换句话说,在这家银行因其前任领导层的认识脱节而差点崩溃后,该行新领导层进行了一次彻底调查,改变了管理方式,实行了新的控制措施,却又一次落入了完全相同的陷阱。对于投行部门所发生的事,该行领导层描述的情况(也许他们的确是这么认为的)和真实情况牛头不对马嘴。
That was not a new phenomenon. SBC took over UBS in 1998 after the latter was caught out in the Asian financial crisis and over-invested in the ill-fated hedge fund Long Term Capital Management. Its global ambitions have been a source of instability ever since.
这种现象并不是头一次发生。1998年,由于卷入亚洲金融危机,并且过度投资于注定失败的对冲基金——长期资本管理公司(Long Term Capital Management),瑞士联合银行被瑞士银行公司收购。从那之后,瑞银的全球野心就成为一大不稳定因素。
The underlying problem was, as Prof Straumann wrote, UBS did not want to accept the reality of its ambitions. It “was neither the sole, nor the first, bank to believe that it was possible to achieve exceptional balance sheet growth without having to undertake massive increases in risk exposure.
这其中的问题在于,正如施特劳曼指出的,瑞银不愿意承认它的野心。该行“不是唯一一家,也不是第一家,相信自己能极大扩张资产负债表、而不必承担巨额风险增长的银行。
【瑞银对自身风险缺乏监控】相关文章:
★ 印巴的亲情纽带
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15