????7月13日，摩根大通的邁克?卡瓦諾沒有理會一位分析師提出的有關(guān)交易員薪酬問題，但事實(shí)上究竟是什么促使交易員虛增利潤、甚至可能隱瞞損失，這個問題應(yīng)該由董事會薪酬委員會來回答。在實(shí)施獎金遞延機(jī)制前，鑒于財務(wù)報告的嚴(yán)重不足和他們監(jiān)督期間出現(xiàn)的一些問題，委員會不應(yīng)等到2012年底再從首席執(zhí)行官和首席財務(wù)官手中追回部分報酬。而且，薪酬委員會應(yīng)當(dāng)審查內(nèi)部審計是否未能履行職責(zé)，以及這些人的報酬是否也應(yīng)當(dāng)部分追回。

????提名與治理委員會應(yīng)當(dāng)重新考量董事會的現(xiàn)有成員是否足以應(yīng)對當(dāng)前公司所面對的經(jīng)營與訴訟挑戰(zhàn)。而且，它應(yīng)當(dāng)立即改寫董事會職責(zé)，全權(quán)負(fù)責(zé)首席執(zhí)行官的更替。

下一步：分拆龐然大物

????完成痛苦的自查和清理后，摩根大通董事會應(yīng)當(dāng)啟動將其一分為二的進(jìn)程。新聞集團(tuán)（News Corp）在丑聞風(fēng)波后也在采取類似的行動，這是明智的。

????就像分析師們指出的那樣，摩根大通已經(jīng)大到難以管理。

????幸運(yùn)的是摩根大通早就有兩個可以使用的名字：投資銀行用JP摩根（J.P. Morgan），商業(yè)銀行用大通（Chase）。

????對于摩根大通，這樣的分拆不會造成業(yè)務(wù)一強(qiáng)一弱的狀況。兩塊業(yè)務(wù)都有自身的優(yōu)勢和挑戰(zhàn)。這樣的分拆能讓董事會更充分地考慮如何重塑自身，并為兩塊業(yè)務(wù)挑選出最好的管理者。

????首先分拆摩根大通也是順應(yīng)歷史的舉動，因?yàn)楫?dāng)年正是戴蒙的導(dǎo)師威爾提議廢除“商業(yè)銀行與投資銀行分立的”格拉斯-斯蒂格爾法案（Glass-Steagall Act）。分拆摩根大通，可能使該法案恢復(fù)使用，為未來銀行分拆提供一個好的樣本。.

監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)也需要改進(jìn)

????威爾呼吁銀行分拆的同時，銀行和證券業(yè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)也應(yīng)當(dāng)鼓勵銀行分拆。美國聯(lián)邦儲蓄保險公司（FDIC）應(yīng)當(dāng)采取行動，要求償付風(fēng)險高的銀行支付更高的存款保險費(fèi)。而且，監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)應(yīng)當(dāng)重新評估它們?nèi)狈χ苯訙贤ㄊ侄螌κ袌隹赡茉斐傻膿p害。雖然這些機(jī)構(gòu)可能不愿公布調(diào)查細(xì)節(jié)，但也不應(yīng)只限于在美國國會聽證會這樣少數(shù)有限的場合才向市場傳達(dá)它們的預(yù)期。監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)應(yīng)當(dāng)將它們對銀行和上市公司的行為預(yù)期傳遞出去，讓投資者和客戶知曉自身的權(quán)利，同時也讓銀行知曉自身的義務(wù)。

????探討分拆情形時，分析人士和媒體應(yīng)當(dāng)牢記近來摩根大通的教訓(xùn)，光看收益數(shù)據(jù)，不看數(shù)據(jù)后面的真相，這種做法弊大于利。

????摩根大通的種種問題帶來的一個機(jī)會是，我們不應(yīng)僅限于解決具體的問題，而是要創(chuàng)立一套新的優(yōu)秀管理標(biāo)準(zhǔn)?，F(xiàn)在，事情還沒有到不可收拾的地步。

????本文作者埃莉諾?布洛克斯?jié)h姆是董事會咨詢機(jī)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

????Although J.P. Morgan's Mike Cavanaugh brushed off one analyst's question about the traders'compensation on July 13, it's really the board compensation committee that should be addressing what may have motivated traders to goose earnings and potentially hide losses. Until it implements bonus deferral mechanisms, the committee should not be waiting for the end of 2012 to claw back pay from the CEO and CFO given the material weaknesses in financial reporting and the number of issues arising on their watch. And the committee should be reviewing whether internal audit failed to meet its responsibilities and whether pay should be clawed back there as well.

????The nomination and governance committee should be looking at whether the board has the right people in place to meet the tremendous operational and litigation challenges at the company. And it should be moving swiftly to re-write the board's mandate to take full charge of CEO succession.

Next up: Split the behemoth

????After taking a hard look in the mirror and cleaning its own house, the J.P. Morgan board should begin a process to split the bank in two. News Corp is taking a similar action in the wake of its scandals and it makes sense.

????The bank is too big to manage, as analysts pointed out.

????Lucky for J.P. Morgan it already has two names it can use: J.P. Morgan for the investment bank and Chase for the commercial bank franchises.

????At J.P. Morgan, such a split would not result in a weak business-strong business scenario. Both sides have their strengths and their challenges. The split would allow the board to consider more fully how to reconstitute itself and identify successors who would best be able to run the two separate entities.

MORE: Hostess is bankrupt ... again

????Splitting J.P. Morgan first would be fitting historically as well, since Dimon's mentor Weill provokedthe repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which mandated a separation between commercial and investment banks. Splitting J.P. Morgan could potentially spur the law's re-instatement while providing a great blueprint for future bank splits.

Regulators need to shape up as well

????Just as Weill has called for bank splits, bank and securities regulators should encourage break-ups of the banks as well. The FDIC should get moving on requiring higher depository insurance premiums for banks with risky pay. And regulators should reevaluate how their lack of forthright communication may be harming the markets. While these institutions may not want to share the details of investigations, their testimonies on Capitol Hill should not be one of a few limited venues for communicating their expectations to the market. Regulators should be communicating their expectations for bank and public company behavior so investors and customers understand their rights, and issuers understand their responsibilities.

????When looking at the split-up scenario, analysts and the media should take the recent lessons from J.P. Morgan to heart and realize that relying on earnings numbers without looking under the rug produces more harm than good.

????Out of J.P. Morgan's woes comes the opportunity to go beyond setting things right to creating a new standard of excellence along with banks that can be managed. All has not yet been lost.

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