曾經(jīng)是全球金融系統(tǒng)中流砥柱之一的瑞士信貸集團(tuán)(Credit Suisse Group AG)如今已經(jīng)成為明日黃花。
在經(jīng)歷了上周末的緊張磋商之后,瑞銀集團(tuán)(UBS Group AG)同意以全股票交易的形式,以32.5億美元的價(jià)格收購(gòu)瑞信,該價(jià)格還不到問題重重的美國(guó)銀行第一共和銀行(First Republic Bank)市值的一半。此次由政府介入的交易標(biāo)志著這家瑞士銀行徹底跌落神壇,并受累于可能會(huì)蔓延至全球金融市場(chǎng)的信心危機(jī)。
166年以來,在瑞信的幫助下,瑞士成為了國(guó)際金融的關(guān)鍵一環(huán),在持續(xù)發(fā)生的丑聞、法律問題和管理層劇變破壞投資者信心之前,它是能夠與華爾街巨頭并駕齊驅(qū)的存在。盡管瑞信今日的局面并非一朝一夕之功,但兵敗卻如山倒。
在硅谷銀行(Silicon Valley Bank)倒閉之后,一直以來苦不堪言的瑞信迅速成為了關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)。3月15日,大股東沙特國(guó)家銀行(Saudi National Bank)向彭博電視臺(tái)(Bloomberg Television)透露,“絕無可能”再向瑞信增資,潰敗開始上演。
瑞士央行540億美元的資金救助在3月16日的寒夜中塵埃落定,以安撫投資者的不安情緒,但未能成為瑞信所希望的救生索。有鑒于國(guó)內(nèi)危機(jī)四伏的銀行系統(tǒng),瑞士政府介入,并敦促猶豫不決的瑞銀扮演救星的角色。
瑞士財(cái)政部的部長(zhǎng)卡琳·凱勒-薩特于3月19日在伯爾尼舉行的新聞發(fā)布會(huì)上稱,令瑞士政府感到后悔的是,“瑞信未能克服自身的困難,這本來應(yīng)該是最佳的解決方案。不幸的是,市場(chǎng)和客戶的信心喪失現(xiàn)象已經(jīng)失控?!?/p>
瑞信曾經(jīng)是全球具有系統(tǒng)重要性的30家銀行之一。為了控制通脹,央行收緊了貨幣政策,繼而引發(fā)了金融動(dòng)蕩,瑞信成為了最大的受害者。盡管有關(guān)政策將進(jìn)一步收緊的預(yù)期必將持續(xù),但迫使瑞銀接盤的舉措可以避免出現(xiàn)倒閉亂象。
在全球金融危機(jī)爆發(fā)之前,瑞信并未步其他同行的后塵,緊靠一己之力就生存了下來。這家銀行擁有超過1萬億美元的資產(chǎn),但在經(jīng)歷了數(shù)十年的衰退之后,其資產(chǎn)規(guī)模下滑至約5,800億美元,約為瑞銀的一半。
瑞銀的董事長(zhǎng)科爾姆·凱萊赫說:“需要明確的是,就瑞信而言,這是一場(chǎng)急救行動(dòng)?!痹谑召?gòu)交易完成后,科爾姆仍將擔(dān)任董事長(zhǎng)一職。
對(duì)瑞士來說,沖擊將是巨大的。該國(guó)擁有243家銀行集團(tuán)和24個(gè)外國(guó)銀行分行,瑞士的穩(wěn)定和財(cái)富在很大程度上依賴于金融行業(yè)。瑞銀與瑞信資產(chǎn)的總和約為瑞士GDP的兩倍。3月19日,大大小小的報(bào)刊都在爭(zhēng)相報(bào)道這家瑞士標(biāo)志性銀行行將就木的消息。
即便市場(chǎng)焦慮持續(xù)增長(zhǎng),瑞信內(nèi)部人士依然表現(xiàn)出了大局在握的架勢(shì)。據(jù)參與討論的知情人士透露,盡管情緒十分低落,但經(jīng)理們組織了市政會(huì)議,來消除雇員的恐懼,而且投資顧問對(duì)于討論流動(dòng)性顧慮的客戶來電也是來者不拒。
然而在瑞信蘇黎世總部,疑慮和挫敗感不斷增長(zhǎng)。有人在其總部之外美輪美奐的帕拉德廣場(chǎng)(Paradeplatz)拉著標(biāo)語(yǔ):“下一個(gè)要倒閉的銀行?”隨著事實(shí)逐漸浮出水面,這個(gè)問題被人們的憤怒和反感所取代。
在其歷史上,瑞信曾經(jīng)資助過阿爾卑斯山鐵路建設(shè)和硅谷的開發(fā)。它還打理過阿拉伯皇室和俄羅斯政治寡頭的財(cái)富,而且曾經(jīng)與華爾街巨頭正面交鋒。然而,它在控制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和持續(xù)盈利方面卻沒有什么建樹。
近些年來,瑞信高層頻換,每一次掌門人變更都會(huì)給業(yè)績(jī)帶來更大壓力。瑞信的股價(jià)較其金融危機(jī)前的峰值下降了95%以上,而且公司的估值在3月17日收盤時(shí)僅為74億瑞士法郎(約合80億美元),不到高盛集團(tuán)(Goldman Sachs Group Inc.)的十分之一。
家族理財(cái)室Broad Creek Capital的創(chuàng)始人及執(zhí)行合伙人馬修·呂施表示:“在蘇黎世,我們親眼目睹了瑞信慢慢滑入這一萬丈深淵。我們看到,該行長(zhǎng)期以來一直丑聞不斷,以至于到目前都已經(jīng)數(shù)不勝數(shù)了?!?/p>
燙手的山芋
