????摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）又遇上了麻煩。內(nèi)部電子郵件和電腦文件顯示，這家投資銀行有意聘用了一些身世顯赫的中國員工，目的是在中國贏得投行業(yè)務(wù)。美國證監(jiān)會(huì)（Securities and Exchange Commission）和布魯克林聯(lián)邦檢察官辦公室正在就此進(jìn)行調(diào)查。

????鑒于美國公司的國際業(yè)務(wù)受到了更為嚴(yán)格的監(jiān)管，特別是在行賄方面，在華業(yè)務(wù)惹上這樣的麻煩可能讓摩根大通非常頭疼。

????不過問題在于，盡管摩根大通可能多次嚴(yán)重違規(guī)，比如以欺詐方式推銷抵押貸款支持的證券，操縱能源市場(chǎng)，通過有問題的手段催討信用卡債務(wù)，當(dāng)然還有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)控制不力，但通過聘用某些個(gè)人來投機(jī)取巧可能并不像監(jiān)管部門所說的那么嚴(yán)重，甚至還可能會(huì)對(duì)美國政府最近為了遏制肆無忌憚的華爾街而采取的措施產(chǎn)生不利影響。

????首先，和所有投行為了贏得業(yè)務(wù)而經(jīng)常使用的其他手段相比，為了確保自己能和中國國企做成生意而聘用相關(guān)官員的親戚實(shí)際上和前者沒有什么區(qū)別。這些手段包括設(shè)盛宴款待公司高層，為他們觀看體育賽事提供包廂，包場(chǎng)請(qǐng)他們打高爾夫，或者在節(jié)日期間贈(zèng)送厚禮。這和其他行業(yè)的做法也沒有太大差別，只不過是開展業(yè)務(wù)的途徑。此外，就算不直接聘用這些人，摩根大通也能輕而易舉（不動(dòng)聲色）地推薦他們得到其他工作。如果出現(xiàn)這樣的情況，美國監(jiān)管部門就幾乎不可能把這些分散的問題聯(lián)系在一起。

????其次，如今投行業(yè)務(wù)的性質(zhì)決定了摩根大通的行為幾乎不可避免。投資銀行業(yè)的基礎(chǔ)曾經(jīng)是個(gè)人關(guān)系以及投行人士和公司高層之間的信任。20世紀(jì)90年代初，這個(gè)行業(yè)發(fā)生了徹底改變。人們?cè)谧錾獾倪^程中開始越發(fā)側(cè)重于利潤、而不是忠誠，而且買賣雙方都是如此。投行如饑似渴地?cái)U(kuò)大業(yè)務(wù)規(guī)模，企業(yè)四處尋覓收費(fèi)最低的投行或者帶有咨詢服務(wù)的融資渠道，發(fā)展客戶變成了用服務(wù)質(zhì)量以外的東西來吸引潛在客戶。批評(píng)摩根大通的行為也許很容易，但在這種做法成為體系內(nèi)趨勢(shì)、甚至連客戶都想要獲得“好處”的情況下，投行已經(jīng)別無選擇，只能隨波逐流。

????最后，追究這些小毛病，特別是實(shí)際上出現(xiàn)在國外的違規(guī)行為會(huì)分流寶貴的監(jiān)管資源，導(dǎo)致監(jiān)管部門無法全力打擊更嚴(yán)重的犯罪行為，比如欺詐、操縱市場(chǎng)、公司治理不力、風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理不當(dāng)以及高層瀆職等，而且這些都發(fā)生在美國境內(nèi)。我并不是說可以接受美國公司在開展業(yè)務(wù)的過程中賄賂外國官員，但如果把眼界放得更寬廣一些，同時(shí)考慮到上述情有可原的環(huán)境因素，也許不應(yīng)該那樣大張旗鼓地對(duì)待摩根大通，同時(shí)，調(diào)查這類行為也不應(yīng)該成為監(jiān)管部門的首要任務(wù)。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????本文作者是政治及商業(yè)評(píng)論員，曾在Lazard Freres和Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein等投行任職。他還寫過兩部驚悚小說，其中一部是《屠殺華爾街》。

????譯者：Charlie??

????In the latest round of trouble for JPMorgan Chase (JPM), the bank's internal emails and computer files reveal that it purposefully hired people from prominent Chinese families in order to win banking business in China, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Brooklyn federal prosecutor's office are investigating the matter.

????Given the increased regulatory scrutiny surrounding international operations of American firms, especially as it relates to bribery, the China situation could be a big headache for JPM.

????The only problem is that while JPM may have committed several serious infractions in conducting its business, including marketing mortgage-backed securities fraudulently, manipulating energy markets, recouping credit card debt using questionable practices, and of course failing to manage risk, the opportunistic hiring of a few individuals may not be as terrible a thing as regulators are making it out to be, and could even hurt the U.S. government's recent efforts to rein in Wall Street recklessness.

????For one thing, hiring relatives of connected politicians in China to secure business from state-owned enterprises is really no different from other methods all banks frequently use to win business, such as treating company executives to expensive meals, providing them box seats to sports games, inviting them to play at exclusive golf courses, or sending them expensive gifts during the holiday season. It is also not vastly different from any other industry; it is simply the way business is done. Moreover, even if JPM had not hired these individuals directly, it could easily (and silently) have helped them secure other jobs through referrals. In that case, it would have been nearly impossible for U.S. regulators to connect the dots.

????Secondly, the nature of the investment banking business today makes JPM's actions almost inevitable. Once a white-shoe industry built around close personal relationships and trust between bankers and CEOs, the investment banking business changed radically in the early 1990s, moving toward a transactional model which favored profits over loyalty -- on both sides. As banks hungrily sought out more deal flow and as companies shopped around for the lowest fees or financing to go along with advisory services, client acquisition became a matter of enticing potential clients with things other than just the quality of service. It may be easy to criticize JPM for this practice, but when the trend is systemic and when even clients have come to expect "sweeteners," individual banks have little choice but to follow.

????Finally, going after relatively minor transgressions like this, and especially those committed effectively on foreign soil, diverts valuable regulatory resources from more serious crimes like fraud, market manipulation, poor corporate governance, risk mismanagement, and executive misconduct -- committed right here at home. I am not saying that bribery of foreign officials should be an acceptable way for American companies to do business, but in the larger scheme of things and given the extenuating circumstances outlined above, it may not be the horrendous crime that it is being treated as, and should not be the priority for regulators.

????Sanjay Sanghoee is a political and business commentator. He has worked at investment banks Lazard Freres and Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein. He is the author of two thriller novels, including Killing Wall Street.