Barclays slap on the wrist

[Aepervius]

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...bor/?hpt=hp_t2

Now if I am understanding it correctely, the bank made billions from the scheme in illegal profit, so why are they slapped with only half a billion fine, with nobody doing prison ? How is that supposed to be anything than a slap and the hand with a *nudge nudge wink wink* ? Or do I miss something completely ?

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...bor/?hpt=hp_t2

Now if I am understanding it correctely, the bank made billions from the scheme in illegal profit, so why are they slapped with only half a billion fine, with nobody doing prison ? How is that supposed to be anything than a slap and the hand with a *nudge nudge wink wink* ? Or do I miss something completely ?

more to the point, theyre not the only ones, and its still going on.

ZH have been writing about it since they were on blogspot in 2009 lol.

the emails are very funny - typical traders.

[fuelair]

Sounds like Barclays had one off the wrist.

[balrog666]

Yay, all those ripped-off consumers got repaid!

Oh, wait, ...

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Sounds like Barclays had one off the wrist.

as I (ZH) said above, somebody being interviewed supposedly in the know on CNBC just said that Barclays are only the first, there will be more.

Only 3 years late to the action lol.

edit, Barclays down 14% today as of now, whoops.

Quote:

Barclays Plc (BARC)’s record $451 million settlement offers a road map for how U.S. and U.K. authorities will pursue sanctions in a global investigation of interest rate manipulation that has ensnared more than a dozen banks.

[Skepticemea]

There are several institutions involved in the setting of the UK LIBOR rate. They are all going to be sweating bullets.

[Beerina]

Ya!! WTH, only government gets to manipulate interest rates for its own benefit, keeping rates low so it can borrow more so it can buy more votes and you don't get savings account interest anymore.


The arrogance of some self-important organizations!

[commandlinegamer]

What sticks in my craw is that Barclays pretended they were better than the rest during the credit crunch as they hadn't had to go cap-in-hand to the government to bail them out.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...bor/?hpt=hp_t2

Now if I am understanding it correctely, the bank made billions from the scheme in illegal profit, so why are they slapped with only half a billion fine, with nobody doing prison ? How is that supposed to be anything than a slap and the hand with a *nudge nudge wink wink* ? Or do I miss something completely ?

The lawyers haven't missed it.

[UndercoverElephant]

The lawyers haven't missed it, and most of the UK banks are now going to face litigation by people claiming back damages on a monumental scale. We are talking 4 to 5 times the supposed value of those banks. So what happens then? Are we really going to have a situation where a load of banks which have already been bailed out with public money when they should have been allowed to go under are going to face bankruptcy again, this time because they have been sued for so much money following the worst scam in banking history. Is the UK taxpayer going to be asked to bail these banks out again, so the public end up paying all the damages while the *********** go on paying themselves obscene amounts of money?

No...any British politician who wants to retain their seat at the next election must now come out as a banker-basher. Either the politicians ensure that the bankers pay for their criminality, or the public will ensure that the politicians pay for their incompetence and contempt (for us).

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for Rule 10. Do not disguise naughty words.

[UndercoverElephant]

E-petition to Her Majesty's Government to withdraw Barclays banking license. UK residents please sign and everybody please pass on. Don't let the.....................you down.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35446

[kevsta]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/profit/a...y-chief-307052

Quote:

After Barclays, HSBC, RBS, UBS and Citigroup also probed, says UK Treasury chief
Associated Press | Updated: June 28, 2012 19:52 IST

Four more global banks are being investigated for the alleged financial market manipulation that led to fines of $453 million against Barclays Bank, British Treasury chief George Osborne said Thursday, causing stocks in those groups to plummet.

Osborne said Citigroup in the U.S., Switzerland’s UBS, and Britain’s HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland were also being probed for allegedly providing false figures on key interest rates upon which mortgages and consumer loans are priced.

[!Kaggen]

Incredible , even when being fined the bankers get it all back.

Quote:

What's more, that £290m is destined not for the public coffers but for the FSA, which will therefore need to levy less from the banks that fund it – including Barclays. So Barclays lose with one hand but are set to gain with the other

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfre...e&type=article

[kevsta]

Rabbit hole = very very deep

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article35374.html

Quote:

LIBOR Manipulation Only HALF the Story is Being Reported

Virtually all of the present mainstream press commentary is centred around the fact that Barclays somehow made huge profits on the blatant attempts to manipulate the banks reported LIBOR rates lower.

