????在影片《穿普拉達的女魔頭》（The Devil Wears Prada）中，由梅麗爾?斯特里普（Meryl Streep）飾演的米蘭達?普瑞斯特里說，她依賴希望而生。我知道她的意思，但有時我懷疑這樣有希望的日子還會有多久。我們在不斷地為銀行業危機買單，為政府聽證會和調查買單，為我們退休賬戶的損失買單，為經濟受到的負面影響買單，等等。

????摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）首席執行官杰米?戴蒙日前在美國參議院銀行委員會（Senate Banking Committee）作證。但在該行豪賭巨虧引發的一片嘩然和錯愕中，關于高管薪酬戴蒙只談了一兩分鐘。當然，摩根大通的委托投票書對薪酬和風險都有提及。但如今，摩根大通需要回答此類問題，它卻只是說“不管動機怎樣”，摩根大通的“風險自律”和“頻繁的風險報告”約束了“過度冒險”行為。哦，事實是對于摩根大通這家入選《財富》雜志“最受贊賞大銀行”和“全球最受贊賞公司第22名”的公司來說，這些并不管用。

????不管戴蒙在聽證會上說了什么，重要的是別忘了這并非一個孤立的錯誤。彭博社（Bloomberg）日前報道，由法庭指定的一位監督員正在就持續的濫用止贖權現象征求消費者意見。而且，在聽證會上，參議員們也在為一些文件莫名丟失的選民打抱不平。對此，戴蒙稱，摩根大通將調查文件問題。

????但監督不力源于管理和治理欠缺。幾十億美元的交易損失只是這些大銀行對風險監督不力的最新例證。

????5月10日，摩根大通披露了巨額交易損失。但4月6日，一位對沖基金經理告訴英國《金融時報》（Financial Times）：“我要質疑的是為何在銀行不該再進行自營交易之時，摩根大通仍有這么大的方向性頭寸。”4月9日，彭博社報道，“四位對沖基金經理和交易商表示，這些交易規模之大，足以影響指數，類似于自營交易或自有資金押注。”如果連外人都知道當時的押注規模，那么當時銀行的高管和董事會在哪里？為何戴蒙在參議院作證時說，4月13日他們還不知道這些交易的規模大小？

????當我和董事會成員、風險經理以及曾與一些大銀行合作的顧問們對話時，他們都認為要加強風險監督，仍有很多工作要做。如果美國國會真想了解實際情況，就該和這些人——以及知道真相的觀察人士談談。不是所有人都會直言不諱，但如果美國國會問對問題，他們很快就會得到事情真相。

高管天價薪酬缺乏依據

????還是讓我們來看看動機和顯而易見的事實——激勵機制。如果天價薪酬缺乏依據、形式有誤，等于是在鼓勵冒險。我們不應感到意外。

????In The Devil Wears Prada, Meryl Streep's character Miranda Priestly says she lives on hope. I know what she means. But sometimes, I wonder how long we can live that way. We keep paying for the bank's messes. We pay for the government hearings and investigations, the losses in our retirement accounts, the negative impact on the economy, and in many other ways.

????J.P. Morgan (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon testified before the Senate Banking Committee this morning. But in all the hullabaloo and consternation about the bank's oversized bets, only a minute or two was spent on incentives. Sure, J.P. Morgan's proxy has something to say about pay and risk. The company is required to address such things now. And what it says is that "regardless of the motivation," the bank's "risk discipline" and "frequent risk reporting" has "excessive risk-taking" under control. Well, that didn't work so well at Fortune's most admired megabank and No. 22 most admired company in the world.

????Despite what Dimon said this morning, it's important to remember this is not an isolated mistake. Bloomberg reported last week that a court appointed monitor is seeking consumer inputrelated to ongoing foreclosure abuses. And the senators at the hearing asked for help for constituents that are being told their paperwork is missing. To his credit, Dimon said the bank would look into the paperwork issues.

????But poor oversight is a management and governance deficiency. The billions of dollars in trading losses is merely the most recent example of poor risk oversight at the largest banks

????On May 10, J.P. Morgan disclosed its immense trading losses. But on April 6, a hedge fund manager told the Financial Times: "The thing I'd be questioning, though, is why JPMorgan has such a big directional position when banks aren't supposed to be prop trading any more." And Bloomberg reported on April 9 that "four hedge-fund managers and dealers say the trades are big enough to move indexes and resemble proprietary bets, or wagers made with the bank's own money." If outsiders understood the size of the gambles back then, where were the bank's senior managers and its board? Why on April 13 did they not understand the magnitude, as Dimon testified this morning was the case?

????When I speak with board directors, risk managers, and consultants who work with some of the largest banks, they agree that there is still a lot of work to do when it comes to risk oversight. And if Congress wanted to get the real picture, that's who they'd be talking to -- along with other observers who know the score. Not that everyone would be forthcoming, but if Congress asked the right questions, they would get the facts about the bailed out banks soon enough.

Exec pay days, for all the wrong reasons

????But let's focus instead on motive and the all too obvious fact: incentives matter. If you pay for the wrong reasons in the wrong form, you'll get the risky behaviors you encourage. We shouldn't be surprised.