????上周早些時候，花旗集團（Citigroup）首席執行官潘偉迪告訴分析師們，別把巴克萊銀行（Barclays）4.50億美元的Libor和解金額視為標桿，好像花旗也要支付這么多錢。他也許說對了。因為花旗集團最終付出的罰款可能將遠超這個數。

????多項研究顯示，就操縱關鍵銀行利率而言，巴克萊并不是最嚴重的一家。這個名號或許應該屬于花旗。

????2010年初，兩位分別來自加州大學洛杉磯分校（UCLA）和明尼蘇達大學（University of Minnesota）的經濟學教授對Libor操縱行為進行了研究，發現至少有一項指標顯示，在金融危機之前花旗不實申報借款利率的幅度超過了美國其他任何一家大銀行。分析認為，全球最嚴重的是加拿大皇家銀行（Royal Bank of Canada）。

????兩位教授將各家銀行提交Libor委員會的利率與另一項較難操縱的銀行利率進行比較，發現2007年8月至2008年8月期間，花旗將其借款利率平均低報了0.12個百分點。這個數字或許聽上去不多，但兩位教授的分析顯示，這比巴克萊低報借款利率0.08個百分點高出了50%。

????而且，正如我們所知，Libor影響到千萬消費者和公司，影響到林林總總的貸款和金融工具的償還成本。因此，即便很小的利率差異，匯聚反映到貸款人和投資者身上的影響也十分巨大。

????并不是只有這一項研究稱花旗Libor問題的嚴重性。早在2008年年中，《華爾街日報》（Wall Street Journal）就已開始報道Libor問題，這一利率的計算是在16家大銀行提交的借款利率中，選中間8個取平均值。《華爾街日報》比較了這些銀行上報的利率和借款保險成本。結果同樣，分析顯示花旗低報借款利率最多。根據《華爾街日報》的計算，從2008年1月23日到2008年4月16日，花旗低報借款利率0.87個百分點，幾乎是巴克萊低報0.30個百分點的近三倍。

????上上周，野村證券（Nomura）的券商分析師們也對這些銀行的真實貸款利率和上報給Libor委員會的利率進行了比較。以格蘭?斯肖為首的這些分析師們選取的時間段更長，一直從2007年8月到2010年5月。

????猜猜哪家銀行排在首位？這期間，花旗上報的借款利率略低于2.1%。但野村計算發現，花旗的實際利率更接近3.6%，說明該行將借款成本低估了42%，超過其他任何一家銀行。巴克萊的低報幅度僅為6%。

????花旗拒絕對這些研究發表評論。

????當然，這些研究并不能說明將來花旗支付的罰款就一定會超過巴克萊或其他銀行。在這場利率操縱風波中脫不了干系的另外兩家美國銀行，也就是摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）和美國銀行（Bank of America），在借款利率方面撒的謊看來也超過了巴克萊銀行。

????花旗為什么要低報利率，理解這一點很重要。巴克萊的情況顯然是該行交易員希望通過操縱利率獲利。但如果花旗撒謊僅僅只是為了讓自己面子好看，哥倫比亞大學（Columbia）的法學教授約翰?考費稱，那可能還不足以證明其試圖操縱Libor。

????“刑事檢察官不太可能揪著一家只為粉飾自己的銀行不放，”考費稱。

????不過，很多投資者、養老基金和市政機構已開始起訴，不少案件都牽涉到了花旗。花旗利率如此偏離現實，很容易成為眾矢之的。而且，在這么大一家銀行中，很容易就能找到一些部門可能當時受益于虛低的Libor利率。事實上，2010年的Libor學術研究發現，花旗利息收入在2009年初大幅增加，差不多就是大多數訴訟認為Libor被操縱的時候。

????總的來說，當時很多銀行都有低報利率的傾向。因此，加州大學洛杉磯分校的經濟學教授、2010年研究的合著者柯能?施耐德表示，花旗對利率的操縱程度可能是最大的，這一點并不難理解。狀況越糟糕，就必須撒更多的謊，才能保持與他人一致的利率。2008年底、2009年初，沒有幾家銀行的狀況比花旗還糟糕。如今，花旗要為當年為掩蓋困境而做的一切付出代價。

????談到金融危機期間華爾街撒過的謊，這一頁看來還遠遠沒有到翻過去的時候。

????譯者：早稻米

????Earlier this week, Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit told analysts not to use Barclays' $450 million Libor settlement as a guidepost for what his firm might have to pay. And he could be right. Citigroup (C) might end up paying much more.

