Barclays Interest Rates

[eFestivals]

if by magic a friend has linked to the following on fb, don't know how reliable the blog is

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/exclusive-why-the-global-political-class-lies-in-fear-of-the-libor-scandal/

suppose we will see if there is an enquiry

hmmmm.... if that's how it is, it's going to get mighty interesting.

And not only with the politicians, but with that magical place "the markets". After all, if there's no safe place to invest without being taken for a ride, then the money in their pockets is suddenly worthless.

Which gets to mean I guess that they'll find a way of papering over the cracks.

[t8yman]

on a related note, this is an amazing read

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620?print=true

its a hell of a daunting read, get a coffee before you start, but its indicative of the culture of the gordon gecko types we all suspect populate wall street and no doubt the city of london banking fraternity.

stick with it, it puts things in plain english when you get so far through. its an amazing read, particularly the way it talks about corruption being the norm, the culture "they simply forgot what they were doing was illegal" (I'm paraphrasing - but not a million miles out!)

[TalkShow Bob]

on a related note, this is an amazing read

http://www.rollingst...0620?print=true

its a hell of a daunting read, get a coffee before you start, but its indicative of the culture of the gordon gecko types we all suspect populate wall street and no doubt the city of london banking fraternity.

stick with it, it puts things in plain english when you get so far through. its an amazing read, particularly the way it talks about corruption being the norm, the culture "they simply forgot what they were doing was illegal" (I'm paraphrasing - but not a million miles out!)

[t8yman]

So Bob Diamond has gone, and the other fella has come back!

accountability counts for nothing then eh!

[eFestivals]

on a related note, this is an amazing read

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620?print=true

that's the article I mentioned on page one of this topic.

And yeah, it shows how the banking world is one big con.

[eFestivals]

So Bob Diamond has gone, and the other fella has come back!

accountability counts for nothing then eh!

I'm guessing it's taken him a few days to extract the maximum amount for a pay-off.

It'll be interesting what he'll say to MPs tomorrow. Now he's got nothing to lose I guess he'll be saying something different to what he would have said when still in the job.

[dingbat2]

So Bob Diamond has gone, and the other fella has come back!

accountability counts for nothing then eh!

[t8yman]

"Bob Diamond has made an enormous contribution to Barclays over the last 16 years of distinguished service to the Group, building Barclays Investment Bank into one of the leading global investment banks in the world," said Marcus Agius.

"As chief executive he has led the bank superbly," Mr Agius said.

Superbly?

Thats his appraisal of being in charge while institutional corruption on a global scale was going on. right under his nose?

Edited July 3, 2012 by t8yman

[LondonTom]

I like the idea that anyone whose looses their job for this is a "casualty" of the scandal by a lot of the media, its not a fucking casualty, they cause it their selves by either committing fraud or being grossly incompetent to let it go on without knowing about it.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

on a related note, this is an amazing read

http://www.rollingst...0620?print=true

its a hell of a daunting read, get a coffee before you start, but its indicative of the culture of the gordon gecko types we all suspect populate wall street and no doubt the city of london banking fraternity.

stick with it, it puts things in plain english when you get so far through. its an amazing read, particularly the way it talks about corruption being the norm, the culture "they simply forgot what they were doing was illegal" (I'm paraphrasing - but not a million miles out!)

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

"Bob Diamond has made an enormous contribution to Barclays over the last 16 years of distinguished service to the Group, building Barclays Investment Bank into one of the leading global investment banks in the world," said Marcus Agius.

"As chief executive he has led the bank superbly," Mr Agius said.

Superbly?

Thats his appraisal of being in charge while institutional corruption on a global scale was going on. right under his nose?

[grumpyhack]

Great song - says it all.

Edited July 3, 2012 by grumpyhack

[windy_miller]

if by magic a friend has linked to the following on fb, don't know how reliable the blog is

http://hat4uk.wordpr...-libor-scandal/

suppose we will see if there is an enquiry

[lost]

its not possible for one bank on its own to fix libor as I believe the top and bottom bids are discounted from the spread, added to the fact that Barclays came forward themselves would suggest it wasn't institutionalized there and so someone else was pulling the strings.

I'll be interested to see if anything comes out of the semi-nationalized banks which you would expect the government had more control over.

[eFestivals]

its not possible for one bank on its own to fix libor as I believe the top and bottom bids are discounted from the spread

I believe that you're right about the top and bottom bids being discounted (it might even be the bottom 4 and top 4 bids that are discounted, I've read different things), but....

It's still possible for one bank on it's own to fix it.

All it takes is for one bank to submit a fake number, but a fake number that isn't too far from the real number. That way it's not one of the discounted bids, and so still impacts onto the average that is taken from the included bids.

It's not perfect cos it might not work for you every time (you've no way of knowing in advance whether your bid will be included or excluded for making the average), but it's certainly a method that will increase a bank's profits some of the time if played right.

added to the fact that Barclays came forward themselves

did they? I thought they got caught.

I'll be interested to see if anything comes out of the semi-nationalized banks which you would expect the government had more control over.

