惹了衆怒不消停 匯豐董事長被認爲應該辭職
Is Europe’s biggest bank too big to manage? Or have its management and board simply not been up to the job? Politicians and pundits are pressing the issue. HSBC’s senior executives are ducking the question. Yes, they acknowledge, mistakes were made, controls were lax, practices were inappropriate and the organisation’s structure was flawed. But it was not their fault and they are working hard to put things right.
Whether it was their fault or not depends on whether they were responsible for the areas concerned and what one means by responsible. Start with the facts. Douglas Flint, the present chairman, was appointed group finance director and board member in 1995. He appeared qualified for the role. According to the bank’s website: “Mr Flint specialised in banking, financial reporting, treasury and securities operations, group reorganisations and litigation support while at KPMG.”
是否是他們的錯，取決於有關領域是否由他們負責，以及“負責”的含義是什麼。讓我們從事實說起。匯豐現任董事長範智廉(Douglas Flint)在1995年被任命爲集團財務總監和董事會成員。從履歷來看，他有資格勝任這一職務。匯豐官網是這樣介紹的：“範智廉在畢馬威(KPMG)期間，專門負責銀行業務、財務報告、財資及證券交易、集團重組及訴訟支持等工作。”Yet it was during his tenure that HSBC made the Mexican and Swiss acquisitions that have proved so costly. The first was[OR ‘WERE’?] at the centre of 10 years of money laundering; the second has spawned a series of scandals. And let us not forget the 2003 purchase of Household Finance — the US-based subprime powerhouse and source of significant write-offs. True, the board as a whole makes the final decision to acquire. It would be an odd board indeed that made such acquisitions without the specific blessing of its finance director.
然而正是在他的任期內，匯豐在墨西哥和瑞士作出了最終代價高昂的收購。在墨西哥的收購令匯豐長達10年深陷洗錢風暴，在瑞士的收購釀成了一系列醜聞。而且我們不要忘記2003年匯豐收購了Household Finance——這家美國次級貸款巨頭後來成了重大資產減記的源頭。沒錯，收購的最終決定是董事會集體作出的。但是，如果沒有財務總監的明確支持，董事會進行這類收購也太奇怪了。
So the bank’s most senior official was in a position of responsibility. Does it follow that he was responsible and therefore accountable? Not according to him. The chairman claims that HSBC’s federated structure (since revamped) made it impossible for board members to know how the bank’s different businesses were operating. Yet was he not part of the executive team that created the structure and was charged with making it work?
所以匯豐最高官員擔任着有重大責任的職位。這是不是進而意味着他要負責，因而是可追究責任的？他的說法不是這樣的。這位董事長稱，匯豐的聯邦式結構（現已改組）令董事會成員無法瞭解該行不同業務部門是如何運作的。可是，難道他不是高管團隊的一分子嗎？創建這一結構並負責使其有效運行的難道不是這個團隊嗎？In a public statement, Mr Flint said: “We deeply regret and apologise for the conduct and compliance failures highlighted which were in contravention to our own policies as well as our expectations of us.” Well said. But management and chairmanship involves more than setting out policies. It involves ensuring they are carried out and that the culture is conducive to doing so.
範智廉在一份公開聲明中表示：“我們對相關的行爲和合規失敗深感遺憾，併爲其道歉，這些失敗違反了我行的政策，也不符合我行對自身的期望。”這話說得很好。可是管理層和董事長的職責不光是制定政策，還涉及到確保這些政策得到執行，確保企業文化有利於政策的執行。The idea that management cannot be expected to manage complex institutions is little more than an argument for breaking them up to more manageable sizes. And the notion of being responsible but not accountable does not wash. The Oxford English Dictionary lists responsible and accountable as synonyms. The public get it. Their political representatives get it. What will it take for the board of Britain’s largest bank to get it? They need not wait for new laws to link accountability and responsibility. Indeed, it is incumbent upon the board of Britain’s leading financial institution to set an example.
與其說不能期望管理層去管理複雜機構，還不如說應該把這些機構分拆成更易管理的規模。有關負責卻不可追究責任的說法也是站不住腳的。牛津英語詞典將“responsible”（有責任的）和“accountable”（可追究責任的）列爲同義詞。公衆明白這一點，他們的政治代表明白這一點。怎樣才能讓英國最大銀行的董事會明白這一點呢？他們不必等待新的法律將負責和可追究責任聯繫到一起。的確，這家英國一流金融機構的董事會應義不容辭地樹立起榜樣。So is HSBC too big to manage? Or were management and board not up to the job? Stuart Gulliver, the current chief executive, is trying hard to disprove the former by undoing much of what was approved by the latter. Restoring accountability at every level of the organisation will be crucial to success. And here the chairman can make a contribution — albeit in a manner he may dislike.
那麼，匯豐是大到無法管理了嗎？抑或該行的管理層和董事會不勝任工作？現任首席執行官歐智華(Stuart Gulliver)正通過逆轉董事會作出的大量決定來極力反駁前一個疑問。在集團的各個層面重建責任追究機制將是成功的關鍵。在這方面，匯豐集團董事長可以作出貢獻，儘管可能要以他不喜歡的方式。In a speech in April 2013, Mr Flint said: “[banking] supervisors should care more about tone from the top, how ethics and values are taught and reinforced, how values are enforced and rewarded, and how an organisation looks for and adapts to changing expectations within the communities it serves.” The tone at the top is set by the chairman and the board. For the good of his own reputation as well as that of his institution and British banking, Mr Flint should go.
2013年4月，範智廉在一次講話中說：“（銀行業）監督人員應該更加關心上層的調子，關心如何弘揚和強化道德觀和價值觀，如何執行和獎勵價值觀，以及一個組織如何在所服務社區內尋找和適應不斷變化的期望。”上層的調子是由董事長和董事會定的。爲了其個人、其機構乃至英國銀行業的名譽，範智廉應該走人。The writer is a senior fellow at Better Markets. He is a former member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee
本文作者是Better Markets的高級研究員，曾任英國央行(Bank of England)金融政策委員會(Financial Policy Committee)委員