????A number of studies have shown that when it comes to lying about the key bank rate, Barclays was far from the worst offender. That title may belong to Citi.

????In early 2010, two economics professors from UCLA and the University of Minnesota looked at Libor manipulation and found that, at least according to one measure, Citi had misstated its lending rate by more than any other large U.S. bank in the run up to the financial crisis. The worst offender worldwide, according to the analysis, was the Royal Bank of Canada.

????The professors compared Libor submissions to another harder to manipulate bank rate and found that on average Citi understated its borrow costs by an average of 0.12 percentage points from August 2007 to August 2008. That may not sound like much, but it's 50% more than the 0.08 percentage points that Barclays under reporting its own borrowing costs, according to the professors' analysis.

????And as we now know, Libor affects how much consumers and companies pay on a wide variety of loans and financial instruments, so even a very small difference in the rate can mean a big difference collectively to borrowers and investors.

????That's not the only study that said Citi's pants were on fire when it came to Libor. Back in mid-2008, when the Wall Street Journal began to report the problems with Libor, which is set by averaging the middle eight borrowing rates submitted by 16 large banks, the paper compared the banks' reported Libor rates and the cost of insuring their debt. Once again Citi was shown to have understated its borrowing costs by the most. By the WSJ's calculations, from January 23 to April 16 of 2008 Citi under-reported its borrowing rate by 0.87 percentage points, or nearly triple the 0.30 percentage point difference that the paper figured Barclays was fibbing by.

????Last week, brokerage analysts at Nomura constructed their own approximation of the difference between what the banks' true borrowing costs were and what they told the Libor panel. The analysts, lead by Glenn Schorr, looked at a longer time frame than the other studies, from August 2007 to May 2010.

????Guess what bank stood out. Citi reported its loan costs at just under 2.1% during the period. But Nomura calculated Citi's real rate was more like 3.6%, meaning the bank understated its borrowing expense by 42%. That was by far the largest margin of any bank. The difference between Barclay's reported and actual borrowing rate was just 6%.

????Citi decline to comment on the studies.

????None of this ensures that the bank will end up paying a bigger fine than Barclays, or other banks. The two other U.S. banks that are part of the rate setting process, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC), appear to have lied more than Barclays about their borrowing costs as well.

????Why Citi understated its rate matters. In Barclays' case, it was clear that traders at the bank were trying to profit from the manipulation. But if Citi lied solely to make it look better, law professor John Coffee of Columbia says that may not be enough to prove it was trying to manipulate Libor.

????"Criminal prosecutors are unlikely to go after a bank that was just trying to make itself look good," says Coffee.

????Still, a number of investors, pension funds and municipalities have begun to bring suits, and Citi is named in a number of them. The fact that Citi's rates were so far from reality might make the bank an easy target. What's more, at such a large bank, it will be easy to find some division of the bank that would have benefited from an artificially low Libor rate. In fact, the 2010 academic Libor study found that Citi's interest revenue jumped in early 2009, at around the same time most suits claim Libor was being manipulate.

????In general, banks tended to bunch their Libor quotes. As a result, Conan Snider, who is an economics professor at UCLA and co-author of the 2010 study, says it makes sense that Citi's rate would have been the most manipulated. The worse shape you were in, the more you had to lie to keep your rate in line with others. And in late 2008 and early 2009, few banks were worse off than Citi. Now, what they did to cover that up may come back to haunt the bank.

????When it comes to the lies Wall Street told during the financial crisis, it appears, all is far from forgiven.