的違規(guī)行為、像渣打一樣處于巨大不確定性中的匯豐已經(jīng)提前撥出了7億美元，以應(yīng)付可能的罰金。美國政府指控匯豐與包括伊朗在內(nèi)的流氓國家進(jìn)行了肆無忌憚的交易，交易價(jià)值約200億美元。

????像其他大型國際銀行一樣，渣打據(jù)稱也很樂意幫助伊朗滿足其銀行需求。紐約州監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)指控，從2001年到2010年，渣打與伊朗進(jìn)行了2,500億美元的不正當(dāng)交易，違反了美國的制裁條例。而渣打表示，它只能找到1,400萬美元的交易可能觸及紅線。這里顯然存在一些分歧。

????Standard Chartered may be down, but it is certainly not out. While it appears that the bank is in very hot water with state regulators over its business dealings with the Islamic Republic of Iran, its story is far from unique. Many major international banks have done business with Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions – with most paying hefty fines for doing so.

????That may be why senior bankers and portfolio managers in the City of London don't seem too worried about the beating Standard Chartered's stock has taken in the past few days after New York State regulators threw the book at the bank on Monday. Talk that the bank could lose its ability to work and trade in the state is being dismissed as simply "loony."

????Meanwhile, money managers in the City believe that the bank's credit looks solid and its equity value is now cheap compared to its peers – even ones that have their plates full with their own scandals ranging from the Libor fixing to insider trading. Nevertheless, the company's stock and bonds are expected to trade at a discount to its peers until the bank either resolves the issue or sets aside the cash to deal with it.

????It wasn't too long ago that the big European banks actually flaunted their close relationship with entities connected to Iran. Bankers would take regular trips to Dubai and Tehran to court the mullahs and their apparatchiks to secure a piece of the nation's business. As a major oil exporter, Iran engaged in a number of big dollar-denominated transactions and needed a way to recycle that cash through the international banking system. The margins in that business were high while the risks were relatively low – exactly what banks like to hear.

????But it wasn't all risk free for the banks. In 2004, UBS was singled out by U.S. government officials for engaging in transactions over a seven-year period with Iran and other "rogue" nations, including Cuba, Libya and Yugoslavia -- all in violation of U.S. sanctions. The bank settled quickly with U.S. regulators, paying $100 million to the US Treasury as penance. While it was never disclosed how much UBS gained from its dealing with the four nations, it was generally viewed to be a fraction of the fine handed down by the U.S. government. Even with the fine UBS continued to do business in Iran, not pulling out officially until late 2006.

????For a while, that was no matter for Iran, which still had plenty of European banks willing to help it move its hoard of U.S. dollars through the banking system. All that changed when the Obama administration decided to step up pressure on Iran's banking sector in a bid to get Tehran to give up its supposed nuclear weapons program. "Banks were essentially put on notice that the government was no longer looking the other way," a London-based banker who did business in Iran during that time tells Fortune. From September of 2009 to last month, federal regulators levied fines on at least six international banks for their dealings with Iran in the previous decade. Among them were a number of British banks including Lloyd's TSB, which paid a fine of $350 million; Barclays (BCS), which paid $176 million; and HSBC, which has yet to have a fine levied against it. Standard Chartered was simply the next in line to take a hit.

????But it wasn't just UK-based banks that were served. The Feds also went after continental banks like Societe General of France, which paid a fine of $100,000 and Credit Suisse, which paid $536 million. Even U.S. banks were caught in the Iranian cookie jar, with JP Morgan (JPM) fined $88 million for its role in violating US sanctions law, including those connected with Iran.

????What appears to be different this time with Standard Chartered (SCBFF) is that NY State filed its complaint against the bank alone. Regulators in Washington, which usually lead any investigation, typically handle things in a more discreet way, announcing the violation and the fine at the same time to avoid a situation where the bank would be in limbo. Where the Feds announced the violation before the fine was issued, the government may have hinted to what the fine could be to the banks. HSBC, for example, is currently in limbo like Standard Charter for similar violations, but has set aside $700 million to absorb any potential fine. The government alleges that HSBC engaged in unscrupulous transactions with rogue nations, including Iran, with a total notional amount of around $20 billion.

????Like the other major international banks, Standard Chartered was allegedly more than happy to help Iran with its banking needs. From 2001 to 2010, New York State regulators allege that the banks had engaged in $250 billion – with a "B" – worth of inappropriate transactions with Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions. The bank, meanwhile, says it could only find $14 million worth of transactions that might have tripped the wire. There is clearly some disconnect here.