????很多人都在問，報道所述摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）接受130億美元罰款就其在按揭債券業務中誤導消費者的指控達成和解，這樣天價的罰款是不是過頭了？畢竟，這個金額將成為所有單一某家銀行支付給監管機構的最高和解金。

????但或許，我們更應該問的是：為什么摩根大通CEO吉米?戴蒙會同意支付這130億美元？

????的確，監管機構有足夠的證據證明，摩根大通及其收購的貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns）和華盛頓互惠銀行（Washington Mutual）向投資者出售的債券與他們所宣稱的不符。但過去每家銀行都這么干。而且，也沒有證據表明，摩根大通是最嚴重的違紀者。房利美（Fannie）和房地美（Freddie）在美國銀行（Bank of America）及其收購的Countrywide承銷的債券上損失的錢更多。

????當然了，這不是有效的辯護，但在考量摩根大通到底應該支付多少錢時應該考慮這個因素。而且，去年，美國司法部（Justice Department）和美國證券交易委員會（Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC）撤銷了一項針對高盛（Goldman Sachs）的類似案件，沒有提出任何指控。SEC針對富國銀行（Wells Fargo）出售按揭債券的調查已經持續了近一年半，看起來也將無疾而終。

????摩根大通甚至都沒有獲得刑事指控豁免權。美國政府面臨一場艱難的斗爭，即便是罰了130億美元后，這些指控仍然有風險。130億美元是什么概念，比億萬富翁艾倫?穆斯克建造hyperloop超級高鐵的成本還要高約50億美元。

????有些人稱這樣的天價罰款就是敲詐。美國政府將摩根大通逼入死角，開出盡可能高的罰款，因為它知道這家銀行付得起這筆錢。《華爾街日報》(The Wall Street Journal)干脆以“《被敲詐的摩根大通》（The Morgan Shakedown）”為題發表了一篇評論文章。

????但看起來摩根大通必須付錢，而且必須現在就付。很難知道這家銀行的董事會想要什么，但沒有什么證據證明，戴蒙是被人用槍指著頭被迫簽署的這項交易。摩根大通的股價在過去一年漲了28%，盡管同期它的法律訴訟問題已經在惡化。因此，看起來也不像是股東們強烈要求達成一項和解。如果戴蒙認為這樣的和解不合理，他原本應該反擊這些指控。

????看待摩根大通巨額罰款的另一種方式是：或許，這是賄賂。監管機構一直期望在與銀行的斗爭中勝一局。他們本可以敦促吉米?戴蒙從CEO職位上離職，或者迫使他放棄董事長兼CEO的雙重職位。鑒于這家銀行最近面臨的監管和法律問題，敦促戴蒙放棄董事長兼CEO的雙重職位看起來是合理的懲罰。

????而且，請記住，雖然摩根大通此次計劃和解的投資者損失有80%源自貝爾斯登或華盛頓互惠銀行發售的債券，但這并不意味著這兩家銀行要承擔80%的過錯。美國司法部的那宗民事案件似乎是推動這項巨額和解的動力，而該案件的依據是摩根大通在2005年至2007年發售的按揭債券，遠遠早于它收購著兩家銀行。而那段時期的大部分時間里，戴蒙都是公司的CEO。

????A lot of people are questioning whether JPMorgan Chase's reported fine of $13 billion to settle claims that it misled investors in mortgage bonds is excessive. It would, after all, be the largest settlement any single bank has ever paid to regulators.

????But perhaps the better question is this: Why did CEO Jamie Dimon agree, if it has, to $13 billion?

????Yes, regulators have plenty of evidence that JPMorgan (JPM) -- along with Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, both of which JPMorgan bought -- sold bonds to investors that were not what they claimed. But every bank did that. And there is no evidence that JPMorgan was the worst offender. Fannie and Freddie lost more money on bonds underwritten by Bank of America (BAC) and Countrywide, which BofA acquired.

????That, of course, isn't a good defense, but it should play into considerations of just how much money JPMorgan should have to pay. What's more, last year, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped a similar case it had pursued against Goldman Sachs (GS) without bringing charges. An SEC case against Wells Fargo (WFC) for selling mortgage bonds that the regulator has been pursuing for close to a year and a half appears to have gone nowhere.

????JPMorgan isn't even getting immunity from criminal charges. The government faces an uphill battle, but those charges are still a risk even after $13 billion, which, just for comparison, is about $5 billion more than it would cost to build Elon Musk's hyperloop.

????Some have called the fine extortion. The government has JPMorgan in the corner, and it's extracting as big a fine as it possibly can because it knows the bank can pay. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on the fine titled "The Morgan Shakedown."

????But that assumes JPMorgan had to pay, and that it had to pay now. It is hard to know what the bank's board of directors wanted, but there is little evidence there was a gun to Dimon's head to make a deal. JPMorgan's stock is up 28% in the past year, even as the bank's legal problems have intensified. So, it doesn't seem like shareholders were pushing for a settlement. Dimon could have fought the charges if he thought it was a bad deal.

????Here's another way to look at JPMorgan's outsize fine: Perhaps it was a payoff. Regulators were looking for a win against banks. They could have pushed for Jamie Dimon to step down as CEO, or they could have forced him to give up his role as both chairman and CEO. Given the regulatory and legal troubles the bank has faced recently, pushing for Dimon to give up his dual role at the company would seem like justified punishment.

????And remember, while 80% of the investor losses that JPMorgan is settling were on bonds originated by either Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual, that doesn't mean that 80% of the wrongdoing was committed by those two banks. The Justice Department's civil case, which appears to be the impetus for the large settlement, was based on mortgage bonds that JPMorgan sold from 2005 to 2007, well before it bought either of those banks. Dimon was the CEO for much of that time.