????這段時間，銀行業成為眾矢之的。在金融危機幾乎讓全球經濟重返石器時代后，政府與銀行間的緊張關系一度得到緩和，如今緩和期顯然已經結束。電視上銀行業高管在接受議會質詢，監管機構也收緊了對銀行的約束力度。

????當然，所有這些丑聞中最嚴重的仍屬巴克萊操縱倫敦銀行同業拆借利率（Libor）事件。作為關鍵的銀行參考利率，Libor是眾多貸款的基準利率，涉及數以萬億美元的貸款。雖然巴克萊（Barclays）已支付4.50億美元與美國、英國的監管機構就此案達成和解，分析師們估計該行仍面臨受影響方提起的多達幾十宗訴訟，潛在損失將達10億-100億美元左右。

????Libor丑聞已導致巴克萊首席營運官、董事長和首席執行官引咎辭職。當巴克萊走出此次丑聞時，它不會再是原來的巴克萊。但近段時間，巴克萊一直在試圖理清做出怎樣的轉變。

????在美國人羅伯特（鮑勃）?戴蒙德的領導下，這家英國零售銀行晉身華爾街最大的金融公司之一。這一過程全賴2008年雷曼兄弟（Lehman Brothers）破產后戴蒙德購入的雷曼核心業務。戴蒙德以區區17.5億美元就從一息尚存的雷曼兄弟胸膛中挖走了它的“心臟”業務——北美投資銀行業務。而且，還無需吞下很多有毒的垃圾資產。

????接下來的三年，戴蒙德向這塊投資銀行業務投入數百萬美元，成敗參半。雖然今年3月前還被稱為巴克萊資本（Barclays Capital）的這塊業務是盈利的，2011年為該行貢獻利潤約半，但它的凈資產回報率并不很高，換言之，資產效率不是很高。據一位了解狀況的人士稱，巴克萊在打造并購業務方面確實取得了一些成功，去年在并購交易排行榜中位列第五，但該項業務盈利甚微（如果還盈利的話）。

????巴克萊投行部門表現最突出的是固定收益交易業務，而且大部分都購自雷曼。在固定收益交易排行榜中，巴克萊一直排名第二，僅次于銀行業巨頭摩根大通（JP Morgan）。2011年，固定收益交易貢獻了巴克萊投行部門大部分利潤。那一年，固定收益交易利潤約50億美元，占到全行利潤總額的53%。考慮到戴蒙德買下雷曼兄弟資質優良的北美資產總共才花了17.5億美元，這可真不賴。

????但Libor丑聞蓋過了戴蒙德擔任首席執行官期間取得的所有這些成就。固定收益產品采用多項指標作為基準，最常見的就是Libor。因此，不難想見巴克萊銀行至少有部分（如果不是大部分）利潤與其操縱Libor有某種關聯。法庭可能會將這些利潤歸為某種形式的不正當收益進行追繳或處以高額罰金。

????鑒于這樣的狀況，無怪乎巴克萊董事會據稱正在考慮將投資銀行與穩定且盈利相當的商業銀行業務分拆開來。過去談起分拆是擔心投行業務作為巴克萊金融超市的一部分可能被低估。現在顯然不是這樣的情況。

????The banks are really under fire these days. The temporary detente between the government and the banks, which was agreed to after the financial crisis nearly sent the world back into the economic Stone Age, is clearly over. Bank chieftains are being hauled on TV to be heckled by Congress and regulators are tightening the noose around their necks.

????But, of course, the mother of all scandals continues to be Barclays' manipulation of Libor, the key bank reference rate used in setting the borrowing costs for trillions of dollars worth of loans. While Barclays (BCS) has already paid $450 million to settle the case with U.S. and UK regulators, analysts believe that the bank could still face dozens of lawsuits from affected parties, potentially exposing the bank to losses in the range of around $1 billion to as much as $10 billion.

????The scandal has already claimed the bank's chief operating officer, chairman and chief executive. When Barclays reemerges from this scandal it will not be the same bank. But Barclays has been trying to figure out what it is for some time now.

????Under the stewardship of Robert (Bob) Diamond, this very British retail bank became one of the most powerful financial players on Wall Street. Diamond, who is American, achieved this by gutting Lehman Brothers in 2008 after it had declared bankruptcy. Diamond managed to rip Lehman's heart out of its still beating chest by acquiring the North American investment banking division for just $1.75 billion. And he was able to do it without having to absorb a lot of the toxic junk.

????Diamond spent the next three years pumping millions of dollars into the investment banking business, which was known up until this March as Barclays Capital, with mixed success. While the division was profitable, making around half of the bank's earnings in 2011, it still didn't have a strong return on equity, meaning it wasn't very efficient. It did have some success in building a mergers and acquisition franchise, placing number five on the M&A league tables last year, but the division was barely, if at all, profitable, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

????Where the investment bank stood out was in its fixed income trading business, most of which was acquired from Lehman. The division consistently ranks second in the league tables for fixed income deals done, just behind banking giant JP Morgan (JPM). Fixed income trading contributed the lion's share of the profits that were attributed to the investment bank in 2011. That year the division made around $5 billion, 53% of the bank's total profit. That's not bad considering that Diamond bought all of Lehman's good North American assets for just $1.75 billion.

????But all the success that Diamond achieved during his tenure as chief executive has essentially been wiped out thanks to the what is being called the Li(E)bor scandal. Fixed income products use a variety of metrics, most notably Libor, as a benchmark. It would therefore not be a stretch to assume that some, if not a good portion of the bank's profits can in some way tangentially be linked to its playing with Libor. The courts could possibly label those profits ill-gotten gains of some sort and either claw back or slap the bank with a heavy fine.

????With all this drama it's no wonder Barclays' board is reportedly thinking about hiving off the investment bank from its quiet and equally profitable commercial bank. Talk about splitting the bank up in the past has rested on concerns that the investment bank was undervalued as part of the Barclays financial supermarket. That's clearly not the case here.