????涉及提供抵押貸款相關(guān)的披露不當(dāng)問題再次引發(fā)美國證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）的關(guān)注，涉案單位包括高盛集團(tuán)（Goldman Sachs）和富國銀行（Wells Fargo）。近期的一份法庭命令顯示，就天然氣管道公司Kinder Morgan和艾爾巴索公司（El Paso）并購一案，摩根斯坦利（Morgan Stanley）和高盛集提供的相關(guān)建議存在潛在的客戶利益沖突。高盛集團(tuán)首席執(zhí)行官羅伊德?布蘭克帆顯然知情并親自參與其中。難道這些大型金融機(jī)構(gòu)真的因?yàn)橐?guī)模過大，不可能完全接受法規(guī)的約束？

????二月底的一次媒體早餐會(huì)上，美國證券交易委員會(huì)主席瑪麗?夏皮羅解釋說：“這些機(jī)構(gòu)非常龐大……我們關(guān)注這些公司的不同業(yè)務(wù)領(lǐng)域和內(nèi)容時(shí)，就會(huì)一再發(fā)現(xiàn)問題。人們總是健忘，所以我們不得不反復(fù)提起這些案例，提醒人們不要忘記。”這次早餐會(huì)由FOR A電視臺(tái)錄制。

????周二，夏皮羅赴國會(huì)為美國證券交易委員會(huì)2013年預(yù)算案辯護(hù)。但愿證交會(huì)這次申請(qǐng)的預(yù)算資金充足，而國會(huì)也能批準(zhǔn)這份預(yù)算，，并且如預(yù)算案所陳述的，由證券交易委員會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)“擴(kuò)大并重點(diǎn)發(fā)展調(diào)研職能”，同時(shí)“強(qiáng)化訴訟職能”。

????然而目前，證券交易委員會(huì)對(duì)大型銀行的監(jiān)管似乎像是在打地鼠游戲，一次只能打擊一個(gè)目標(biāo)。這種方式治標(biāo)不治本，治理了這邊的違規(guī)，那邊又出現(xiàn)了新的違規(guī)。有沒有辦法對(duì)這些問題公司進(jìn)行全面的整頓呢？

證券交易委員會(huì)和花旗集團(tuán)和解

????證券交易委員會(huì)和花旗集團(tuán)（Citigroup）計(jì)劃和解，而就此召開全面聆訊則提供了解決這個(gè)問題的可能性。但聆訊最終是否會(huì)進(jìn)行目前尚不清楚。聯(lián)邦法官杰德?拉科夫判決該案應(yīng)該進(jìn)行法庭審理，去年年末，證券交易委員會(huì)隨即對(duì)該判決提起了上訴。

????法庭記錄顯示，在上訴案件中現(xiàn)已形成兩派。本來不太可能成為同盟的商業(yè)圓桌會(huì)議協(xié)會(huì)（Business Roundtable）、證券交易委員會(huì)和花旗集團(tuán)站在同一邊。他們都支持和解。

????另一派包括創(chuàng)意投資研究公司（Creative Investment Research）老總威廉?邁克爾?坎寧安。他聲稱，“為了支持公共利益”，應(yīng)該對(duì)和解協(xié)議進(jìn)行審查而不是批準(zhǔn)；另外，旨在“促進(jìn)金融市場(chǎng)公共利益”的非營利性機(jī)構(gòu)“市場(chǎng)優(yōu)化”（Better Markets）也要求考慮反對(duì)擬議的和解協(xié)議。

????商業(yè)圓桌會(huì)議協(xié)會(huì)在法庭文件中表示，如果對(duì)和解協(xié)議進(jìn)行法庭審理，可能會(huì)使“法庭陷入微觀管理的境地，需要事無巨細(xì)地監(jiān)控各機(jī)構(gòu)的執(zhí)行決策”。但坎寧安質(zhì)問證券交易委員會(huì)“關(guān)注私利甚于公平正義……特別是，如果采納更加公平的和解協(xié)議，將有助于避免累犯現(xiàn)象，同時(shí)保護(hù)投資者利益。”

????證券交易委員會(huì)反駁拉科夫法官和其他批評(píng)者時(shí)運(yùn)用了兩大主要論據(jù)，也就是周二夏皮羅反復(fù)強(qiáng)調(diào)的內(nèi)容。夏皮羅稱，和解比訴訟成本更低。如果證券交易委員會(huì)能夠通過和解得到的成果與通過訴訟得到的成果大致相當(dāng)，而且不存在訴訟的不確定性和調(diào)查導(dǎo)致的延誤，那么和解對(duì)所有人來說都是一樁好事。但她同時(shí)也表示，如果金融機(jī)構(gòu)別無選擇，必須承認(rèn)違規(guī)，它們就不會(huì)跟證券交易委員會(huì)談和解。

????但證券交易委員會(huì)尚未給出其他從長遠(yuǎn)來看成本更低廉的解決方案。

????Disclosure failures related to mortgage offerings are again in the sights of the SEC, this time related to Goldman Sachs (GS) and Wells Fargo (WFC). And a recent court order describes potential client conflicts of interest involving advice provided by Morgan Stanley (MS) and Goldman Sachs (with the apparent knowledge and participation of CEO Lloyd Blankfein) related to the Kinder Morgan-El Paso acquisition. Are these and other large financial firms just too big to behave?

????"These firms are enormous … [and] as we look at different areas of their business and we focus on different topics, we find problems over and over again," SEC Chair Mary Schapiro explained in late February at a media breakfast (which was filmed by FORA.tv). "People have short memories [and] we have to bring cases continuously … so people don't forget."

????Schapiro appeared before Congress on Tuesday to defend the SEC's proposed 2013 budget. Hopefully, the proposed budget is sufficient, and Congress will meet the request and then hold the SEC accountable for "expanding and focusing the investigative function" and "strengthening the litigation function," as its budget proposal states.

????Right now, however, whack-a-mole seems to be the name of the SEC's game as it attempts to police the large banks, one incident at a time. But this approach doesn't address the root causes of these incidents, so repeat offenses spring up in new locations. Are there ways to whip these problem companies into shape?

SEC-Citi Settlement

????A full hearing into a proposed settlement between the SEC and Citigroup (C) offers an opportunity to explore possibilities. But it's unclear if that hearing will even take place. After federal judge Jed Rakoff ruled that the case should go to trial, the SEC promptly appealed the decision late last year.

????Court records show that sides are now forming in the appeals case. The unlikely bedfellows of the Business Roundtable, the SEC, and Citigroup (all of whom support the negotiated settlement) are on one side.

????The other side includes William Michael Cunningham, owner of investment firm Creative Investment Research, who has argued "in support of the public interest" that the proposed settlement should be examined, rather than approved, and Better Markets, an organization "that promotes the public interest in the financial markets," which has also requested to weigh in against proposed settlement.

????In court documents, the Business Roundtable says that if the settlement were to go to trial, it could put "courts in the position of micromanaging agencies' enforcement decisions." But Cunningham questions the SEC's "concern for expedience over justice … especially if a fairer settlement would help prevent recidivism, and … protect investors."

????In addressing Rakoff and its critics, the SEC has used two major talking points, which Schapiro repeated on Tuesday. Settlements are less costly than litigation. If the SEC can secure a settlement similar to what they would get through a trial, without the uncertainty of litigation and the delay of investigation, it's a good deal for everyone, Schapiro said. Yet financial institutions won't settle with the SEC if they have to admit wrongdoing, she argued.

????But the SEC has not addressed other solutions that might cost the agency even less in the long term.