????很多人都在問(wèn)，報(bào)道所述摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）接受130億美元罰款就其在按揭債券業(yè)務(wù)中誤導(dǎo)消費(fèi)者的指控達(dá)成和解，這樣天價(jià)的罰款是不是過(guò)頭了？畢竟，這個(gè)金額將成為所有單一某家銀行支付給監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的最高和解金。

????但或許，我們更應(yīng)該問(wèn)的是：為什么摩根大通CEO吉米?戴蒙會(huì)同意支付這130億美元？

????的確，監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)有足夠的證據(jù)證明，摩根大通及其收購(gòu)的貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns）和華盛頓互惠銀行（Washington Mutual）向投資者出售的債券與他們所宣稱的不符。但過(guò)去每家銀行都這么干。而且，也沒(méi)有證據(jù)表明，摩根大通是最嚴(yán)重的違紀(jì)者。房利美（Fannie）和房地美（Freddie）在美國(guó)銀行（Bank of America）及其收購(gòu)的Countrywide承銷的債券上損失的錢更多。

????當(dāng)然了，這不是有效的辯護(hù)，但在考量摩根大通到底應(yīng)該支付多少錢時(shí)應(yīng)該考慮這個(gè)因素。而且，去年，美國(guó)司法部（Justice Department）和美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)（Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC）撤銷了一項(xiàng)針對(duì)高盛（Goldman Sachs）的類似案件，沒(méi)有提出任何指控。SEC針對(duì)富國(guó)銀行（Wells Fargo）出售按揭債券的調(diào)查已經(jīng)持續(xù)了近一年半，看起來(lái)也將無(wú)疾而終。

????摩根大通甚至都沒(méi)有獲得刑事指控豁免權(quán)。美國(guó)政府面臨一場(chǎng)艱難的斗爭(zhēng)，即便是罰了130億美元后，這些指控仍然有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。130億美元是什么概念，比億萬(wàn)富翁艾倫?穆斯克建造hyperloop超級(jí)高鐵的成本還要高約50億美元。

????有些人稱這樣的天價(jià)罰款就是敲詐。美國(guó)政府將摩根大通逼入死角，開(kāi)出盡可能高的罰款，因?yàn)樗肋@家銀行付得起這筆錢?！度A爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》(The Wall Street Journal)干脆以“《被敲詐的摩根大通》（The Morgan Shakedown）”為題發(fā)表了一篇評(píng)論文章。

????但看起來(lái)摩根大通必須付錢，而且必須現(xiàn)在就付。很難知道這家銀行的董事會(huì)想要什么，但沒(méi)有什么證據(jù)證明，戴蒙是被人用槍指著頭被迫簽署的這項(xiàng)交易。摩根大通的股價(jià)在過(guò)去一年漲了28%，盡管同期它的法律訴訟問(wèn)題已經(jīng)在惡化。因此，看起來(lái)也不像是股東們強(qiáng)烈要求達(dá)成一項(xiàng)和解。如果戴蒙認(rèn)為這樣的和解不合理，他原本應(yīng)該反擊這些指控。

????看待摩根大通巨額罰款的另一種方式是：或許，這是賄賂。監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)一直期望在與銀行的斗爭(zhēng)中勝一局。他們本可以敦促吉米?戴蒙從CEO職位上離職，或者迫使他放棄董事長(zhǎng)兼CEO的雙重職位。鑒于這家銀行最近面臨的監(jiān)管和法律問(wèn)題，敦促戴蒙放棄董事長(zhǎng)兼CEO的雙重職位看起來(lái)是合理的懲罰。

????而且，請(qǐng)記住，雖然摩根大通此次計(jì)劃和解的投資者損失有80%源自貝爾斯登或華盛頓互惠銀行發(fā)售的債券，但這并不意味著這兩家銀行要承擔(dān)80%的過(guò)錯(cuò)。美國(guó)司法部的那宗民事案件似乎是推動(dòng)這項(xiàng)巨額和解的動(dòng)力，而該案件的依據(jù)是摩根大通在2005年至2007年發(fā)售的按揭債券，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)早于它收購(gòu)著兩家銀行。而那段時(shí)期的大部分時(shí)間里，戴蒙都是公司的CEO。

????A lot of people are questioning whether JPMorgan Chase's reported fine of $13 billion to settle claims that it misled investors in mortgage bonds is excessive. It would, after all, be the largest settlement any single bank has ever paid to regulators.

????But perhaps the better question is this: Why did CEO Jamie Dimon agree, if it has, to $13 billion?

????Yes, regulators have plenty of evidence that JPMorgan (JPM) -- along with Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, both of which JPMorgan bought -- sold bonds to investors that were not what they claimed. But every bank did that. And there is no evidence that JPMorgan was the worst offender. Fannie and Freddie lost more money on bonds underwritten by Bank of America (BAC) and Countrywide, which BofA acquired.

????That, of course, isn't a good defense, but it should play into considerations of just how much money JPMorgan should have to pay. What's more, last year, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped a similar case it had pursued against Goldman Sachs (GS) without bringing charges. An SEC case against Wells Fargo (WFC) for selling mortgage bonds that the regulator has been pursuing for close to a year and a half appears to have gone nowhere.

????JPMorgan isn't even getting immunity from criminal charges. The government faces an uphill battle, but those charges are still a risk even after $13 billion, which, just for comparison, is about $5 billion more than it would cost to build Elon Musk's hyperloop.

????Some have called the fine extortion. The government has JPMorgan in the corner, and it's extracting as big a fine as it possibly can because it knows the bank can pay. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on the fine titled "The Morgan Shakedown."

????But that assumes JPMorgan had to pay, and that it had to pay now. It is hard to know what the bank's board of directors wanted, but there is little evidence there was a gun to Dimon's head to make a deal. JPMorgan's stock is up 28% in the past year, even as the bank's legal problems have intensified. So, it doesn't seem like shareholders were pushing for a settlement. Dimon could have fought the charges if he thought it was a bad deal.

????Here's another way to look at JPMorgan's outsize fine: Perhaps it was a payoff. Regulators were looking for a win against banks. They could have pushed for Jamie Dimon to step down as CEO, or they could have forced him to give up his role as both chairman and CEO. Given the regulatory and legal troubles the bank has faced recently, pushing for Dimon to give up his dual role at the company would seem like justified punishment.

????And remember, while 80% of the investor losses that JPMorgan is settling were on bonds originated by either Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual, that doesn't mean that 80% of the wrongdoing was committed by those two banks. The Justice Department's civil case, which appears to be the impetus for the large settlement, was based on mortgage bonds that JPMorgan sold from 2005 to 2007, well before it bought either of those banks. Dimon was the CEO for much of that time.