瑞信的崛起以及最終大跌的隱患在1990年夏天便已經(jīng)埋下,當(dāng)時(shí),首席執(zhí)行官雷納·古特看到了控制該行的美國(guó)合作伙伴第一波士頓銀行(First Boston)的機(jī)會(huì),并對(duì)第一波士頓注入了些許資金,還承擔(dān)了該行的壞賬。
第一波士頓在20世紀(jì)80年代投入了高收益?zhèn)袌?chǎng)的懷抱,并出借了數(shù)十億美元的資金用于資助高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)收購(gòu)交易。這個(gè)曾幾何時(shí)的高收益行業(yè)內(nèi)爆了,其中問題最為嚴(yán)重的交易莫過于以4.57億美元貸款杠桿收購(gòu)Ohio Mattress Co.。這一失敗的交易將榮登華爾街“燙手山芋”恥辱榜。
在接手之后,瑞信又重新干起了高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)業(yè)務(wù),例如杠桿融資和抵押債券交易,繼而導(dǎo)致了“燙手山芋”交易的出現(xiàn)。瑞信的后續(xù)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者實(shí)施了多個(gè)大調(diào)整計(jì)劃,最終于2006年催生了曾經(jīng)一度令其感到驕傲的第一波士頓銀行品牌。
此次收購(gòu)是一個(gè)激進(jìn)增長(zhǎng)策略的一部分,其中包括收購(gòu)其瑞士的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手,而且該策略也變得越來越復(fù)雜。在接任古特?fù)?dān)任首席執(zhí)行官之后,盧卡斯·穆勒曼在1997年收購(gòu)了Winterthur Insurance Co.。瑞信隨后又于2000年收購(gòu)了Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Inc.,但事實(shí)證明,收購(gòu)這家紐約投行的交易變成了一個(gè)昂貴的錯(cuò)誤,DLJ的多位高業(yè)績(jī)銀行業(yè)務(wù)高管在短時(shí)間內(nèi)紛紛投入了競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的懷抱。
2006年,時(shí)任首席執(zhí)行官奧斯瓦爾德·格呂貝爾出售了Winterthur。格呂貝爾曾經(jīng)與約翰·馬克一道管理過瑞信一段時(shí)期,但時(shí)間并不長(zhǎng)。頻繁的管理層更換導(dǎo)致了頂層的戰(zhàn)略動(dòng)蕩,同時(shí)為銀行普通員工帶來了創(chuàng)收壓力。
剪切與粘貼
2015年,瑞信一位私人銀行員工的欺詐行為被業(yè)界曝光,這位銀行員工在加入瑞信之前沒有客戶,也沒有銀行從業(yè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)。在2008年的市場(chǎng)動(dòng)蕩之后,說話語(yǔ)氣溫柔的法國(guó)人帕特里斯·萊斯考德龍開始秘密地從富有客戶的賬戶中挪用資金,并試圖以此來為其他客戶挽回?fù)p失。
其欺詐行為簡(jiǎn)單得出奇。萊斯考德龍自己的供詞稱,他將文件中的簽名剪了下來,然后粘貼在交易訂單中,并進(jìn)行復(fù)印。這一過程也并非沒有人察覺,其中包括2008年和2011年監(jiān)管者的口頭警告和書面警告,以及2013年因?yàn)檫`反合規(guī)政策而收到的兩次警告。然而,瑞信并沒有阻止此人。他在2018年被指控犯有欺詐罪,并在2020年結(jié)束了自己的生命。
瑞士銀行監(jiān)管方瑞士金融市場(chǎng)監(jiān)督管理局(Finma)聘請(qǐng)的獨(dú)立調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)稱,只要資金還在流動(dòng),銀行便對(duì)萊斯考德龍的不良行為不管不顧,不過,該機(jī)構(gòu)在總結(jié)中并沒有提及銀行對(duì)此知情。
會(huì)議室諜影
2019年1月,時(shí)任首席執(zhí)行官譚天忠(Tidjane Thiam)與伊克巴勒·汗之間的宿怨,在蘇黎世湖郊外富人區(qū)舉行的晚餐會(huì)上公開爆發(fā)。伊克巴勒·汗當(dāng)時(shí)是瑞信財(cái)富管理業(yè)務(wù)的負(fù)責(zé)人,并立志在未來成為瑞信的掌門人。
這次事件始于伊克巴爾對(duì)譚天忠的花園的貶低,隨后演變?yōu)槁柸寺犅劦钠髽I(yè)丑聞。這次事件不僅摧毀了公司審慎的形象,同時(shí)還暴露出個(gè)人虛榮凌駕于道德和法律界限之上的企業(yè)文化。
在晚會(huì)聚餐數(shù)周之后,伊克巴爾的升遷化為了泡影,7月他離開了公司,隨后便接受了瑞銀的工作,這一舉措引發(fā)了瑞信高層的擔(dān)憂:伊克巴爾可能會(huì)撬走銀行的關(guān)鍵員工。瑞信聘請(qǐng)了一家私人安保公司來監(jiān)視其一舉一動(dòng),但在一場(chǎng)事故中被伊克巴爾發(fā)現(xiàn),并引發(fā)了肢體沖突。
