SHOOT THE BANKERS, NATIONALISE THE BANKS

作者：英国《 金融时报》专栏作家菲利普•斯蒂芬斯(Philip Stephens)
For once, Gordon Brown is guilty of understatement. The other day the prime minister remarked on the rising public anger at the behaviour of Britain's banks. Unbridled rage would have been a more accurate description of the national mood.
On a recent visit to Washington I heard several people say that when the reckoning is finally made some big Wall Street figures are going to end up in jail. My impression is that many on this side of the Atlantic would like to see one or two British bankers join them.
Yesterday's announcement by Royal Bank of Scotland that it racked up losses of upwards of £20bn last year could scarcely have offered more eloquent testimony to the hubris that has brought the financial system to its knees. Banker friends (I still have a few) say that RBS was uniquely reckless in its bid for ABN Amro. But unless my memory deceives me, Barclays was almost as eager to stump up countless billions for the now-broken Dutch bank. As for the toxic loans on the banks' balance sheets, every week throws up another horror story.
There was political calculation, of course, in Mr Brown's comments. He has had to throw another couple of hundred billion pounds of taxpayers' money at the banks in the hope of averting an economic slump. Mr Brown needed to protect his flank: bailing out the banks again does not win points in the popularity stakes.
The prime minister's ire was directed specifically at the banks' reluctance, even after last autumn's costly rescue, to own up fully to the extent of their dodgy assets.
That is bad enough. But what most angers those running businesses, and indeed those simply trying to keep their personal finances afloat, is the mix of insouciance and venality that often describes the banks' response to the crisis. We are told it was an act of God; or it was all the fault of the Americans; or we should blame the regulators. As for nationalisation, heaven forfend. Bankers must all be allowed to run their businesses without interference, even as they suck up public money.
The banks insist, of course, they are still lending to good businesses and solvent households. The fatal snag is that their assurances defy the daily experience of customers. Credit lines everywhere are being cut.
I caught a small glimpse of the tactics the other day in a letter from Lloyds TSB. My decade-old (and momentarily unused) overdraft facility, it informed me, was to be halved forthwith. Had the bank fessed up that it was reining in its lending commitments, I would have shrugged. Instead, I was enraged by the transparently ludicrous guff promising me “a planned overdraft to meet your needs”. Perhaps I am supposed to send a thank-you note.
Dissembling, I have concluded, is hard-wired into the banks' DNA. Mr Brown seems to have encountered the same lack of candour in his discussions about rather larger sums than my now-reduced overdraft.
The prime minister has no option but to pay up. To say that taxpayers are appalled is not to conclude that the banks could be left to tighten the noose on the nation's economy.
In so far as it goes, the latest rescue package seems well judged, although the devil will be in the detail. By insuring the worst of the banks' loans, the government has removed a big excuse for credit drought. Giving big companies access to additional funding by guaranteeing corporate bonds won Mr Brown the applause of the CBI. It also hands the Bank of England an important weapon in the fight against deflation, through so-called quantitative easing. State guarantees for mortgage-backed securities might help to reopen the markets in those instruments.
Mr Brown is at pains to say that all this does not amount to a blank cheque for the banks. Alistair Darling, the chancellor, insists that the price of the insurance scheme will be a “lending responsibility agreement” with precise targets for new credit for individuals and small businesses.
Now it has gone this far I cannot understand why the government did not take the next logical step of assuming majority stakes in all those institutions now dependent on public money.
It would be a lot simpler. The banking system has already been in effect nationalised and the Treasury controls RBS and holds a large chunk of the newly merged Lloyds Banking Group. Banks, such as Barclays, that remain hostile to any state interference could retain their independence by abjuring public assistance in all its forms.
Whitehall officials tell me there are all sorts of technical reasons outright nationalisation is not the right answer – while adding that it may yet happen. Perhaps Mr Brown is holding back because he knows that when the reckoning is made, bankers will not be alone against the wall. They will plead that they merely exploited the rules set by the politicians and policymakers.
For the moment, though, I cannot think of a more popular policy than shooting the bankers and nationalising the banks. It might even win Mr Brown an election. Come to think of it, it could also be the way to get us out of this mess.

