????羅伯特?戴蒙德成為巴克萊（Barclays）的利率操縱丑聞的第二個犧牲品。今天之前，他還是這家銀行的首席執行官，執掌帥印已達18個月之久。如今，他緊跟前任董事長馬庫斯?阿吉斯的腳步下臺，后者昨天剛剛辭職。眼下，這家公司正在為阻止洶涌澎湃的負面新聞和負面商譽而努力，兩位高管的下臺正是其中一部分。

????實際上，這些行動或許真的能奏效。

????戴蒙德今天在其辭職信中寫道：“巴克萊所受到的外界壓力已經達到可能損害整個公司的程度，我不能坐視不管。”他認為，自己的離職可以給巴克萊以機會實施急需的補救措施。

????就像其它銀行一樣，巴克萊的問題的根源也許處于更深的層面。有證據表明巴克萊并不是唯一操縱利率的銀行，這只是銀行業普遍存在的腐敗而已。短期內，解雇高管也許會緩解外界的壓力。從公關的角度來看，這也是正確的行動，但并不能解決引發此種行為的銀行業問題。

????巴克萊已經同意繳納4.5億美元罰款，公司被指控在2005到2009年間參與了操縱倫敦銀行同業拆借利率（London interbank offered rate, Libor）。該利率是銀行間相互借款的利率，每天上午倫敦時間11:10使用銀行委員會遞交的估計利率進行計算。

????就像其它銀行一樣，巴克萊是該委員會成員。6月29日的一份摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）分析報告指出：“由于是由銀行共同制定利率，看起來任何一家銀行都很難顯著地影響LIBOR。”英國金融服務管理局（Financial Services Authority）正在調查總計18家銀行，包括花旗(Citigroup)、蘇格蘭皇家銀行(the Royal Bank of Scotland)和德意志銀行(Deutsche Bank)。

????最初，戴蒙德選擇的辯護說辭是：“又不是只有我們一家。”在解釋阿吉斯的離職原因的聲明中，戴蒙德說巴克萊只是為了和競爭者保持同步：“有關當局發現，巴克萊降低其遞交的LIBOR估值，是為了在嚴重的市場壓力下保護銀行的名聲免受負面炒作。關于巴克萊流動性的無端猜測是由于其遞交的LIBOR估值高于其它銀行。當時，巴克萊的觀點就是，考慮到市場狀況，其它銀行的估值確實太低。”

????換句話說，巴克萊辯稱其所作所為僅僅是為了生存。“是否有可能，某人跳出來堅持嚴格按規章辦事？”高管獵頭公司Wyatt & Jaffe總裁馬克?謝斐反問。“當然可以…但這樣的話，他能和誰競爭呢？”

????“人人都在這么做”的辯護聽起來沒什么說服力，但卻有利于公關。首先，該銀行讓董事長做替罪羊，以保護首席執行官。然后，由于對公司的大量負面關注繼續存在，羅伯特?戴蒙德不得不下臺。這一招可能會轉移對銀行本身的負面關注。危機管理公司Levick Strategic Communications的執行副總裁基因?格拉堡斯基說：“你想想看，任何不能讓人們聯系到具體某個人的丑聞都很難讓公眾保持關注。”

????Robert Diamond has become the second casualty of Barclays' rate-fixing scandal. Until today, he was the CEO of the bank, a position he held for 18 months. He follows former chairman Marcus Agius, whose career at Barclays ended yesterday. Both high-level resignations were part of the bank's attempt to staunch a flood of bad press and bad will.

????The thing is the moves might do the trick.

????"The external pressure placed on Barclays (BCS) has reached a level that risks damaging the franchise -- I cannot let that happen," Bob Diamond wrote in his resignation letter today. His departure, he suggests, might give Barclays the chance to do some much-needed damage control.

????The roots of the problems at Barclays, and perhaps other banks, may go deeper. There's evidence that Barclays wasn't alone in fixing rates, but rather matching pace with this type of corruption in the industry at large. In the short-term, firing top executives may take some heat off of Barclays. From a PR standpoint, that's the right move. But it might not address the flaws in the industry that triggered this behavior.

????Barclays has agreed to pay $450 million to settle charges that, between 2005 and 2009, it was involved in manipulating the London interbank offered rate benchmark, or Libor, the interest rate banks use to borrow from one another. It is calculated every morning at around 11:10 a.m.Londontime, using estimated rates submitted from a panel of banks.

????Barclays is on the panel, but so are other banks. "It appears difficult for any one bank to influence LIBOR materially on its own as it is set by a panel of banks," said a Morgan Stanley analyst report from June 29. Britain's Financial Services Authority is investigating a total of 18 banks, including Citigroup (C), the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and Deutsche Bank (DB).

????At first, Diamond opted for a "we're not the only ones" defense. In a statement explaining Agius' departure, Diamond said that Barclays only trifled with the Libor to keep up with its competitors: "The authorities found that Barclays reduced its LIBOR submissions to protect the reputation of the bank from negative speculation during periods of acute market stress. The unwarranted speculation regarding Barclays liquidity was as a result of its LIBOR submissions being high relative to those of other banks. At the time, Barclays opinion was that those other banks' submissions were too low given market circumstances."

????In other words, Barclays argues that it did what it did to stay in the game. "Is it possible for someone to come along and insist on playing strictly by The Rules?" asks Mark Jaffe, president of executive search firm Wyatt & Jaffe, "certainly ... but who would that person play with?"

????The "others were doing it" defense might sound lame, but it makes for smart PR. At first, the bank made its chairman the fall guy and supported the CEO. Then, to divert the massive amount of negative attention still aimed at the company, Bob Diamond stepped out of the limelight. This could potentially divert negative attention away from the bank itself. "If you think about it, any scandal without a human face on it is very hard to fixate in the public's mind," says Gene Grabowski, executive vice president at Levick Strategic Communications.