????近來高盛（Goldman Sachs）似乎運氣不錯，或者至少看起來是這樣。

????美國證券交易委員會（SEC）已經(jīng)停止了對高盛出售次級抵押貸款相關(guān)披露情況的調(diào)查。美國司法部（DOJ）也已放棄了對高盛的一項刑事調(diào)查；該調(diào)查是源于一份635頁的國會報告，報告描述了高盛如何通過與客戶反向押注而獲利，看上去該行似乎誤導(dǎo)了客戶。

????高盛自身的麻煩似乎已經(jīng)暫告一個段落，與此同時，曼哈頓檢察官們正在起訴一位前高盛雇員，指控他在離開高盛前復(fù)制了公司程序。《紐約時報》（New York Times）報道稱，辯方質(zhì)疑這項起訴可能違反了美國憲法第五修正案，因為在這位前雇員的聯(lián)邦判決被推翻前，他已經(jīng)為此服刑。

????高盛發(fā)言人戴維?威爾斯拒絕就SEC決定停止調(diào)查一事接受媒體采訪，但對于美國司法部取消刑事調(diào)查的決定，據(jù)報道，他告訴記者們：“我們很高興這件事情已經(jīng)成為過去了?！?/p>

????摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）、巴克萊（Barclays）和渣打（Standard Chartered）等大銀行最近的日子都不好過，跟它們不同，過去幾個月高盛差不多還算過得去。但現(xiàn)在高盛再次站到了臺前，成為焦點——雖然高盛發(fā)言人聲稱這事已經(jīng)過去了，但不清楚高盛能否完完全全把這些問題拋到身后。

????高盛的聲譽依然不佳。里昂證券（CLSA）日前發(fā)布了一份分析師報告，報告給予高盛“強于大盤”評級的邁克?梅奧和麥特?費舍爾寫道，雖然沒有刑事指控，“我們依然認為高盛CEO在國會質(zhì)詢中表現(xiàn)相當(dāng)糟糕?！眱晌环治鰩熯€不無諷刺地寫道，他們“信賴高盛管理團隊……就像信賴其他大銀行的管理團隊一樣”。

????他們說的或許沒錯，極短期內(nèi)這會讓高盛“相對不那么處于政府/監(jiān)管部門的焦點視線內(nèi)”。但這段時期會非常短暫，因為多項調(diào)查停止可能激發(fā)公眾提出更多要求。

????缺乏對金融危機期間行為的問責(zé)，導(dǎo)致公眾對政府和銀行的信任出現(xiàn)裂痕，如今這道裂痕已越變越大，或許永遠都無法修復(fù)。這一點在眼下尤其令人關(guān)注：如果希望在11月份美國大選前對與金融危機相關(guān)的行為進行問責(zé)，現(xiàn)在可能是最后的希望了。

????也許高盛不用為金融體系失去公眾的信賴承擔(dān)全部責(zé)任，但相關(guān)后果可能會對整個金融體系持續(xù)產(chǎn)生影響。短期來看，高盛和其他大銀行或許會更大膽妄為——這意味著我們將看到更多類似的行為。長期來看，我們可能看到常識的回歸，但代價如何呢？

????假如這些公司像幾年前一樣陷入嚴重危機，顯然要承擔(dān)真正后果的不僅是這些公司，還有整個金融體系。路透社（Reuters）近日的一篇報道稱，應(yīng)該要求銀行不光提交解決方案，同時還要提供復(fù)蘇計劃。報道包括一個鏈接，連接到3月份摩根大通在哈佛法學(xué)院（Harvard Law School）的一項閉門演示。圍繞公平披露規(guī)則（Regulation Fair Disclosure，禁止公司有選擇地向某些群體、而不向另一些群體披露材料信息）擔(dān)憂，摩根大通向哈佛聽眾展示的細節(jié)在某些方面比7月份摩根大通解決方案中提供的信息還要更廣泛。

????公開的摩根大通文件稱，公司提供透明的財務(wù)信息，“讓分析師能評估公司的財務(wù)狀況”。但正如日前彼得?伊維斯在《紐約時報》（New York Times）上指出，該行并沒有披露一項所有人都希望知道的數(shù)據(jù)：也就是“已給該行造成巨大經(jīng)濟和聲譽損失的衍生品頭寸總規(guī)?！?。

????公開文件還聲稱，任何頭寸解除只會“帶來最小的系統(tǒng)擾動，不會給納稅人造成任何損失。”但摩根大通的哈佛演示列出了在某種情形下，可能獲得美國聯(lián)邦存款保險公司（FDIC）2,000億美元的流動性注入。如果摩根大通無法還上這幾千億美元，其他銀行就得買單。演示稱，“如果FDIC拿不到還款，它將評估整個行業(yè)來彌補損失?！?/p>

