培养新一代金融家

How to prepare a new generation of financiers
By John Board , Brian Scott-Quinn 2009-03-23

Business schools now have an ever greater public role to play in helping to minimise future risks to the financial system by ensuring that bankers, and also insurers, understand the unique attributes of the businesses they run.

Schools need to focus on executive education for senior bankers and insurers and make a contribution to stabilising the financial system.

The banking crisis has been variously blamed on regulators for not being up to speed on what bankers were really up to, on the ratings agencies for believing what the bankers told them, on borrowers for believing there was truly a free lunch available from the banks, on accountants and the Bank for International Settlements for bringing us the miracle of fair value accounting and, of course, on bankers themselves.

The greatest sin of bankers is not so much the greed they showed in pay packets and bonuses, as hubris – overweening arrogance, self-confidence and mental brutality towards those who may see life and business models differently from them.

In ancient Athens, hubris was a crime. Today it has arguably been the downfall of the banking system. The chief executives selected by so many banks have clearly been the type of person who should not be in charge of a big institution that can severely impact on public wealth. But people get what they deserve.

Institutional shareholders wanted higher returns. The Treasury wanted the high tax take from large salaries and bonuses. Boards of directors wanted “strong” chief executives. Customers wanted cheap and easy large loans.

Is there anything to be done to reduce the risk of another crisis, and reduce its severity if and when it happens? Many professionals require training and continuing professional development. But what about bankers?

It has been a feature of this crisis that CEOs of several big banks had a retailing background, not a banking background. In retailing, the damage that can be caused by hubris and a sales-driven culture is limited. Not so in banking, investment banking or insurance.

A change in attitude towards the need for professional standards, in a business that can impact on the global economy, is urgently required.

Should regulators have a requirement that bankers understand the long-term implications of different business models, incentive systems, leverage ratios and approaches to liquidity management for the global economy, UK society and the UK taxpayer as well as for their particular bank?

Should there be an obligation for continuing professional development to keep people up to date? Indeed, there should be both. We also need a greater understanding of corporate governance within the whole ecosystem. We need to ensure that executive and non-executive board members understand the financial system better and so can challenge an overweening CEO.

At the ICMA Centre, Henley Business School, UK, we can help improve institutional performance by enhancing professionalism among bankers and insurers. We are planning initiatives in this field.

While those just entering the banking profession should be seeking qualifications from the banking institutes, for those in the industry or entering as non-executives it is not so much academic qualification they need, as a deep understanding of valuation, risk assessment, risk management, liquidity management, banking models and the reasons a sales culture damages the franchise.

Understanding can be gained from high-quality executive education programmes when combined with prior experience of the banking and securities industry. This is the challenge for business schools today.

But equally, institutional shareholders and analysts need to consider how to meet their fiduciary responsibility to their investors, rather than just egging the bankers on to take more risk in the name of “shareholder value”.

Prof John Board is director, ICMA Centre, Henley Business School.

Prof Brian Scott-Quinn is non-executive chairman, ICMA Centre, Henley Business School. bsq@icmacentre.ac.uk www.ft.com/soapbox

培养新一代金融家
作者：英国亨利商学院ICMA中心约翰?博德教授(John Board)、 布莱恩?斯科特-奎英教授( Brian Scott-Quinn)联合为英国《金融时报》撰稿 2009-03-23

目前，在通过确保银行家和保险家理解他们所从事业务的独特属性，从而将未来金融体系所面临的风险降至最低方面，商学院正承担着越来越大的公共使命。

商学院需要将重点放在高级银行家和保险家的管理教育上，为稳定金融体系做出贡献。

银行业危机被归咎于很多原因：监管机构未能掌握有关银行家真正在谋划什么的最新情况；评级机构轻信银行家的话；借款人相信银行真的会提供免费午餐；会计师和国际清算银行(BIS)为我们带来了公允价值会计的奇迹；当然，还有银行家自身。

银行家最大的罪责不是对薪资和奖金表现出的贪婪，而是狂妄——对那些对于生活和商业模式的看法可能与他们有所不同的人，所表现出的傲慢自大、自信以及精神上的施虐。

在古代的雅典，狂妄自大是一种罪。现在可以说是银行业体系崩溃的根源。许多银行选择的首席执行官，显然是那种不应执掌严重影响公众财富的大型机构的人。但人们总是自作自受。

机构投资者希望获得更高的回报；财政部希望从高额薪资和奖金中多征税；董事会希望有一个“强有力”的首席执行官；客户则希望轻松地获得廉价的高额贷款。

是否该做些什么，以降低爆发另一场危机的风险，并（在如果危机发生的情况下）减轻其严重程度？许多专业人士需要得到培训和持续的职业发展。那么银行家呢？

几家大银行的首席执行官都有着零售业、而非银行业背景，这一直是此次危机的特点之一。在零售行业，狂妄自大和以销售额为驱动的文化所能造成的破坏比较有限。但在银行、投资银行或保险行业，情况却并非如此。

在一个能够影响全球经济的行业中，迫切需要改变对于专业标准需求的态度。

监管机构应该要求银行家理解不同商业模型、激励体系、杠杆比率和流动性管理方式对全球经济、英国社会和纳税人及特定银行的长期影响吗？

我们是否有责任进行持续的职业发展以与时俱进呢？实际上，这两者都是应该的。我们还需要在整个生态系统的框架中更好地理解企业治理。我们需要确保执行及非执行董事更好地理解金融体系，这样才能够挑战狂妄自大的首席执行官。

在英国亨利商学院(Henley Business School)国际资本市场协会中心(ICMA Centre)，我们能够通过提升银行家和保险家的专业精神，帮助改善机构的绩效。我们正计划在该领域采取行动。

尽管那些刚步入银行业的人应该寻求获得银行机构的认证，但对于那些业内人士或担任非执行董事的人来说，他们不需要太多的学术资格，而须深入理解定价、风险评估、风险管理、流动性管理、银行业模型以及销售文化破坏公司法则的原因。

通过高质量的高管教育项目，并结合以往的银行业和证券业从业经历，可以获得这种理解。这是商学院目前所面临的挑战。

但同样，机构股东和分析师也需要考虑如何不负投资者的委托，而不是仅仅怂恿银行家以“股东价值”为名，去冒更大的风险。

译者/君悦