However this is less than HALF of the actual story, the fact is that the prime reason why senior bank staff jumped onboard the LIBOR market manipulation band wagon several years ago was to give the illusion to the market of solvency during credit crisis extremes when the LIBOR market would freeze, when the reality was that Barclays along with all of the major banks were Insolvent, bankrupt, having made and lost huge over leveraged sums that were many times the amount of capital the banks had hence the banks lied, lied about virtually everything including LIBOR to prevent market panic and a Lehman's style collapse.

Off course to prevent actual insolvency required huge amounts of capital injections, loans and other extreme measures such as QE free money to prevent bankruptcy which the politicians who are highly critical today have been more than culpable in offloading onto the backs of tax payers starting in September 2007 with the Northern Rock bailout.

If the LIBOR rate manipulation story is followed to its logical conclusion then it will eventually be found out that the banks received a nod and a wink from the Bank of England to under report their LIBOR rates as an panic measure (one amongst many) to avert financial armageddon and promote financial stability..

... given that it has taken this long for Barclays culpability to emerge then the Bank of England and Governments role in market manipulation of interest rates won't be being reported on in the mainstream press anytime soon, and it should not be forgotten that Quantitative Easing (QE) of £325 billion to date has been for the purpose of manipulating market interest rates lower across the yield curve, all the way from short LIBOR right through to the long dated Government Bonds.

This is a FACT, the Bank of England has manipulated the market interest rates lower between banks and for government bonds but not for retail customers.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article35394.html

Quote:

Mervyn King, Bank of England Governor Now States:

Quote:

“What I hope is that everyone now understands that something went very wrong with the UK banking industry and we now need to put it right,” he said. “From excessive levels of compensation, to shoddy treatment of customers, to deceitful manipulation of one of the most important interest rates.

“We can see that we need a real change in the culture of the industry. And that will require two things, one is leadership of an unusually high order and changes to the structure of the industry.”

The truth is : The biggest manipulator and smoke and mirrors deceiver of them all is the Bank of England, it has printed £325 billion (QE) to date for the purpose of manipulating market interest rates lower across the yield curve, all the way from short LIBOR right through to the long dated Government Bonds.

This is a FACT, the Bank of England has manipulated the market interest rates lower between banks and for government bonds, the consequences of which is has been high inflation as I have cataloged over the years.

my long pitchforks and hoes call looks better by the day

[!Kaggen]

Hmmm perhaps the Mayans were on to something...yikes

[Darat]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

What sticks in my craw is that Barclays pretended they were better than the rest during the credit crunch as they hadn't had to go cap-in-hand to the government to bail them out.

And for me the fact that the current CEO headed up the division responsible at the time...

[kevsta]

$504 Trillion in interest rate derivatives.

image from the BIS site

what could possibly go wrong?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

E-petition to Her Majesty's Government to withdraw Barclays banking license. UK residents please sign and everybody please pass on. Don't let the.....................you down.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35446

Signed

[The Don]

Bob Diamond has gone.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18685040

He still has a lot of supporters in the industry though.

[Darat]

Good riddance - he had to go - especially given his public pronunciations about a bank's culture and so.

[Darat]

One thing I don't quite understand is that I've assumed that the current government (treasury, home office and business ministries at least) knew that Barclay's had been guilty of this yet when the FSA announced its findings and the fine it seemed as if the government hadn't given a moments thought to any kind of follow-up action. Did they really believe that this wouldn't cause an uproar?

[!Kaggen]

Governments are mostly in bed with the banking criminals these days so they thought they could get away with it like all criminals do.

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by Darat

One thing I don't quite understand is that I've assumed that the current government (treasury, home office and business ministries at least) knew that Barclay's had been guilty of this yet when the FSA announced its findings and the fine it seemed as if the government hadn't given a moments thought to any kind of follow-up action. Did they really believe that this wouldn't cause an uproar?

They were shocked. Shocked, I tell you.*

*Apologies to Claude Rains.