盡管瑞信匆忙擺脫了這一令人難堪的事故,但人們很快得知,這并非是瑞信第一次這樣做。譚天忠于2020年2月被迫辭職,時(shí)任董事長(zhǎng)烏爾斯·羅納稱:“所有利益相關(guān)方之間的信任、聲譽(yù)和信譽(yù)都在惡化?!?/p>
作為伊克巴爾事件調(diào)查結(jié)果的一部分,瑞士銀行監(jiān)管方于2021年10月發(fā)現(xiàn)瑞信在2016年至2019年期間開展了五起監(jiān)視活動(dòng)。高層中間彌漫的這種有毒文化導(dǎo)致了極具破壞力的運(yùn)營(yíng)失誤。
交易崩盤
2021年3月,瑞信交易柜臺(tái)被告知,其最大的客戶無法在第二天支付其欠下的20多億美元資金。在超大規(guī)模的賭局崩盤之后,管理億萬富翁比爾·黃的個(gè)人財(cái)富的紐約投資公司Archegos Capital Management在之前的兩天一直在與其他銀行進(jìn)行結(jié)算,但卻沒有錢支付給瑞信。
該新聞引發(fā)了銀行內(nèi)部的甩鍋游戲,紐約、倫敦和蘇黎世的高管開始相互指責(zé),而不是專注于損失控制。競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手很快拋售了Archegos的抵押物,而瑞信花費(fèi)了近兩周時(shí)間才計(jì)算出其初步損失:47億美元。該損失最終增至55億美元,相當(dāng)于該銀行一年多的利潤(rùn),并讓銀行陷入了生存危機(jī),繼而導(dǎo)致了上周的信心危機(jī)。
由于未能保護(hù)銀行以及高凈值客戶免受100億美元基金組合崩塌而帶來的損失,瑞信的高管們已經(jīng)是備受指責(zé)。這些基金由瑞信與如今臭名昭著的理財(cái)師萊克斯·格林希爾共同運(yùn)營(yíng)。這兩起事件引發(fā)了金融界的地震,不過話說回來,冰凍三尺非一日之寒。
美國(guó)的寶維斯律師事務(wù)所(Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)圍繞崩盤事件出具的獨(dú)立報(bào)告,將Archegos巨額損失事件歸咎于瑞信的復(fù)雜性、文化和管控。報(bào)告總結(jié)稱,瑞信對(duì)于“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)滿不在乎”,而且“在多個(gè)節(jié)點(diǎn)都未能采取果斷的緊急行動(dòng)?!?/p>
作為回應(yīng),瑞信拿出了一系列舉措來彌補(bǔ)這些缺點(diǎn),并發(fā)誓將這一事故作為“銀行整體向風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理看齊的轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)”。
然而,一切為時(shí)已晚。
最終計(jì)劃
2022年10月,新管理層二人組董事長(zhǎng)阿克塞爾·萊曼與首席執(zhí)行官烏爾里?!た萍{稱,將讓瑞信回歸其瑞士本土業(yè)務(wù),并將其作為該銀行未來的最佳發(fā)展方向。
他們實(shí)施了裁員計(jì)劃,并新籌集了40億美元的資金。最為重要的是,他們計(jì)劃分拆公司的投行業(yè)務(wù),并最終剝離已經(jīng)有所起色的第一波士頓業(yè)務(wù),從而為執(zhí)行了三十年的逐鹿華爾街舉措畫上句號(hào)。
科納在提交重組計(jì)劃之后表示:“從2024年開始,新瑞信必將恢復(fù)盈利。我們并不想過度承諾導(dǎo)致無法兌現(xiàn),而是希望另辟蹊徑?!?/p>
然而,世界并非是靜止不動(dòng)的,低融資成本時(shí)代已經(jīng)結(jié)束,而且全球經(jīng)濟(jì)一片混亂,同時(shí)投資者信心萎靡不振。對(duì)于一家從未真正從全球金融危機(jī)中吸取教訓(xùn)的銀行而言,這些因素的合力成為了一種無法承受之重。
位于日內(nèi)瓦的Mirabaud的投資專家約翰·普拉薩爾說:“銀行業(yè)與其他行業(yè)不同,一旦丟失了信任,想要重建是相當(dāng)困難的。”(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
——克勞迪亞·梅德勒(Claudia Maedler)、娜塔莎·多夫(Natasha Doff)、菲利普·拉格克朗塞(Philip Lagerkranser)、洛基亞·吉夫托普盧(Loukia Gyftopoulou)、多納爾·格里芬(Donal Griffin)、雨果·米勒(Hugo Miller)、薩加里卡·賈辛哈尼(Sagarika Jaisinghani)、朱利安·蓬蒂(Julien Ponthus)、阿萊格拉·卡泰利(Allegra Catelli)、巴斯蒂安·本拉特(Bastian Benrath)、布賴斯·巴舒克(Bryce Baschuk)對(duì)本文亦有貢獻(xiàn)。
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
曾經(jīng)是全球金融系統(tǒng)中流砥柱之一的瑞士信貸集團(tuán)(Credit Suisse Group AG)如今已經(jīng)成為明日黃花。
