????上周早些時(shí)候，花旗集團(tuán)（Citigroup）首席執(zhí)行官潘偉迪告訴分析師們，別把巴克萊銀行（Barclays）4.50億美元的Libor和解金額視為標(biāo)桿，好像花旗也要支付這么多錢。他也許說(shuō)對(duì)了。因?yàn)榛ㄆ旒瘓F(tuán)最終付出的罰款可能將遠(yuǎn)超這個(gè)數(shù)。

????多項(xiàng)研究顯示，就操縱關(guān)鍵銀行利率而言，巴克萊并不是最嚴(yán)重的一家。這個(gè)名號(hào)或許應(yīng)該屬于花旗。

????2010年初，兩位分別來(lái)自加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校（UCLA）和明尼蘇達(dá)大學(xué)（University of Minnesota）的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)教授對(duì)Libor操縱行為進(jìn)行了研究，發(fā)現(xiàn)至少有一項(xiàng)指標(biāo)顯示，在金融危機(jī)之前花旗不實(shí)申報(bào)借款利率的幅度超過了美國(guó)其他任何一家大銀行。分析認(rèn)為，全球最嚴(yán)重的是加拿大皇家銀行（Royal Bank of Canada）。

????兩位教授將各家銀行提交Libor委員會(huì)的利率與另一項(xiàng)較難操縱的銀行利率進(jìn)行比較，發(fā)現(xiàn)2007年8月至2008年8月期間，花旗將其借款利率平均低報(bào)了0.12個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。這個(gè)數(shù)字或許聽上去不多，但兩位教授的分析顯示，這比巴克萊低報(bào)借款利率0.08個(gè)百分點(diǎn)高出了50%。

????而且，正如我們所知，Libor影響到千萬(wàn)消費(fèi)者和公司，影響到林林總總的貸款和金融工具的償還成本。因此，即便很小的利率差異，匯聚反映到貸款人和投資者身上的影響也十分巨大。

????并不是只有這一項(xiàng)研究稱花旗Libor問題的嚴(yán)重性。早在2008年年中，《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》（Wall Street Journal）就已開始報(bào)道Libor問題，這一利率的計(jì)算是在16家大銀行提交的借款利率中，選中間8個(gè)取平均值。《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》比較了這些銀行上報(bào)的利率和借款保險(xiǎn)成本。結(jié)果同樣，分析顯示花旗低報(bào)借款利率最多。根據(jù)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》的計(jì)算，從2008年1月23日到2008年4月16日，花旗低報(bào)借款利率0.87個(gè)百分點(diǎn)，幾乎是巴克萊低報(bào)0.30個(gè)百分點(diǎn)的近三倍。

????上上周，野村證券（Nomura）的券商分析師們也對(duì)這些銀行的真實(shí)貸款利率和上報(bào)給Libor委員會(huì)的利率進(jìn)行了比較。以格蘭?斯肖為首的這些分析師們選取的時(shí)間段更長(zhǎng)，一直從2007年8月到2010年5月。

????猜猜哪家銀行排在首位？這期間，花旗上報(bào)的借款利率略低于2.1%。但野村計(jì)算發(fā)現(xiàn)，花旗的實(shí)際利率更接近3.6%，說(shuō)明該行將借款成本低估了42%，超過其他任何一家銀行。巴克萊的低報(bào)幅度僅為6%。

????花旗拒絕對(duì)這些研究發(fā)表評(píng)論。

????當(dāng)然，這些研究并不能說(shuō)明將來(lái)花旗支付的罰款就一定會(huì)超過巴克萊或其他銀行。在這場(chǎng)利率操縱風(fēng)波中脫不了干系的另外兩家美國(guó)銀行，也就是摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）和美國(guó)銀行（Bank of America），在借款利率方面撒的謊看來(lái)也超過了巴克萊銀行。

????花旗為什么要低報(bào)利率，理解這一點(diǎn)很重要。巴克萊的情況顯然是該行交易員希望通過操縱利率獲利。但如果花旗撒謊僅僅只是為了讓自己面子好看，哥倫比亞大學(xué)（Columbia）的法學(xué)教授約翰?考費(fèi)稱，那可能還不足以證明其試圖操縱Libor。

????“刑事檢察官不太可能揪著一家只為粉飾自己的銀行不放，”考費(fèi)稱。

????不過，很多投資者、養(yǎng)老基金和市政機(jī)構(gòu)已開始起訴，不少案件都牽涉到了花旗?；ㄆ炖嗜绱似x現(xiàn)實(shí)，很容易成為眾矢之的。而且，在這么大一家銀行中，很容易就能找到一些部門可能當(dāng)時(shí)受益于虛低的Libor利率。事實(shí)上，2010年的Libor學(xué)術(shù)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，花旗利息收入在2009年初大幅增加，差不多就是大多數(shù)訴訟認(rèn)為L(zhǎng)ibor被操縱的時(shí)候。