[Nessie]

Mr Diamond has not got a clue about what people think about bankers

""I am deeply disappointed that the impression created by the events announced last week about what Barclays and its people stand for could not be further from the truth," Mr Diamond said in a statement."

http://www.newsroom.barclays.com/Pre...anges-907.aspx

No, people know exactly what Barclay's and its people stand for, greed and corrupt practices which if anyone attempted against them would mean a different attitude.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Governments are mostly in bed with the banking criminals these days so they thought they could get away with it like all criminals do.

That doesn't follow as we only know about this because "the government" took action, my question is about the seemingly disconnect that the government didn't seem to think there would be a need for any further follow-up.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

They were shocked. Shocked, I tell you.*

*Apologies to Claude Rains.

I was wondering if there are "Chinese walls" between the regulators and the government in regards to the regulators informing the government what was happening? (And we know how effective the idea of Chinese walls are in practice, we only need to look at the great success they've been in the banking industry... oh dear.. .perhaps not the best example. )

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by Darat

I was wondering if there are "Chinese walls" between the regulators and the government in regards to the regulators informing the government what was happening? (And we know how effective the idea of Chinese walls are in practice, we only need to look at the great success they've been in the banking industry... oh dear.. .perhaps not the best example. )

How fimly is that tongue planted in your cheek?

Lots of commentary across the board regarding the culpability of the regulators. Neither the Labour party or the Tories before (and indeed after) have tried to place LIBOR under regulatory cover. The BBA were "looking after it" FFS!

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Mr Diamond has not got a clue about what people think about bankers

""I am deeply disappointed that the impression created by the events announced last week about what Barclays and its people stand for could not be further from the truth," Mr Diamond said in a statement."

http://www.newsroom.barclays.com/Pre...anges-907.aspx

No, people know exactly what Barclay's and its people stand for, greed and corrupt practices which if anyone attempted against them would mean a different attitude.

My favourite bit of his letter to staff was "We will implement a zero-tolerance policy of actions which damage the reputation of the bank." This was at the same time as insisting he himself had done nothing wrong and was the right person to clear up the mess, and that means he's psychologically in the same boat as the deluded dictator who thinks he can defuse a massive rebellion by sacking his government. Saddam, Gaddafi, Diamond...

[commandlinegamer]

What a difference a few months make:-

Steal a £1 bottle of water: get the gaol.

Steal trillions: get a £2 million pay off.

Actually, being serious for just a moment: Does anyone seriously think the Tories would have done any different had they been in power the last decade?

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

What a difference a few months make:-

Steal a £1 bottle of water: get the gaol.

Steal trillions: get a £2 million pay off.

Actually, being serious for just a moment: Does anyone seriously think the Tories would have done any different had they been in power the last decade?

Yes. There would have been even less regulation.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

What a difference a few months make:-

Steal a £1 bottle of water: get the gaol.

Steal trillions: get a £2 million pay off.

Actually, being serious for just a moment: Does anyone seriously think the Tories would have done any different had they been in power the last decade?

What isn't serious about what you just said? These people are criminals, and they should go to prison. Otherwise we have a situation where the social contract between government and governed starts to break down, and vigilante action against bankers becomes morally defensible.

Would the Tories have regulated the City of London had they been in power during the Blair/Brown era? No, of course not.

[Aber]

The details that will come out about what the Bank of England said to Barclays will be fascinating.

So far we have:

'senior' figures in Whitehall asking the Bank of England why Barclays quoted LIBOR figures were so high in October 2008

Deputy Governor of the Bank of England telling Barclays 'it did not always need to be the case that [Barclays] appeared as high as [they did] recently'


The Government and the Bank of England did not want Barclays to be reporting high LIBOR quotes as this would imply that another UK clearing bank was under market pressure and might need to be rescued. 'The regulators told us to do it' would an interesting defence in a criminal trial.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

What isn't serious about what you just said? These people are criminals, and they should go to prison. Otherwise we have a situation where the social contract between government and governed starts to break down, and vigilante action against bankers becomes morally defensible.

Would the Tories have regulated the City of London had they been in power during the Blair/Brown era? No, of course not.

Which people? From my understanding there was no legal requirement for the reporting from Barclays to be accurate (which if the rate's accuracy is so important you'd have to ask why there was no legislation). If that is the case then there has been no criminal act and I am against of retrospective law making. The actions may well have been immoral/amoral but that doesn't mean it was criminal.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Aber

The details that will come out about what the Bank of England said to Barclays will be fascinating.