在經(jīng)歷了上周末的緊張磋商之后,瑞銀集團(tuán)(UBS Group AG)同意以全股票交易的形式,以32.5億美元的價(jià)格收購(gòu)瑞信,該價(jià)格還不到問題重重的美國(guó)銀行第一共和銀行(First Republic Bank)市值的一半。此次由政府介入的交易標(biāo)志著這家瑞士銀行徹底跌落神壇,并受累于可能會(huì)蔓延至全球金融市場(chǎng)的信心危機(jī)。
166年以來,在瑞信的幫助下,瑞士成為了國(guó)際金融的關(guān)鍵一環(huán),在持續(xù)發(fā)生的丑聞、法律問題和管理層劇變破壞投資者信心之前,它是能夠與華爾街巨頭并駕齊驅(qū)的存在。盡管瑞信今日的局面并非一朝一夕之功,但兵敗卻如山倒。
在硅谷銀行(Silicon Valley Bank)倒閉之后,一直以來苦不堪言的瑞信迅速成為了關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)。3月15日,大股東沙特國(guó)家銀行(Saudi National Bank)向彭博電視臺(tái)(Bloomberg Television)透露,“絕無可能”再向瑞信增資,潰敗開始上演。
瑞士央行540億美元的資金救助在3月16日的寒夜中塵埃落定,以安撫投資者的不安情緒,但未能成為瑞信所希望的救生索。有鑒于國(guó)內(nèi)危機(jī)四伏的銀行系統(tǒng),瑞士政府介入,并敦促猶豫不決的瑞銀扮演救星的角色。
瑞士財(cái)政部的部長(zhǎng)卡琳·凱勒-薩特于3月19日在伯爾尼舉行的新聞發(fā)布會(huì)上稱,令瑞士政府感到后悔的是,“瑞信未能克服自身的困難,這本來應(yīng)該是最佳的解決方案。不幸的是,市場(chǎng)和客戶的信心喪失現(xiàn)象已經(jīng)失控?!?/p>
瑞信曾經(jīng)是全球具有系統(tǒng)重要性的30家銀行之一。為了控制通脹,央行收緊了貨幣政策,繼而引發(fā)了金融動(dòng)蕩,瑞信成為了最大的受害者。盡管有關(guān)政策將進(jìn)一步收緊的預(yù)期必將持續(xù),但迫使瑞銀接盤的舉措可以避免出現(xiàn)倒閉亂象。
在全球金融危機(jī)爆發(fā)之前,瑞信并未步其他同行的后塵,緊靠一己之力就生存了下來。這家銀行擁有超過1萬億美元的資產(chǎn),但在經(jīng)歷了數(shù)十年的衰退之后,其資產(chǎn)規(guī)模下滑至約5,800億美元,約為瑞銀的一半。
瑞銀的董事長(zhǎng)科爾姆·凱萊赫說:“需要明確的是,就瑞信而言,這是一場(chǎng)急救行動(dòng)?!痹谑召?gòu)交易完成后,科爾姆仍將擔(dān)任董事長(zhǎng)一職。
對(duì)瑞士來說,沖擊將是巨大的。該國(guó)擁有243家銀行集團(tuán)和24個(gè)外國(guó)銀行分行,瑞士的穩(wěn)定和財(cái)富在很大程度上依賴于金融行業(yè)。瑞銀與瑞信資產(chǎn)的總和約為瑞士GDP的兩倍。3月19日,大大小小的報(bào)刊都在爭(zhēng)相報(bào)道這家瑞士標(biāo)志性銀行行將就木的消息。
即便市場(chǎng)焦慮持續(xù)增長(zhǎng),瑞信內(nèi)部人士依然表現(xiàn)出了大局在握的架勢(shì)。據(jù)參與討論的知情人士透露,盡管情緒十分低落,但經(jīng)理們組織了市政會(huì)議,來消除雇員的恐懼,而且投資顧問對(duì)于討論流動(dòng)性顧慮的客戶來電也是來者不拒。
然而在瑞信蘇黎世總部,疑慮和挫敗感不斷增長(zhǎng)。有人在其總部之外美輪美奐的帕拉德廣場(chǎng)(Paradeplatz)拉著標(biāo)語(yǔ):“下一個(gè)要倒閉的銀行?”隨著事實(shí)逐漸浮出水面,這個(gè)問題被人們的憤怒和反感所取代。
在其歷史上,瑞信曾經(jīng)資助過阿爾卑斯山鐵路建設(shè)和硅谷的開發(fā)。它還打理過阿拉伯皇室和俄羅斯政治寡頭的財(cái)富,而且曾經(jīng)與華爾街巨頭正面交鋒。然而,它在控制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和持續(xù)盈利方面卻沒有什么建樹。
近些年來,瑞信高層頻換,每一次掌門人變更都會(huì)給業(yè)績(jī)帶來更大壓力。瑞信的股價(jià)較其金融危機(jī)前的峰值下降了95%以上,而且公司的估值在3月17日收盤時(shí)僅為74億瑞士法郎(約合80億美元),不到高盛集團(tuán)(Goldman Sachs Group Inc.)的十分之一。
家族理財(cái)室Broad Creek Capital的創(chuàng)始人及執(zhí)行合伙人馬修·呂施表示:“在蘇黎世,我們親眼目睹了瑞信慢慢滑入這一萬丈深淵。我們看到,該行長(zhǎng)期以來一直丑聞不斷,以至于到目前都已經(jīng)數(shù)不勝數(shù)了?!?/p>
燙手的山芋
瑞信的崛起以及最終大跌的隱患在1990年夏天便已經(jīng)埋下,當(dāng)時(shí),首席執(zhí)行官雷納·古特看到了控制該行的美國(guó)合作伙伴第一波士頓銀行(First Boston)的機(jī)會(huì),并對(duì)第一波士頓注入了些許資金,還承擔(dān)了該行的壞賬。
