????倫敦時間周一晚上11時51分，鮑勃?戴蒙德辭去巴克萊（Barclays）首席執(zhí)行官一職。辭職事實上已不可避免，LIBOR丑聞讓政客和監(jiān)管機構怒不可遏。英國當局近兩年一直在重拳整治銀行業(yè)高管薪酬過高以及銀行投資過度冒險等問題，并計劃實施遠比美國改革更嚴厲的新條例，包括提議將零售業(yè)務“單獨圈出”，從投資銀行業(yè)務中分離出去。

????幾年來，戴蒙德的高額收入以及從華爾街轉戰(zhàn)倫敦金融街的美國佬形象使他成為了頭號靶子。但要詆毀戴蒙德并不容易，因為巴克萊不同于勞埃德銀行（Lloyds）和蘇格蘭皇家銀行（Royal Bank of Scotland），它無需政府救助就扛過了這次金融危機。戴蒙德用15年的時間將巴克萊從一家沉寂的英國商業(yè)銀行打造成了一家世界級的投資銀行。

????事實上，戴蒙德驕傲地捍衛(wèi)著自己多年來打造的全能銀行模式，結果只能是激化輿論的對立。如今，備受批評的就是這一模式。LIBOR丑聞將使英國的全能銀行更難以阻止或者弱化那些限制銀行業(yè)務范圍的極端提議。很可能戴蒙德離開后，他的模式也就到頭了。

????隨著上周三巴克萊和美國商品期貨交易委員會（CFTC）、美國司法部（U.S. Justice Department）和英國金融服務管理局（Financial Services Authority）達成4.53億美元的和解，英美政界顯然希望戴蒙德立刻走人。英國保守黨政府力主實施緊縮政策，絕不容許銀行業(yè)存在這樣的過分之舉。英國領導人幾乎直接點名要求戴蒙德下課。英國財政大臣喬治?奧斯本表示，這一事件“表明，金融體系已將貪婪置于一切之上”，“殃及經濟”。奧斯本要求了解“（戴蒙德）當時到底知道哪些情況？什么時候知道的？”英國首相戴維?卡梅倫表示，戴蒙德“需要回答一些重要問題”，英國政府將對丑聞“一查到底”。

????周三，戴蒙德將接受英國議會一個負責LIBOR丑聞調查的委員會的質詢。委員會成員必定會盤問他此案最不為外界所知的部分：巴克萊在金融危機期間為阻止倒閉傳言，虛構借款成本的做法。

????不得不提的是，倫敦銀行同業(yè)拆借利率（LIBOR）的古老設定體系早已搖搖欲墜，很容易被人利用。每天早上，湯森路透（Thomson Reuters）會代表行業(yè)組織英國銀行家協(xié)會（British Bankers' Association）對很多銀行（2005年至2009年“丑聞發(fā)生”期間共有約18家銀行）進行調查，獲得它們支付的10種貨幣短期借款利率，期限從隔夜拆借到1年不等。這些數(shù)字假定由中立客觀的“報價者”提供。湯姆森路拿掉最低和最高的25%，取中間8個計算平均值，得到當天的LIBOR利率定盤價。

????除了最后的平均值，這些銀行提供的利率也都是公開信息。每天中午左右，彭博社（Bloomberg）會發(fā)布巴克萊、花旗（Citi）、蘇格蘭皇家銀行等銀行的數(shù)據(jù)。

????Bob Diamond's resignation as CEO of Barclays, announced Monday at 11:51 PM London time, was practically inevitable given the rising furor over the LIBOR scandal from politicians and regulators. The British authorities were already bashing its banks for allegedly excessive pay and "casino-style" risk taking, and planning new rules far more draconian than U.S. reforms -- including a proposal to "ring-fence" the retail business by separating it from investment banking.

????For years, Diamond's big pay packages and image as a Yank bringing Wall Street to High Street made him a top target. In fact, vilifying Diamond was always less than logical, since Barclays (BCS), unlike Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), weathered the financial crisis without a government bailout. Diamond also transformed Barclays from a sleepy UK franchise into a world-class investment bank over fifteen years, standing virtually alone in doing it from scratch.

????In fact, Diamond's jaunty defense of the universal banking model he'd spent his career building only heightened the tension. It's precisely that model that is now under siege. And the LIBOR scandal will make it far more difficult for the British universal banks to block or soften the most extreme proposals to limit their scope. It's highly possible that, just as Diamond departs, his dream is dying.

????As soon as the $453 million in settlements with the CFTC, U.S. Justice Department, and Britain's Financial Services Authority were announced last Wednesday, it was clear that politicians of all stripes wanted him out. The conservative government is championing economic austerity, a policy that leaves no room for the perceived excesses of banking. Its leaders came within inches of explicitly demanding Diamond's ouster. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne states that affair is "symptomatic of a financial system that elevated greed above all" and "brought economy to its knees." Osborne demanded to know "what [Diamond] knew and when did he know it?" Prime Minister David Cameron stated that Diamond had "serious questions to answer" and that the government needed to trace the scandal "all the way to the top of the organization."

????On Wednesday, Diamond will appear before a committee of Parliament investigating the LIBOR scandal. The members are certain to grill him about one of the most mysterious aspects of the case, Barclays policy of falsifying its borrowing costs during the financial crisis to forestall rumors it was failing.

????It's important to understand the rickety, antiquated system for setting the London Interbank Offered Rate, and how that system practically invited abuse. Each morning, Thomson Reuters, on behalf of the industry group the British Bankers' Association, polls a number of banks -- around 18 during the "scandal period" from 2005 to 2009 -- on the interest rate they're paying to borrow short-term, for maturities anywhere from overnight to one year, for ten currencies. The numbers are provided by supposedly neutral, objective "submitters." Thomson Reuters eliminates the 25% highest and lowest numbers, and takes an average of the eight in between. That average fixes the LIBOR rates for the day.

????The rates submitted by all the banks, not just the averages, are public information. They're published on Bloomberg, for Barclays, Citi (C), RBS and the other banks, every day around noon.