????倫敦銀行間同業(yè)拆借利率（London Interbank Offered Rate，簡稱Libor）引發(fā)的利率操縱丑聞成為了近期各大媒體的報道焦點，新聞標題大多含有“調(diào)查”和“改革”等字眼。Libor影響著這個世界的諸多領(lǐng)域，范圍涉及從西班牙、美國的住宅抵押貸款到倫敦的衍生品合同。

????2008年年初以來，決策者們承認Libor的計算過程存在缺陷。近期，總部位于倫敦的巴克萊銀行（Barclays）基于利率操縱指控達成的和解案，證實了華爾街和金融界很多人一直以來的懷疑：這里頭可能存在一些腐敗行為。

????預(yù)計今年9月央行行長們將開會商討Libor的未來。本文將逐一分析眾多政策制定者和投資者們熱議的四大改革或監(jiān)管選擇。究竟有哪些選擇? Libor能通過改革解決問題，還是到了非換不可的地步？

1. 將Libor交給政府來管

????如果將Libor交給銀行管，留下了人為操縱空間?；蛟S政府能幫助管好它也說不定？

????目前，監(jiān)管Libor設(shè)定流程的是私營行業(yè)團體——英國銀行家協(xié)會（British Bankers Association）。美國聯(lián)邦儲備委員會（Federal Reserve）主席本?伯南克上周警告稱，這個體系存在結(jié)構(gòu)性缺陷，歐洲央行（European Central Bank）或許最適合擔起監(jiān)管Libor監(jiān)管的責任。

????歐洲央行負責設(shè)定Eonia已有時日，它是一種幫助控制通脹的隔夜借貸利率。正如路透社（Reuters）所指出的那樣，與Libor和Euribor不同，Eonia是基于一組銀行真實發(fā)生的交易，而不是給串通留下空間的估算值。當然，巴克萊和解案涉及更多的政府監(jiān)管。除了要求巴克萊基于市價（而非估算借貸成本）提交Libor利率，和解案還要求未來五年設(shè)立獨立審計人，審查巴克萊提交的利率，并匯報給美國商品期貨交易委員會（Commodity Futures Trading Commission）。

????但即便政府在監(jiān)督Libor中扮演更積極的角色，可能仍然無法解決Libor體系的問題。正如《紐約時報》（The New York Times）所指， Libor似乎天然功能失靈。即便Libor利率建立在真實的交易基礎(chǔ)之上，這些交易并不容易獲得，因為近年來很多銀行已不愿互相借貸。

????而且，前車之鑒表明，并不能確定政府能提供多大幫助。正如上周公布的一系列文件顯示，2008年，美國財政部長、時任紐約聯(lián)邦儲備銀行行長蒂莫西?蓋特納在從交易員處聽說一些銀行故意低報每日利率后，已經(jīng)敦促英國銀行（Bank of England）改革Libor。但是迄今為止，改革顯然還遠遠不夠。

2. 將Libor交給市場來管

????既然政策制定者們認為Libor存在內(nèi)在缺陷，為什么干脆取消這一基準利率？

????巴克萊和解案暴露出了Libor事實上源于估算、而不是真實的市場數(shù)據(jù)這一事實。除此之外，最終Libor的計算方法也有缺陷，因為種種跡象顯示，銀行間基本上已經(jīng)停止了互相借貸的行為。

????伯南克和全球金融穩(wěn)定委員會主席、加拿大銀行（Bank of Canada）行長馬克?卡尼建議改用回購利率，這是很多金融機構(gòu)互相收取的短期貸款利率。

????此類利率的好處是它們是基于真實的市場交易。而且，據(jù)報道，有些銀行已經(jīng)在測試一個與回購協(xié)議市場聯(lián)動的利率。

????不過，正如伯南克等人指出的那樣，Libor作為市場基準很難取代，因為投資者已經(jīng)習(xí)慣了Libor（1986年以來Libor一直被廣為應(yīng)用)。雖然回購利率被認為能更準確地反映借貸成本，但事實可能并非如此，正如《華爾街日報》（The Wall Street Journal ）所述，回購利率擁有美國國債等抵押資產(chǎn)，因此比Libor市場中的貸款風險低很多。

3. 采用拍賣式

????正如《經(jīng)濟學(xué)家》（The Economist）最近所指，Libor計算過程中存在的很多問題同樣也存在于拍賣過程中。因此，或許可以運用拍賣的一些遏制機制來彌補Libor的缺陷。