第一波士頓在20世紀(jì)80年代投入了高收益?zhèn)袌?chǎng)的懷抱,并出借了數(shù)十億美元的資金用于資助高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)收購(gòu)交易。這個(gè)曾幾何時(shí)的高收益行業(yè)內(nèi)爆了,其中問題最為嚴(yán)重的交易莫過于以4.57億美元貸款杠桿收購(gòu)Ohio Mattress Co.。這一失敗的交易將榮登華爾街“燙手山芋”恥辱榜。
在接手之后,瑞信又重新干起了高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)業(yè)務(wù),例如杠桿融資和抵押債券交易,繼而導(dǎo)致了“燙手山芋”交易的出現(xiàn)。瑞信的后續(xù)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者實(shí)施了多個(gè)大調(diào)整計(jì)劃,最終于2006年催生了曾經(jīng)一度令其感到驕傲的第一波士頓銀行品牌。
此次收購(gòu)是一個(gè)激進(jìn)增長(zhǎng)策略的一部分,其中包括收購(gòu)其瑞士的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手,而且該策略也變得越來越復(fù)雜。在接任古特?fù)?dān)任首席執(zhí)行官之后,盧卡斯·穆勒曼在1997年收購(gòu)了Winterthur Insurance Co.。瑞信隨后又于2000年收購(gòu)了Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Inc.,但事實(shí)證明,收購(gòu)這家紐約投行的交易變成了一個(gè)昂貴的錯(cuò)誤,DLJ的多位高業(yè)績(jī)銀行業(yè)務(wù)高管在短時(shí)間內(nèi)紛紛投入了競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的懷抱。
2006年,時(shí)任首席執(zhí)行官奧斯瓦爾德·格呂貝爾出售了Winterthur。格呂貝爾曾經(jīng)與約翰·馬克一道管理過瑞信一段時(shí)期,但時(shí)間并不長(zhǎng)。頻繁的管理層更換導(dǎo)致了頂層的戰(zhàn)略動(dòng)蕩,同時(shí)為銀行普通員工帶來了創(chuàng)收壓力。
剪切與粘貼
2015年,瑞信一位私人銀行員工的欺詐行為被業(yè)界曝光,這位銀行員工在加入瑞信之前沒有客戶,也沒有銀行從業(yè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)。在2008年的市場(chǎng)動(dòng)蕩之后,說話語(yǔ)氣溫柔的法國(guó)人帕特里斯·萊斯考德龍開始秘密地從富有客戶的賬戶中挪用資金,并試圖以此來為其他客戶挽回?fù)p失。
其欺詐行為簡(jiǎn)單得出奇。萊斯考德龍自己的供詞稱,他將文件中的簽名剪了下來,然后粘貼在交易訂單中,并進(jìn)行復(fù)印。這一過程也并非沒有人察覺,其中包括2008年和2011年監(jiān)管者的口頭警告和書面警告,以及2013年因?yàn)檫`反合規(guī)政策而收到的兩次警告。然而,瑞信并沒有阻止此人。他在2018年被指控犯有欺詐罪,并在2020年結(jié)束了自己的生命。
瑞士銀行監(jiān)管方瑞士金融市場(chǎng)監(jiān)督管理局(Finma)聘請(qǐng)的獨(dú)立調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)稱,只要資金還在流動(dòng),銀行便對(duì)萊斯考德龍的不良行為不管不顧,不過,該機(jī)構(gòu)在總結(jié)中并沒有提及銀行對(duì)此知情。
會(huì)議室諜影
2019年1月,時(shí)任首席執(zhí)行官譚天忠(Tidjane Thiam)與伊克巴勒·汗之間的宿怨,在蘇黎世湖郊外富人區(qū)舉行的晚餐會(huì)上公開爆發(fā)。伊克巴勒·汗當(dāng)時(shí)是瑞信財(cái)富管理業(yè)務(wù)的負(fù)責(zé)人,并立志在未來成為瑞信的掌門人。
這次事件始于伊克巴爾對(duì)譚天忠的花園的貶低,隨后演變?yōu)槁柸寺犅劦钠髽I(yè)丑聞。這次事件不僅摧毀了公司審慎的形象,同時(shí)還暴露出個(gè)人虛榮凌駕于道德和法律界限之上的企業(yè)文化。
在晚會(huì)聚餐數(shù)周之后,伊克巴爾的升遷化為了泡影,7月他離開了公司,隨后便接受了瑞銀的工作,這一舉措引發(fā)了瑞信高層的擔(dān)憂:伊克巴爾可能會(huì)撬走銀行的關(guān)鍵員工。瑞信聘請(qǐng)了一家私人安保公司來監(jiān)視其一舉一動(dòng),但在一場(chǎng)事故中被伊克巴爾發(fā)現(xiàn),并引發(fā)了肢體沖突。