In the hunt for political glory, people are forgetting that this possibility is within only one half of the whole scandal.

Because before any chance of there having been political interference (and if there was, could be claimed in the [short-term] national interest), Barclays were manipulating the numbers to their financial advantage - sheer greed on their part, no political interference.

And off the back of that ....

Given that they had a history of manipulating it and knowing how the manipulation affects things in various ways, they'd then be much more suggestible to manipulating it off there own back from the sorts of words BoE deputy Tucker is alleged to have said to them. .... the point of me saying this is to point out that there doesn't have to be the political top-down pressure that some are believing HAS TO BE behind things.

As for institutionalised, have you read that Rolling Stone article that t8yman linked to? It's pretty much doing the same thing, but within another branch of banking. I find it hard to believe that these sorts of things aren't endemic (within workers, if not actually authorised by the banks themselves), given the huge amounts of money a bank gets to make by shaving the rates by the tiniest percent.

[TalkShow Bob]

its not possible for one bank on its own to fix libor as I believe the top and bottom bids are discounted from the spread, added to the fact that Barclays came forward themselves would suggest it wasn't institutionalized there and so someone else was pulling the strings.

I'll be interested to see if anything comes out of the semi-nationalized banks which you would expect the government had more control over.

[TalkShow Bob]

P.s it worth baring in mind that the £150 million RBS fine probably wont be recoverable from the responsible bankers so will will fall to the shreholders of which 88% are owned by the UK Government.

So far the FSA have settled with Barkleys, Lloyds, RBS & HSBC.

[eFestivals]

P.s it worth baring in mind that the £150 million RBS fine probably wont be recoverable from the responsible bankers so will will fall to the shreholders of which 88% are owned by the UK Government.

So far the FSA have settled with Barkleys, Lloyds, RBS & HSBC.

and in every case those shareholders (except for perhaps the govt owned banks) will demand it's repaid via increased future profits, which means via their customers.

Which gets to mean that the banks customers get to pay for the fines for being ripped off as well as being ripped of in the first place.

Maybe I should get behind those electronic wristbands after all, and set up the festival bank. Banking definitely looks like a good business to be in.

[eFestivals]

Oh, and guess what happens with those fines?

They go into a pot of money which is used to fund the FSA, where that pot of money is usually made up from money that the banks put in.

So they pay over the fines, but don't need to pay for the FSA. The banks don't actually lose any money at all.

[TalkShow Bob]

Oh, and guess what happens with those fines?

They go into a pot of money which is used to fund the FSA, where that pot of money is usually made up from money that the banks put in.

So they pay over the fines, but don't need to pay for the FSA. The banks don't actually lose any money at all.

[eFestivals]

Seriously?! That can't be right. Thats ridiculously mad.

As far as I'm aware that's right. It was what I read recently in either The Guardian or The Telegraph, or in Private Eye.

Edited July 6, 2012 by eFestivals

[TalkShow Bob]

As far as I'm aware that's right. It was what I read recently in either The Guardian or The Telegraph, or in Private Eye.

[lost]

In the hunt for political glory, people are forgetting that this possibility is within only one half of the whole scandal.

Because before any chance of there having been political interference (and if there was, could be claimed in the [short-term] national interest), Barclays were manipulating the numbers to their financial advantage - sheer greed on their part, no political interference.

And off the back of that ....

Given that they had a history of manipulating it and knowing how the manipulation affects things in various ways, they'd then be much more suggestible to manipulating it off there own back from the sorts of words BoE deputy Tucker is alleged to have said to them. .... the point of me saying this is to point out that there doesn't have to be the political top-down pressure that some are believing HAS TO BE behind things.

Edited July 6, 2012 by lost

[eFestivals]

looking at this article from 2008 it suggests this only started to occur after the crisis when central banks and government became more involved whilst the ability to make the profit would of existed before that, big coincidence

http://www.financial.../2008/0417.html

but we know without any doubt that what that article assumes is 100% wrong. Barclays were fiddling the numbers all the time since 2005.

The way in which they fiddled the numbers changed in 2008, but that change in the way they fiddled the numbers still had the much greater benefit for Barclays than it did the govt.

If Barclays hadn't fiddled the numbers in that way in 2008 then the very people who were fiddling the numbers would have seen their Barclays shareholdings (what they were getting as a part of their bonuses) go up in smoke, just as happened for the Lloyds and RBS and Northern Wreck shareholders.

I don't discount the possibility that they fiddled the numbers from 2008 on the specific instructions of someone like Brown.

But neither do I discount the possibility of Barclays doing it for their own benefit (which you are pretty much doing). The people within Barclays knew exactly what could and could not be achieved by fiddling Libor - which the govt did not (they could only guess at it) - and there were many more individuals with something to personally gain by fiddling Libor within Barclays than there were outside of Barclays.

As those individuals within Barclays had already been fiddling Libor for their personal gain long before 2008, it's IMO far more likely that they'd keep on fiddling libor for their personal gain than someone new outside of Barclays would suggest to them that they fiddle it - when Barclays and the individuals working for it would be the much greater beneficiary of the new fiddle than the govt would be.