Can I sue Barclays

The_J

revolu wrote: »

my mortgage was DIRECTLY LINKED to libor.
Thing is back in 2006-2007 libor spiked and I really struggled with cash and got some defaults, now if my mortgage was a few pounds less, who knows!!! I'm blaming barclays anyhows

Sometimes they skewed it higher, sometimes lower. I really wouldn't worry about it. Concentrate on making your commitments.

grey_gym_sock

revolu wrote: »

my mortgage was DIRECTLY LINKED to libor.
Thing is back in 2006-2007 libor spiked and I really struggled with cash and got some defaults, now if my mortgage was a few pounds less, who knows!!! I'm blaming barclays anyhows

the question is: did LIBOR spike because of barclays' manipulation? your answer is that you don't know. my guess is that the manipulation probably only had only a small effect (and it could be either way), so my answer is that it's very unlikely.

revolu

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

the question is: did LIBOR spike because of barclays' manipulation? your answer is that you don't know. my guess is that the manipulation probably only had only a small effect (and it could be either way), so my answer is that it's very unlikely.

spike was also due to lehman brothers supposedly.

fact is my repayments were based on a fraud by others and it affected my finances.

Finances back on track now but fraud is fraud.

grey_gym_sock

revolu wrote: »

fraud is fraud.

fraudsters should pay all the legal penalties that could be applied: yes. and this has so far completely failed to happen in the last few years in the finance sector.

all fraud is the same, so it makes no difference if you conflate what lehman and barclays did: no.

liubeliu

revolu wrote: »

my mortgage was DIRECTLY LINKED to libor.
Thing is back in 2006-2007 libor spiked and I really struggled with cash and got some defaults, now if my mortgage was a few pounds less, who knows!!! I'm blaming barclays anyhows

As others and news have said, barclays tried to manipulate the rate higher and lower. Also LIBOR is calculated based on returns from 16 banks with the outlyers discarded i.e. the top and bottom four discarded. Therefore only the middle 8 were considered, unless others were conspiring it would be difficult for one Bank to significantly alter the LIBOR rate. As if it pitched its return too high or low it would find itself as one of the outliers that would have been discarded when doing the calculation.

bigadaj

liubeliu wrote: »

As others and news have said, barclays tried to manipulate the rate higher and lower. Also LIBOR is calculated based on returns from 16 banks with the outlyers discarded i.e. the top and bottom four discarded. Therefore only the middle 8 were considered, unless others were conspiring it would be difficult for one Bank to significantly alter the LIBOR rate. As if it pitched its return too high or low it would find itself as one of the outliers that would have been discarded when doing the calculation.

It does sound as though someone has it in particularly for barclays as most of the big global banks were involved, either that or their PR guys need sacking, probably both.

liubeliu

bigadaj wrote: »

It does sound as though someone has it in particularly for barclays as most of the big global banks were involved, either that or their PR guys need sacking, probably both.

Hmmmm, I wonder if the Government would be quick to fine one of the state bailed out banks?

Brock_and_Roll

Actually Barclays are the first bank to be named as they have fully co-operated with the authorities. If you want to have a big clue as to which other banks are set to be named, shamed and fined - look to see which banks suffered the largest % share price falls yesterday!

Ironically, as George Osborne pointed out yesterday, all the fines received go to pay towards the costs of the FSA....which in turn reduced the amount of the Banking Levy i.e. its a nil sum game - what the banks pay in fines, they get back in a reduced levy! Not suprisingly he is going to change the law (after the horse has bolted!)

dunstonh

Ironically, as George Osborne pointed out yesterday, all the fines received go to pay towards the costs of the FSA....which in turn reduced the amount of the Banking Levy i.e. its a nil sum game - what the banks pay in fines, they get back in a reduced levy! Not suprisingly he is going to change the law (after the horse has bolted!)

It should be noted that all FSA regulated firms pay towards the costs of the FSA. The idea of the fines going back to the FSA was the firms causing the work and cost should take the burden of the costs and not those that are not causing problems. With the proposal of fines going to the treasury instead, it will mean an increased cost to firms who are not causing problems which in turn will be passed on to consumers.