盡管瑞信匆忙擺脫了這一令人難堪的事故,但人們很快得知,這并非是瑞信第一次這樣做。譚天忠于2020年2月被迫辭職,時(shí)任董事長(zhǎng)烏爾斯·羅納稱:“所有利益相關(guān)方之間的信任、聲譽(yù)和信譽(yù)都在惡化?!?/p>
作為伊克巴爾事件調(diào)查結(jié)果的一部分,瑞士銀行監(jiān)管方于2021年10月發(fā)現(xiàn)瑞信在2016年至2019年期間開展了五起監(jiān)視活動(dòng)。高層中間彌漫的這種有毒文化導(dǎo)致了極具破壞力的運(yùn)營(yíng)失誤。
交易崩盤
2021年3月,瑞信交易柜臺(tái)被告知,其最大的客戶無法在第二天支付其欠下的20多億美元資金。在超大規(guī)模的賭局崩盤之后,管理億萬富翁比爾·黃的個(gè)人財(cái)富的紐約投資公司Archegos Capital Management在之前的兩天一直在與其他銀行進(jìn)行結(jié)算,但卻沒有錢支付給瑞信。
該新聞引發(fā)了銀行內(nèi)部的甩鍋游戲,紐約、倫敦和蘇黎世的高管開始相互指責(zé),而不是專注于損失控制。競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手很快拋售了Archegos的抵押物,而瑞信花費(fèi)了近兩周時(shí)間才計(jì)算出其初步損失:47億美元。該損失最終增至55億美元,相當(dāng)于該銀行一年多的利潤(rùn),并讓銀行陷入了生存危機(jī),繼而導(dǎo)致了上周的信心危機(jī)。
由于未能保護(hù)銀行以及高凈值客戶免受100億美元基金組合崩塌而帶來的損失,瑞信的高管們已經(jīng)是備受指責(zé)。這些基金由瑞信與如今臭名昭著的理財(cái)師萊克斯·格林希爾共同運(yùn)營(yíng)。這兩起事件引發(fā)了金融界的地震,不過話說回來,冰凍三尺非一日之寒。
美國(guó)的寶維斯律師事務(wù)所(Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)圍繞崩盤事件出具的獨(dú)立報(bào)告,將Archegos巨額損失事件歸咎于瑞信的復(fù)雜性、文化和管控。報(bào)告總結(jié)稱,瑞信對(duì)于“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)滿不在乎”,而且“在多個(gè)節(jié)點(diǎn)都未能采取果斷的緊急行動(dòng)。”
作為回應(yīng),瑞信拿出了一系列舉措來彌補(bǔ)這些缺點(diǎn),并發(fā)誓將這一事故作為“銀行整體向風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理看齊的轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)”。
然而,一切為時(shí)已晚。
最終計(jì)劃
2022年10月,新管理層二人組董事長(zhǎng)阿克塞爾·萊曼與首席執(zhí)行官烏爾里希·科納稱,將讓瑞信回歸其瑞士本土業(yè)務(wù),并將其作為該銀行未來的最佳發(fā)展方向。
他們實(shí)施了裁員計(jì)劃,并新籌集了40億美元的資金。最為重要的是,他們計(jì)劃分拆公司的投行業(yè)務(wù),并最終剝離已經(jīng)有所起色的第一波士頓業(yè)務(wù),從而為執(zhí)行了三十年的逐鹿華爾街舉措畫上句號(hào)。
科納在提交重組計(jì)劃之后表示:“從2024年開始,新瑞信必將恢復(fù)盈利。我們并不想過度承諾導(dǎo)致無法兌現(xiàn),而是希望另辟蹊徑。”
然而,世界并非是靜止不動(dòng)的,低融資成本時(shí)代已經(jīng)結(jié)束,而且全球經(jīng)濟(jì)一片混亂,同時(shí)投資者信心萎靡不振。對(duì)于一家從未真正從全球金融危機(jī)中吸取教訓(xùn)的銀行而言,這些因素的合力成為了一種無法承受之重。
位于日內(nèi)瓦的Mirabaud的投資專家約翰·普拉薩爾說:“銀行業(yè)與其他行業(yè)不同,一旦丟失了信任,想要重建是相當(dāng)困難的?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
——克勞迪亞·梅德勒(Claudia Maedler)、娜塔莎·多夫(Natasha Doff)、菲利普·拉格克朗塞(Philip Lagerkranser)、洛基亞·吉夫托普盧(Loukia Gyftopoulou)、多納爾·格里芬(Donal Griffin)、雨果·米勒(Hugo Miller)、薩加里卡·賈辛哈尼(Sagarika Jaisinghani)、朱利安·蓬蒂(Julien Ponthus)、阿萊格拉·卡泰利(Allegra Catelli)、巴斯蒂安·本拉特(Bastian Benrath)、布賴斯·巴舒克(Bryce Baschuk)對(duì)本文亦有貢獻(xiàn)。
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
Credit Suisse Group AG, once one of the stalwarts of the global financial system, is no more.