????先鋒集團（the Vanguard Group）創(chuàng)始人、《資本主義靈魂之戰(zhàn)》（The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism）一書的作者杰克?伯格爾最近告訴我，我們尚未輸?shù)糍Y本主義的靈魂之戰(zhàn)，但整個體系需要大修。需要更多的業(yè)界人士站起來，呼吁問責(zé)同仁，呼吁恢復(fù)適當(dāng)?shù)恼箨P(guān)系，開啟修復(fù)的道路。

????本文作者埃莉諾?布洛克斯?jié)h姆是董事會咨詢機構(gòu)價值聯(lián)盟和企業(yè)管理管理聯(lián)盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance）的CEO，公司網(wǎng)址http://thevaluealliance.com。

????譯者：早稻米

????Goldman Sachs has come into a run of luck -- or so it seems.

????The SEC has dropped its investigation into the bank's disclosures related to the sale of subprime mortgages. And the DOJ has dropped its criminal probe into allegations stemming from a 635-page Congressional report that described how Goldman profited by betting against clients and appeared to have misled customers.

????And while Goldman (GS) itself appears to be off the hook, Manhattan prosecutors are going after one of its former employees, who allegedly copied Goldman programs before leaving the firm. The defense has raised concerns that this prosecution may be violating the fifth amendment of the constitution since the former employee had already served time for the matter before his federal conviction was overturned, the New York Times reported.

????David Wells, a Goldman spokesperson, declined to comment to news outlets on the SEC decision to drop its investigation, but regarding the DOJ decision to drop the criminal investigation, he reportedly told reporters, "We are pleased that this matter is behind us."

????While the heat has been on banks like J.P. Morgan (JPM), Barclays (BCS), and Standard Chartered, Goldman has gotten a bit of a pass for the past few months. But here it is, front and center once more -- and despite its spokesman's statement, it is not clear that Goldman will ever be able, in full measure, to put these matters behind it.

????Goldman's reputation continues to receive low marks. In an analyst report published by CLSA today, Mike Mayo and Matt Fischer -- who rate the bank an outperform -- write that although there was no criminal charge, "we still believe that the CEO performed terribly during the Congressional hearings." Damning with faint praise, they say they "trust this management team …about as much as any large bank."

????They may be right that in the very short term, this puts Goldman "relatively less in the political/regulatory cross-hairs." But that is a very short-term horizon because the convergence of dropped investigations has the potential to awaken more public demands.

????The lack of accountability during the financial crisis, which was a tear in the faith in governmental and banking institutions, is turning into a giant rip that may never be repaired. This is causing particular concern now since this may be the last hope for financial crisis-related accountability before November's elections.

????While Goldman may not pay the full brunt of the price for the lost trust in the financial system, the outcomes are likely to continue to ripple across the system. In the short run, Goldman and other big banks may be emboldened -- which means we will continue to see more of the same. In the long run, we may see a restoration of common sense, but at what cost?

????In the event these firms enter a tailspin, as they did a few short years ago, it is clear there is potential for real consequences, not just to the firms themselves but for the system as a whole. A Reuters report late yesterday discussed requirements that banks submit not only resolution but also recovery plans. The report included a link to a closed-door presentation that J.P. Morgan made at Harvard Law School in March. Raising the specter of Reg FD (Regulation Fair Disclosure), which prohibits companies from disclosing material information to some groups instead of others, the details presented to the Harvard attendees were in some respect more extensive than those provided to the public in July on J.P. Morgan's resolution plans.

????Public J.P. Morgan documents say that the firm provides transparent financial information for "analysts to assess the Firm's financial position." But as Peter Eavis at the New York Times pointed out yesterday, the bank isn't disclosing a number everyone would like to know: the "overall size of the derivatives bets that have led to large losses and much reputational damage for the bank."

????The public documents also state that any wind-down would occur with "minimum systemic disruption and without losses to taxpayers." But J.P. Morgan's Harvard presentation outlines the potential for a $200 billion liquidity infusion from the FDIC in such a scenario. And if J.P. Morgan could not pay the billions back, other banks would have to. "If the FDIC is not repaid it will assess the industry to cover any losses," the presentation states.

????Jack Bogle recently told me that the battle for the soul of capitalism was not yet lost but that the system was in need of great repair. It will take a larger groundswell of business people standing up to demand that their fellows be held accountable and that the proper relationship between government and big business be restored to set us on that path.

????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.