摩根大通交易巨亏折射出的高管薪酬问题

    在影片《穿普拉达的女魔头》（The Devil Wears Prada）中，由梅丽尔•斯特里普（Meryl Streep）饰演的米兰达•普瑞斯特里说，她依赖希望而生。我知道她的意思，但有时我怀疑这样有希望的日子还会有多久。我们在不断地为银行业危机买单，为政府听证会和调查买单，为我们退休账户的损失买单，为经济受到的负面影响买单，等等。

    摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）首席执行官杰米•戴蒙日前在美国参议院银行委员会（Senate Banking Committee）作证。但在该行豪赌巨亏引发的一片哗然和错愕中，关于高管薪酬戴蒙只谈了一两分钟。当然，摩根大通的委托投票书对薪酬和风险都有提及。但如今，摩根大通需要回答此类问题，它却只是说“不管动机怎样”，摩根大通的“风险自律”和“频繁的风险报告”约束了“过度冒险”行为。哦，事实是对于摩根大通这家入选《财富》杂志“最受赞赏大银行”和“全球最受赞赏公司第22名”的公司来说，这些并不管用。

    不管戴蒙在听证会上说了什么，重要的是别忘了这并非一个孤立的错误。彭博社（Bloomberg）日前报道，由法庭指定的一位监督员正在就持续的滥用止赎权现象征求消费者意见。而且，在听证会上，参议员们也在为一些文件莫名丢失的选民打抱不平。对此，戴蒙称，摩根大通将调查文件问题。

    但监督不力源于管理和治理欠缺。几十亿美元的交易损失只是这些大银行对风险监督不力的最新例证。

    5月10日，摩根大通披露了巨额交易损失。但4月6日，一位对冲基金经理告诉英国《金融时报》（Financial Times）：“我要质疑的是为何在银行不该再进行自营交易之时，摩根大通仍有这么大的方向性头寸。”4月9日，彭博社报道，“四位对冲基金经理和交易商表示，这些交易规模之大，足以影响指数，类似于自营交易或自有资金押注。”如果连外人都知道当时的押注规模，那么当时银行的高管和董事会在哪里？为何戴蒙在参议院作证时说，4月13日他们还不知道这些交易的规模大小？

    当我和董事会成员、风险经理以及曾与一些大银行合作的顾问们对话时，他们都认为要加强风险监督，仍有很多工作要做。如果美国国会真想了解实际情况，就该和这些人——以及知道真相的观察人士谈谈。不是所有人都会直言不讳，但如果美国国会问对问题，他们很快就会得到事情真相。

高管天价薪酬缺乏依据

    还是让我们来看看动机和显而易见的事实——激励机制。如果天价薪酬缺乏依据、形式有误，等于是在鼓励冒险。我们不应感到意外。

    In The Devil Wears Prada, Meryl Streep's character Miranda Priestly says she lives on hope. I know what she means. But sometimes, I wonder how long we can live that way. We keep paying for the bank's messes. We pay for the government hearings and investigations, the losses in our retirement accounts, the negative impact on the economy, and in many other ways.

    J.P. Morgan (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon testified before the Senate Banking Committee this morning. But in all the hullabaloo and consternation about the bank's oversized bets, only a minute or two was spent on incentives. Sure, J.P. Morgan's proxy has something to say about pay and risk. The company is required to address such things now. And what it says is that "regardless of the motivation," the bank's "risk discipline" and "frequent risk reporting" has "excessive risk-taking" under control. Well, that didn't work so well at Fortune's most admired megabank and No. 22 most admired company in the world.

    Despite what Dimon said this morning, it's important to remember this is not an isolated mistake. Bloomberg reported last week that a court appointed monitor is seeking consumer inputrelated to ongoing foreclosure abuses. And the senators at the hearing asked for help for constituents that are being told their paperwork is missing. To his credit, Dimon said the bank would look into the paperwork issues.

    But poor oversight is a management and governance deficiency. The billions of dollars in trading losses is merely the most recent example of poor risk oversight at the largest banks

    On May 10, J.P. Morgan disclosed its immense trading losses. But on April 6, a hedge fund manager told the Financial Times: "The thing I'd be questioning, though, is why JPMorgan has such a big directional position when banks aren't supposed to be prop trading any more." And Bloomberg reported on April 9 that "four hedge-fund managers and dealers say the trades are big enough to move indexes and resemble proprietary bets, or wagers made with the bank's own money." If outsiders understood the size of the gambles back then, where were the bank's senior managers and its board? Why on April 13 did they not understand the magnitude, as Dimon testified this morning was the case?

    When I speak with board directors, risk managers, and consultants who work with some of the largest banks, they agree that there is still a lot of work to do when it comes to risk oversight. And if Congress wanted to get the real picture, that's who they'd be talking to -- along with other observers who know the score. Not that everyone would be forthcoming, but if Congress asked the right questions, they would get the facts about the bailed out banks soon enough.

Exec pay days, for all the wrong reasons

    But let's focus instead on motive and the all too obvious fact: incentives matter. If you pay for the wrong reasons in the wrong form, you'll get the risky behaviors you encourage. We shouldn't be surprised.