After tense talks over the weekend, UBS Group AG agreed to buy Credit Suisse in an all-share deal for about $3.25 billion, less than the market value of troubled US lender First Republic Bank. The government-brokered sale marks the Swiss bank’s final fall from grace, succumbing to a crisis of confidence that threatened to spread to global financial markets.
For 166 years, Credit Suisse helped position Switzerland as a linchpin of international finance and went toe-to-toe with Wall Street titans before a steady drumbeat of scandals, legal issues and management upheaval undermined investor confidence. While the decay was years in the making, the end came quickly.
In the aftermath of the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank last weekend, long-suffering Credit Suisse quickly became a focal point of concern. After top shareholder Saudi National Bank told Bloomberg Television on March 15 that it would “absolutely not” invest more in the lender, a rout was on.
A $54 billion financing backstop from the Swiss central bank — sealed in the dead of night on March 16 to calm jitters — failed to become the lifeline Credit Suisse had hoped. With the country’s banking sector at risk, Swiss authorities stepped in to push UBS to become a reluctant white knight.
The Swiss government “regrets that CS wasn’t able to master its own difficulties — that would have been the best solution,” Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said at a press conference in Bern on March 19. “Unfortunately, the loss of confidence from the markets and customers was no longer able to be halted.”
Designated as one of the world’s 30 systemically important banks, Credit Suisse is the biggest casualty of the financial turmoil triggered by central banks as they tighten monetary policy to rein in inflation. While concerns about further contagion are sure to persist, the sale to UBS avoids a disorderly collapse.
Before the global financial crisis — which Credit Suisse survived without a bailout, unlike many of its peers — the Swiss lender had more than $1 trillion in assets, but after years of decay, they’ve dwindled to about $580 billion, roughly half of UBS’s.
“Let us be clear, as far as Credit Suisse is concerned, this is an emergency rescue,” said UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher, who will remain in the role after the transaction.
For Switzerland, the blow could be significant. Home to 243 banking groups and 24 branches of foreign banks, the country’s stability and wealth is largely reliant on the finance industry. The combined assets of UBS and Credit Suisse are roughly double the size of Switzerland’s gross domestic product, and March 19 newspapers from tabloids to broadsheets were filled with stories about the looming demise of a national icon.
Even as market anxiety intensified, Credit Suisse insiders acted as if they could still control the situation. Although the mood was somber, managers organized town hall meetings to quell employee fears and investment advisers fielded calls from clients to discuss liquidity concerns, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.
But in its hometown of Zurich, doubts and frustration were growing. Outside its headquarters on the stately Paradeplatz, someone scrawled: “The next bank to go bye bye?” That question was later replaced by expressions of anger and disgust as reality gradually set in.
Over its history, Credit Suisse financed Alpine railroads and Silicon Valley’s development. It tended the fortunes of Arab royals and Russian oligarchs and tilted at the giants of Wall Street. But it struggled to control risk and consistently make money.
In recent years, the bank suffered a revolving door of senior management, with each leadership change putting more pressure on performance. The stock has tumbled more than 95% from its pre-financial crisis peak, and the firm was valued at a mere 7.4 billion Swiss francs ($8 billion) at the close on March 17 — less than a tenth of the value of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
“In Zurich, we’ve had a ring-side seat to this spectacular fiasco in slow-motion,” said Matthew Ruesch, founder and managing partner of Broad Creek Capital, a family office. “We’ve watched the bank lurch from scandal to scandal for so long that it’s hard to recall all of them at this point.”
Burning Bed
The seeds of Credit Suisse’s rise and eventual downfall were sown in the summer of 1990 when then-Chief Executive Officer Rainer Gut saw a chance to take control of the Swiss bank’s US partner, First Boston, for a modest capital injection and backstopping bad loans.
First Boston had embraced high-yield debt markets during the 1980s and lent billions of dollars to fund risky buyout transactions. The once-lucrative industry had imploded, and one of the most problematic deals was a $457 million loan for the leveraged buyout of Ohio Mattress Co. The failed financing would go down in Wall Street infamy as “the burning bed.”
In the wake of the takeover, Credit Suisse embraced the same kinds of risky businesses — such as leveraged finance and mortgage-bond trading — that led to the burning bed deal. Subsequent leaders of the Swiss lender pushed through numerous overhauls, eventually dropping the once-proud First Boston name in 2006.
The takeover was part of an aggressive growth strategy, including acquisitions of Swiss rivals, and the complexity kept growing. After succeeding Gut as CEO, Lukas Muehlemann bought Winterthur Insurance Co. in 1997. The Swiss bank then acquired Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Inc. in 2000, but the deal for the New York-based investment bank turned out to be an expensive misstep, as several of DLJ’s top-producing bankers left for rivals in short order.