毙了银行家，将银行收归国有
作者：英国《 金融时报》专栏作家菲利普•斯蒂芬斯(Philip Stephens)
这一次，戈登•布朗(Gordon Brown)犯了低估之错。几天前，这位英国首相就公众对英国各银行行为的日益不满发表了评论。“怒不可遏”也许本应是国民情绪的更准确写照。
在最近一次访问华盛顿期间，我听到一些人表示，一旦开始算账，一些华尔街大佬都将锒铛入狱。我感觉，大西洋这一侧的许多人希望看到一两名英国银行家共此命运。
苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)日前宣布，去年累计亏损超过200亿英镑——这并不能更雄辩地证明导致金融体系垮台的那种自以为是。银行家朋友们（我还有一些）表示，苏格兰皇家银行在竞购荷兰银行(ABN Amro)时表现得极其草率。但除非我的记忆出了毛病，巴克莱银行(Barclays)几乎同样醉心于天价收购如今已破产的荷兰银行。至于银行资产负债表上的有毒贷款，每周都有新的恐怖故事出炉。
当然，布朗的讲话带有政治上的算计。他不得不再把数千亿英镑纳税人资金投入银行，以期避免经济衰退。布朗需要保护他的软肋：再次为银行纾困不会提高受欢迎程度。
英国首相的忿怒直指银行不愿彻底坦白到底有多少风险资产，尽管它们去年秋季得到了政府的巨额救助。
这已够糟糕了。但令企业经营者、乃至只是想保全个人资金者最为愤怒的，是银行的满不在乎和唯利是图——这两个词交织在一起，通常可以形容银行对危机的回应。我们被告知，这是天意；或一切都是美国人的错；或我们应指责监管者。至于国有化，那是苍天不容的。必须允许所有银行家经营业务时不受干预，即使他们吸收了公众资金。
银行当然强调，它们仍在向优秀企业和有偿付能力的家庭放贷。致命的症结在于，它们的保证与客户的日常体验相悖。到处都在削减贷款额度。
前几天，从一封来自劳埃德TSB银行(Lloyds TSB)的信中，我见识了一点银行的手段。这封信通知我，我拥有了十年（暂时没有使用）的透支额度将即刻减半。如果银行坦言，它是在控制贷款额度，我可能会无所谓。相反，它许诺给我的是“满足您需求的有计划透支”——这种明显的无稽之谈把我激怒了。或许它还指望我给它回一封答谢信吧。
我的结论是，欺骗是银行的天性。在讨论远高于我如今被削减了的透支额度的金额时，布朗似乎遇到了同样的不直率。
布朗别无选择，只能付钱。说纳税人惊呆了并非是要得出结论：可以任由银行牵着全国经济的鼻子走。
就目前来看，最新的救助方案似乎判断准确，尽管具体细节会很棘手。通过承保最有问题的银行贷款，政府消除了一个信贷不足的巨大借口。为企业债券提供担保，使大型企业有机会获得更多的资金，也让布朗赢得了英国工业联合会(CBI)的称赞。它还赋予了英国央行(BoE)一项重要的武器，通过所谓的定量宽松货币政策来抗击通缩。政府对抵押贷款支持证券的担保或许能帮助这些工具重返市场。
布朗竭力表示，这一切不等于为银行开了一张空白支票。财政大臣阿里斯代尔•达林(Alistair Darling)强调，担保计划的代价将是面向个人和小型企业提供新信贷的目标明确的“贷款责任协议”。
如今，事情已走到了这一步，我不明白政府为什么没有采取下一步的合理行动，即获取所有那些目前倚赖公共资金的机构的多数股权。
那会使事情变得简单的多。银行体系实际上已经国有化，财政部控制着苏格兰皇家银行，并持有新合并的劳埃德银行集团(Lloyds Banking Group)的大量股份。仍对政府干预抱有敌意的巴克莱等银行可以通过放弃各式各样的公共援助，来保持自己的独立性。
白厅官员们告诉我，全盘国有化并非正确选择有种种技术方面的原因——但他们表示，这仍有可能发生。或许布朗的退缩是因为他清楚，一旦开始算账，对象不会仅有银行家。他们会托辞说，自己不过是利用了政治家和政策制定者所制定的规则。
但目前，除了枪毙银行家、将银行收归国有，我想不出什么更得人心的政策。这也许甚至可以为布朗赢得一场选举。考虑一下吧，我们可能还可以借此摆脱混乱。
译者/陈云飞
未经英国《金融时报》书面许可，对于英国《金融时报》拥有版权和/或其他知识产权的任何内容，任何人不得复制、转载、摘编或在非FT中文网（或：英国《金融时报》中文网）所属的服务器上做镜像或以其他任何方式进行使用。已经英国《金融时报》授权使用作品的，应在授权范围内使用。