Barclay's LIBOR manipulation

John_Pierpoint

Full marks to SKY for putting together those names.

I saw an interview with a female (probably the same person?) on behalf of the SFO. My thoughts were: "here we go again - the bureaucracy has already decided that his one is going on the too difficult pile - like the "Herald of Free Enterprise" shipping deaths, where a director of the company had written something like: "What will they ask for next" on a memo, from a captain complaining he could not tell, on the bridge, whether the bow doors were open or shut".

I don't know if my experience is exceptional, but I have been on two jury's in my time and both included a majority of intelligent people, who were not only able to unpick the issues but were able to explain the the less educated and experienced members.

In both cases we were aware of the technicalities of the charges and the need to deliver a verdict that ticked the legal boxes HOWEVER we also discussed wider issues of the cases, the "economy" of the legal evidence and the desirability of the likely sentence and its effect on society.
[Sorry your honour I know that is meant to be your job BUT in the modern age you cannot tell juries what to think]

If we get back to basics and define fraud as "obtaining pecuniary advantage be deception" ["You know what I mean - a conspiracy to tell dirty big lies to make a big pile of money at someone else's expense"]

Remember we have a conspiracy law as well as a fraud law!
How many people do you need for a conspiracy? Remember Guy Fawkes never managed to blow up anything, unlike the over paid bank "professional & managerial" class.
We also have the trader who sent the email of complaint saying he was doing what he had be ordered to do under protest. I could see an opportunity for Queen's evidence there.

I think there is a very good chance that a jury will see something illegal, immoral and rotten to the core has been going on amongst certain groups.
RBS & Barclays - both lead by notorious individuals - well there is a coincidence.

Mandelbrot

vivatifosi wrote: »

Breaking news: RBS has sacked 10 traders over their role in LIBOR fixing.

To try to protect the top management? :think:

John_Pierpoint

Can I recommend the Reith Lectures currently running on BBC R4 and the BBC World Service ?

It is almost uncanny how the topic is closely followed by the real life LIBOR fraud revelations.
Next Tuesday's argument is likely to be that trying to legislate honesty into a system, just like trying to test quality into a computer system, is expensive and fails.
A lawyers benefit party at the expense of the bankers benefit party.
Benefit to the punter? Next to nothing.
Time to get back to basic principles.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4024719

Nikkster

vivatifosi wrote: »

Breaking news: RBS has sacked 10 traders over their role in LIBOR fixing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/01/rbs-sacks-ten-traders-ove_n_1640985.html

BBC are reporting that the traders were sacked at the end of 2011:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18665508

Nikkster

More breaking news: Marcus Agius is reported to be announcing his resignation as chairman of Barclays tomorrow. Will that be enough to take the pressude of Bob Diamond?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18665719

mystic_trev

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think America is where the action will come from.

Nail on head Viva, totally agree. If I was one of those involved in this 'rigging' I think I'd be sh!tting myself. Remember the NATWEST Three?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three

worldtraveller

Of course there will be a lot of interest today in the resignation of Marcus Agius, but surely also about the telephone conversation that took place between a senior individual at Barclays and the Bank of England which is sited in the FSA Final Notice, and after which "a misunderstanding or miscommunication occurred."

worldtraveller wrote: »

FSA Final Notice to Barclays Bank PLC (pdf)

176. Concerns were again raised to Compliance in relation to an instruction to reduce LIBOR submissions given by senior management on 29 October 2008. This instruction was given following a telephone conversation between a senior individual at Barclays and the Bank of England during which the external perceptions of Barclays’ LIBOR submissions were discussed. No instruction for Barclays to lower its LIBOR submissions was given during this telephone conversation. However, as the substance of the telephone conversation was relayed down the chain of command at Barclays, a misunderstanding or miscommunication occurred. This meant that Barclays’ Submitters believed mistakenly that they were operating under an instruction from the Bank of England (as conveyed by senior management) to reduce Barclays’ LIBOR submissions.

vivatifosi

I don't understand the timing worldtraveller. If they are saying a mistake was made in 2008, where did the problems come from before that?

In the Indie, they are naming the senior exec as Bob Diamond and saying that he'll face questioning about making the comment to Paul Tucker, Deputy Gov of Bank of England, on Wednesday when he faces the House of Commons select committee:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-chairman-quits-in-bid-to-stop-the-bleeding-7902913.html

pqrdef

worldtraveller wrote: »

a telephone conversation between a senior individual at Barclays and the Bank of England during which the external perceptions of Barclays’ LIBOR submissions were discussed.

So the Bank of England published LIBORs based on submissions that looked dodgy.

If there are going to be claims, will it not be argued that contracts are linked to the declared LIBOR irrespective of how it's arrived at?

Many structured products depend critically on the value of the Footsie. Is the Footsie never tainted by any dodgy dealing?

michaels

I think Robert Peston blogged on this yesterday quoting Paul Tucker (Dep BoE Chairman and previously 'favourite' for the job after Merv) and Bodb Diamond as being the two people on the call.

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't understand the timing worldtraveller. If they are saying a mistake was made in 2008, where did the problems come from before that?

In the Indie, they are naming the senior exec as Bob Diamond and saying that he'll face questioning about making the comment to Paul Tucker, Deputy Gov of Bank of England, on Wednesday when he faces the House of Commons select committee:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-chairman-quits-in-bid-to-stop-the-bleeding-7902913.html