So far we have:

'senior' figures in Whitehall asking the Bank of England why Barclays quoted LIBOR figures were so high in October 2008

Deputy Governor of the Bank of England telling Barclays 'it did not always need to be the case that [Barclays] appeared as high as [they did] recently'


The Government and the Bank of England did not want Barclays to be reporting high LIBOR quotes as this would imply that another UK clearing bank was under market pressure and might need to be rescued. 'The regulators told us to do it' would an interesting defence in a criminal trial.

the regulators will then promptly appear and tell everyone the Fed said it was OK too.

Im looking forward to it arriving on the other side of the Atlantic, JP Morgan & BOA in the frame apparently too (rumours)

JPM with a hundredy-gazillion of interest rate derivatives mostly based on LIBOR, fiddled..

whodathunkit apart from wacky conspiracy theorists lol.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Aber

The details that will come out about what the Bank of England said to Barclays will be fascinating.

So far we have:

'senior' figures in Whitehall asking the Bank of England why Barclays quoted LIBOR figures were so high in October 2008

Deputy Governor of the Bank of England telling Barclays 'it did not always need to be the case that [Barclays] appeared as high as [they did] recently'


The Government and the Bank of England did not want Barclays to be reporting high LIBOR quotes as this would imply that another UK clearing bank was under market pressure and might need to be rescued. 'The regulators told us to do it' would an interesting defence in a criminal trial.

Yes. It's absolutely fascinating, given the wider context. What we have here is an attempt to claim that there was a "misunderstanding", when it is abundantly obvious that there was no misunderstanding whatsoever. And given there is going to be some sort of inquiry, it is also obvious that this non-misunderstanding is going to be examined very closely. The real question here is how far up the food chain the order actually came from. So far we've got as far as the deputy governer of the BoE. I doubt he would take such a decision without the explicit permission of his boss, and there's no way Mervyn King would have ordered it without the knowledge of the senior members of the government. And this was happening in October 2008, just as Gordon Brown was "saving the world" by taking a load of private banking debts onto the UK sovereign balance sheet.

Could the order have come from Mr Brown? Seems perfectly in character for him. Makes perfect sense.

ETA: I think we need to remember also that there were two different manipulations of LIBOR going on. This one that's being traced up the power structure was done to make it look like Barclays wasn't in trouble, but there's also the daily manipulations in order to profit illegally. Barclays can't blame the BoE for that one.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Can I have a cite on the bank of england?

Also, side note: Never attribute to malice what you can to incompetence. I'd advise waiting on the inquiry.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Can I have a cite on the bank of england?

Marketwatch

Quote:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — On a day when both the chief executive and chief operating officer of Barclays PLC resigned over an interest-rate fixing scandal, the U.K. bank released its own version of events and suggested Tuesday that Bank of England and Federal Reserve officials were well aware of the issue.

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Also, side note: Never attribute to malice what you can to incompetence. I'd advise waiting on the inquiry.

yes, because it will be full and fair and reveal all, and banksters will henceforth repent and never re-offend in that, or any other way, ..I'm certain..

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by kevsta

Marketwatch





yes, because it will be full and fair and reveal all, and banksters will henceforth repent and never re-offend in that, or any other way, ..I'm certain..

Sure. You wouldn't believe anything they tell you, but I like how your source is the banksters from the banksters you don't trust...

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Sure. You wouldn't believe anything they tell you, but I like how your source is the banksters from the banksters you don't trust...

not that I wouldn't believe anything they tell me, once its in the glare theyre going to have to come out with something vaguely plausible aren't they, but nobody will be seriously punished, everybody was/is at it, and the Fed blatantly manipulate interest rates in full view by printing money and everyone thinks thats fine anyway so personally im not sure what the big deal is?

I had a reasonable idea LIBOR was highly suspect from 2009 onwards, little old me who is nobody and nothing, so you can be sure the whole industry knew.

the whole thing is a joke, and will continue as said joke until cured by pitchforks or some modern equivalent.

[commandlinegamer]

Originally Posted by kevsta

I had a reasonable idea LIBOR was highly suspect from 2009 onwards, little old me who is nobody and nothing, so you can be sure the whole industry knew.

You have the inside track on this?

What juicy tid-bit of scandal can we expect to surface next?