Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.

The current Libor rate-setting system is no longer a "viable option,"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19203103

"Libor review: Wheatley says current state 'not an option'

Barclays was fined last month for trying to manipulate the Libor rates
Continue reading the main story Libor scandal
The current Libor rate-setting system is no longer a "viable option," a government-commissioned review said.
It has proposed pegging the rate to actual market data, rather than subjective submissions from banks, and introducing formal regulation.
Stronger sanctions to tackle abuse of the system are also included in the initial discussion paper, which aims to restore credibility.

Barclays was found to have tried to rig Libor rates over several years.

The review, headed by the managing director of the Financial Services Authority Martin Wheatley, is examining how the Libor rate, the benchmark interest rate for trillions of financial contracts, is calculated and regulated.
Interested parties will have four weeks to respond to the proposals.
The system is currently overseen by the British Bankers' Association, but is not formally regulated by the Financial Services Authority or Bank of England.

The Wheatley Review was established after Barclays was found to have tried to manipulate Libor rates, by putting in inaccurate submissions, resulting in a record £290m fine from both US and UK regulators.
Several other banks in other countries are also under investigation"

Comments

  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    It has proposed pegging the rate to actual market data, rather than subjective submissions from banks proposals.


    It's a good job we have these government commissioned reviews.

    Why come to the obvious conclusion for free when it's possible to arrive at the bleeding obvious having spent a load of taxpayer money?
  • It's amusing that they say that it's 'no longer' a vaible option. One wonders if it was ever really a viable option.
  • wotsthat wrote: »
    It's a good job we have these government commissioned reviews.

    Why come to the obvious conclusion for free when it's possible to arrive at the bleeding obvious having spent a load of taxpayer money?

    god isn't that the truth.

    http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste
    'Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.'
    GALATIANS 6: 7 (KJV)
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 243K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 619.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.4K Life & Family
  • 255.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.