????總的來(lái)說(shuō)，當(dāng)時(shí)很多銀行都有低報(bào)利率的傾向。因此，加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)教授、2010年研究的合著者柯能?施耐德表示，花旗對(duì)利率的操縱程度可能是最大的，這一點(diǎn)并不難理解。狀況越糟糕，就必須撒更多的謊，才能保持與他人一致的利率。2008年底、2009年初，沒有幾家銀行的狀況比花旗還糟糕。如今，花旗要為當(dāng)年為掩蓋困境而做的一切付出代價(jià)。

????談到金融危機(jī)期間華爾街撒過的謊，這一頁(yè)看來(lái)還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)沒有到翻過去的時(shí)候。

????譯者：早稻米

????Earlier this week, Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit told analysts not to use Barclays' $450 million Libor settlement as a guidepost for what his firm might have to pay. And he could be right. Citigroup (C) might end up paying much more.

????A number of studies have shown that when it comes to lying about the key bank rate, Barclays was far from the worst offender. That title may belong to Citi.

????In early 2010, two economics professors from UCLA and the University of Minnesota looked at Libor manipulation and found that, at least according to one measure, Citi had misstated its lending rate by more than any other large U.S. bank in the run up to the financial crisis. The worst offender worldwide, according to the analysis, was the Royal Bank of Canada.

????The professors compared Libor submissions to another harder to manipulate bank rate and found that on average Citi understated its borrow costs by an average of 0.12 percentage points from August 2007 to August 2008. That may not sound like much, but it's 50% more than the 0.08 percentage points that Barclays under reporting its own borrowing costs, according to the professors' analysis.

????And as we now know, Libor affects how much consumers and companies pay on a wide variety of loans and financial instruments, so even a very small difference in the rate can mean a big difference collectively to borrowers and investors.

????That's not the only study that said Citi's pants were on fire when it came to Libor. Back in mid-2008, when the Wall Street Journal began to report the problems with Libor, which is set by averaging the middle eight borrowing rates submitted by 16 large banks, the paper compared the banks' reported Libor rates and the cost of insuring their debt. Once again Citi was shown to have understated its borrowing costs by the most. By the WSJ's calculations, from January 23 to April 16 of 2008 Citi under-reported its borrowing rate by 0.87 percentage points, or nearly triple the 0.30 percentage point difference that the paper figured Barclays was fibbing by.

????Last week, brokerage analysts at Nomura constructed their own approximation of the difference between what the banks' true borrowing costs were and what they told the Libor panel. The analysts, lead by Glenn Schorr, looked at a longer time frame than the other studies, from August 2007 to May 2010.

????Guess what bank stood out. Citi reported its loan costs at just under 2.1% during the period. But Nomura calculated Citi's real rate was more like 3.6%, meaning the bank understated its borrowing expense by 42%. That was by far the largest margin of any bank. The difference between Barclay's reported and actual borrowing rate was just 6%.

????Citi decline to comment on the studies.

????None of this ensures that the bank will end up paying a bigger fine than Barclays, or other banks. The two other U.S. banks that are part of the rate setting process, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC), appear to have lied more than Barclays about their borrowing costs as well.

????Why Citi understated its rate matters. In Barclays' case, it was clear that traders at the bank were trying to profit from the manipulation. But if Citi lied solely to make it look better, law professor John Coffee of Columbia says that may not be enough to prove it was trying to manipulate Libor.

????"Criminal prosecutors are unlikely to go after a bank that was just trying to make itself look good," says Coffee.

????Still, a number of investors, pension funds and municipalities have begun to bring suits, and Citi is named in a number of them. The fact that Citi's rates were so far from reality might make the bank an easy target. What's more, at such a large bank, it will be easy to find some division of the bank that would have benefited from an artificially low Libor rate. In fact, the 2010 academic Libor study found that Citi's interest revenue jumped in early 2009, at around the same time most suits claim Libor was being manipulate.

????In general, banks tended to bunch their Libor quotes. As a result, Conan Snider, who is an economics professor at UCLA and co-author of the 2010 study, says it makes sense that Citi's rate would have been the most manipulated. The worse shape you were in, the more you had to lie to keep your rate in line with others. And in late 2008 and early 2009, few banks were worse off than Citi. Now, what they did to cover that up may come back to haunt the bank.

????When it comes to the lies Wall Street told during the financial crisis, it appears, all is far from forgiven.