Barclay's LIBOR manipulation

Wookster

JasonLVC wrote: »

Nice post Viva, but you could have simply said "He turned a blind eye":cool::D

But is more than that. Organisational culture really does come from the leader so whatever else, Diamond sets the tone for the entire organisation (or department he runs).

He would have known that this would have come out when he took his £25m package that caused such an uproar. I wouldn't be surprised if he front loaded his bonus for last year and this year knowing he'd have to waive his bonus this year.

gallygirl

vivatifosi wrote: »

There was an interesting contributor on Radio 4 yesterday, who said that Diamond may not have known about what was going on but ran a culture in which Barclays had to be (can't remember the actual wording but in effect) extremely aggressive and competitive. Therefore while he wouldn't necessarily have known about it, he engendered the culture that fostered it through his style of leadership.

NI are exactly the same - using the 'do you know who we are' card at every opportunity. Or at least they were. A bit more humble now. For some reason .

Debt_Free_Chick

vivatifosi wrote: »

There was an interesting contributor on Radio 4 yesterday, who said that Diamond may not have known about what was going on but ran a culture in which Barclays had to be (can't remember the actual wording but in effect) extremely aggressive and competitive. Therefore while he wouldn't necessarily have known about it, he engendered the culture that fostered it through his style of leadership.

If he didn't know, then he should have done. Of course, a determined bad apple will always persist - but this was more than just one bad apple.

It suggests a serious lack of internal control and - as you say - a culture whereby those who believed this was wrong, could not whistle-blow.

Kennyboy66

vivatifosi wrote: »

There was an interesting contributor on Radio 4 yesterday, who said that Diamond may not have known about what was going on but ran a culture in which Barclays had to be (can't remember the actual wording but in effect) extremely aggressive and competitive. Therefore while he wouldn't necessarily have known about it, he engendered the culture that fostered it through his style of leadership.

This sums up why retail and investment banks need to be separated.
The more agressive, competitive culture will almost always win over (what should be) the the more cautious, prudent culture of a retail bank.

A bit like the quote

"Don't touch sh;t even with gloves on. The gloves get shittier, the sh;t doesn't get glovier"

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I know Banker Bashing is a lazy Guardian stereotype, but IMO the financial sector has singularly failed since the first problems in 2008 to explain clearly to the public a) what they actually do and why it's necessary b) why they are so well paid and c) why it's never their fault when anything goes wrong.

I have a vague idea that City types go to work in a larger shinier version of my local Ladbrokes, where the screens show tables and charts instead of nags and dogs, and they gamble other people's money rather than their own. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

wotsthat

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I know Banker Bashing is a lazy Guardian stereotype, but IMO the financial sector has singularly failed since the first problems in 2008 to explain clearly to the public a) what they actually do and why it's necessary b) why they are so well paid and c) why it's never their fault when anything goes wrong.

A good start would be for banks to get rid of Angela Knight the Chief Executive of the British Bankers Association. She could spend 15 minutes (not) answering the questions you pose in a patronising manner that has taken years to perfect.

kabayiri

There was an interesting comment on the politicial response yesterday.

Normally, politicians would announce a widespread review of the whole sector before condemning specific individuals. This follows a trusted practise of allowing the guilty time to escape.

This response is quite different. Dave C has gone for Barclays by the throat.

Are they trying to make Barclays the scapegoat, and put a firewall between Barclays and the other banks?

Debt_Free_Chick

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I have a vague idea that City types go to work in a larger shinier version of my local Ladbrokes, where the screens show tables and charts instead of nags and dogs, and they gamble other people's money rather than their own. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

Nope - that's pretty much what investment banking is .... bets.

Same with insurance, though

Debt_Free_Chick

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

This sums up why retail and investment banks need to be separated.

Until recently, I would have disagreed. But I there's a point here.

Big Bang is what happened and massive multi-business-streamed financial services companies were created, out of the previous separate businesses of banking, investment banking, broking, asset management etc

I think this is where it started to go wrong. So the "local friendly bank manager" was turned into a sales-targetted greedy go-getter. Not his fault - he was set "targets" .... the wrong targets, methinks.

worldtraveller

Bob Diamond has admitted that the bank made a conscious decision to falsify Libor rates in order to protect the bank at the height of the financial crisis.

Letter to The Treasury Select Committee