????人們指責交易員們在提交Libor利率時互相勾結(jié)。盡管英國銀行家協(xié)會會公布各家銀行的估算值，但卻于事無補——因為如果交易員能看到他人的報價，要想影響最終利率就更容易了。這類似于拍賣環(huán)節(jié)的競標團伙（bidding rings）。

????為了整頓Libor報價，英國銀行家協(xié)會可以懲治給出失實數(shù)據(jù)的交易員，就像拍賣會懲罰不實出價者一樣。而且，為了提高準確率，英國銀行家協(xié)會可以增加上報利率的銀行數(shù)量，將相關(guān)信息保密。

????Investigations and talk of reform are dominating the headlines about the rate-fixing scandal tied to the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor. The interest rate influences many aspects of the world we live in, from Spanish and U.S. mortgages to derivatives contracts in London.

????Since as early as 2008, policymakers have acknowledged the process by which Libor is calculated is imperfect. And London-based Barclays' recent settlement over interest rate manipulation has confirmed what many of us had suspected on Wall Street and the rest of the finance world: Something corrupt could be going on.

????In September, central bankers are expected to gather for a meeting on the possible future of Libor. Fortune takes a look at four fixes that many policymakers and investors are talking about. What are the options – could Libor be reformed, or should it be replaced?

????1. Leave it to the government

????If leaving it to the banks has left Libor exposed to manipulation, might the government help clean things up?

????Currently, the British Bankers Association, a private industry group, oversees the process by which Libor is set. But U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned last week that the system is structurally flawed, so the European Central Bank could be best positioned to police Libor.

????The ECB already sets Eonia, an overnight lending rate that helps control inflation. As Reuters notes, unlike Libor and Euribor, Eonia is based on actual transactions by a panel of banks rather than estimates that leave the rate exposed to collusion. To be sure, the Barclays settlement includes more government oversight of the bank. It not only orders the bank to base its Libor submissions on market prices rather than estimates of borrowing costs, but the settlement also calls an independent auditor to scrutinize its submissions for the next five years and report back to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

????But even if government plays a more active role monitoring Libor, it still might not solve the problems of the system. As The New York Times notes, Libor seems inherently dysfunctional. Even if the rate were based on actual transactions, those aren't easy to come by, as many banks in recent years have been reluctant to lend to each other.

????What's more, judging by previous warnings, it's uncertain how helpful government would be. As a slew of documents released last week revealed, in 2008, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then head of the New York Fed, pushed the Bank of England to reform Libor after hearing from traders that bankers were deliberately understating the daily rates. Needless to say, reforms didn't go far enough.

????2. Leave it to the markets

????As policymakers argue that Libor is inherently imperfect, might it be better just to do away with the benchmark altogether?

????Not only has the Barclays settlement exposed the fact that Libor is derived from estimates rather than real market data, but the way the final rate is calculated is further flawed by evidence that banks have mostly stopped lending to each other.

????Bernanke and global financial regulator Mark Carney, who is also governor of the Bank of Canada, have suggested the idea of using repo rates, the rate that financial institutions charge each other for short-term loans.

????The benefit of such rates is that they're based on actual market transactions. And some banks have reportedly been testing a rate linked to the market for repurchase agreements.

????However, as Bernanke and others have noted, Libor will be difficult to replace as a market benchmark simply because investors are so accustomed to it (Libor has been around since 1986). And while repo rates are thought to provide more accurate borrowing costs, that may be less so given, as The Wall Street Journal notes, that collateral such as Treasuries are used and therefore are less risky than loans in the Libor market.

????3. Go auction-style

????Many of the problems in calculating Libor are also evident in auctions, as The Economist recently pointed out. And so it might make sense to apply some of the checks that go on at auctions to correct flaws in Libor.

????Traders have been accused of colluding when coming up with the benchmark. This isn't helped by the fact that the BBA makes individual estimates public and so it's relatively easy for traders to peek at what others have done to influence the final rate. This is similar to those of bidding rings formed at auctions.

????To help clean up Libor, the BBA could penalize traders giving false estimates, just as auctions have penalized those giving false bids. What's more, to increase chances of accuracy, the trade group could increase the number of banks reporting rates and keep those private.