Winterthur was then sold in 2006 by then-CEO Oswald Gruebel, who ran the bank alongside John Mack for a brief stretch. Frequent management changes created strategic turmoil at the top, while adding pressure on the rank and file to generate returns.
Cut and Paste
In 2015, a fraud perpetrated by a private banker who had no clients and no banking experience before joining Credit Suisse was exposed. In the aftermath of the market turmoil of 2008, Patrice Lescaudron — a soft-spoken Frenchman — started surreptitiously dipping into a wealthy client’s account, using the money to try to win back losses for other customers.
The deceptions were shockingly simple. He cut out the signature from a document, pasted it on trade orders and photocopied them, according to Lescaudron’s own admission. There were red flags along the way, including verbal warnings and written cautions by supervisors in 2008, 2011 and twice in 2013 for breaching compliance policies. And yet Credit Suisse failed to stop him. He was convicted of fraud in 2018 and took his own life in 2020.
As long as money was flowing, the bank indulged Lescaudron’s bad behavior, according to an independent investigation commissioned by Finma, the Swiss banking regulator, though it stopped short of concluding that the bank knew of the fraud.
Boardroom Spying
In January 2019, a long-festering feud between then-CEO Tidjane Thiam and Iqbal Khan, who ran wealth management and had his sights set on one day leading Credit Suisse, broke out into the open at a dinner in a wealthy suburb on Lake Zurich.
What started over a disparaging remark by Khan about Thiam’s garden evolved into a lurid corporate scandal, shattering the company’s reputation for discretion and exposing a culture in which personal vanities outweighed ethical and legal boundaries.
A few weeks after the dinner party, Khan was passed over for promotion and then quit in July. When he later accepted a job at UBS, the move caused concern in Credit Suisse’s top ranks that he might poach key personnel. A private security firm was hired to monitor his activities, but was discovered by Khan in an incident that led to a physical altercation.
Although the bank rushed to dismiss the embarrassing incident, it was soon revealed that it wasn’t unique. Thiam was forced out in February 2020, with then-Chairman Urs Rohner blaming “a deterioration in terms of trust, reputation and credibility among all our stakeholders.”
As part of an investigation prompted by the Khan episode, the Swiss banking regulator in October 2021 uncovered five additional cases of surveillance from 2016 to 2019. The toxic atmosphere at the top contributed to damaging operational missteps.
Trading Debacles
In March 2021, Credit Suisse’s trading desk was informed that its biggest client wouldn’t be able to pay the more than $2 billion it owed the next day. Archegos Capital Management, the New York-based investment firm that managed billionaire Bill Hwang’s personal fortune, had spent the previous two days settling up with other lenders after out-sized bets went bad, and there wasn’t enough left for Credit Suisse.
The news set off a blame game internally, with executives in New York, London and Zurich turning on one another instead of focusing on damage control. Rivals were quicker to sell off Archegos’s collateral, and it took nearly two weeks for Credit Suisse to come up with an initial tally of its exposure: $4.7 billion. It would eventually grow to $5.5 billion, obliterating more than a year’s profit and tipping the bank into the existential tailspin that led to last week’s crisis of confidence.
Executives were already under fire for failing to protect the bank and wealthy clients from the collapse of a $10 billion suite of funds it ran with now-disgraced financier Lex Greensill. The twin episodes shocked the finance world — but, in hindsight, they were decades in the making.
The bank’s complexity, culture and controls were to blame for the massive Archegos loss, according to an independent report into the collapse by law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Credit Suisse had a “l(fā)ackadaisical attitude towards risk” and “failed at multiple junctures to take decisive and urgent action,” the report concluded.
The bank responded with a series of measures to fix the shortcomings and vowed to use the ?incident as a “turning point for its overall approach to risk management.”
But time ran out.
Final Plan
In October 2022, the new leadership duo of Chairman Axel Lehmann and Chief Executive Officer Ulrich Koerner — who took charge last year after the fallout from the trading debacles — pitched a return to Credit Suisse’s Swiss roots as the best way forward.
They culled jobs and raised $4 billion in fresh capital. Most importantly, they planned to carve out the investment banking operations and eventually spin off the revived First Boston unit to end a three-decade effort to compete on Wall Street.
“The new Credit Suisse will definitely be profitable from 2024 onwards,” Koerner said after presenting the restructuring plan. “We do not want to over promise and under deliver, we want to do it the other way around.”
But the world wasn’t standing still. The end of cheap money was over, the global economy was in turmoil, and investor confidence was scarce — a combination that proved too much for a bank that never really learned its lesson from the global financial crisis.
“The banking sector isn’t like any other sector,” said John Plassard, investment specialist at Geneva-based Mirabaud. “Once trust is lost, you can’t just rebuild it.”
–With assistance from Claudia Maedler, Natasha Doff, Philip Lagerkranser, Loukia Gyftopoulou, Donal Griffin, Hugo Miller, Sagarika Jaisinghani, Julien Ponthus, Allegra Catelli, Bastian Benrath and Bryce Baschuk.