Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taibbi on LIBOR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Taibbi on LIBOR

    A Huge Break in the LIBOR Banking Investigation


    by: Matt Taibbi


    Barclays bank


    This is a huge story:


    On Wednesday, Barclays won the race to reach a deal with U.S. and British regulators, beating UBS, which was reportedly the first bank to begin cooperating with international antitrust authorities. Barclays agreed to pay at least $450 million to resolve government investigations of manipulation of Libor and the Euro interbank offered rate (or Euribor): $200 million to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $160 million tothe criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice and $92.8 million to Britain's Financial Services Authority.



    I wrote about the Libor investigation in the current issue of Rolling Stone, in "The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia," about muni bond bid-rigging. Throughout this spring, while the Carollo bid-rigging case played out in a Manhattan courtroom, negotiations between banks and regulators were going on in this far larger cartel-corruption case. It’s been clear for some time now that a number of players had begun cooperating, and the only question was which bank was going to settle first.

    Despite widespread expectation that it would be UBS, it turned out to be Barclays. You know how in Law and Order Jack McCoy always puts the two murder accomplices in separate rooms and tells them both that whoever talks first wins? Something like that happened here. In any case, the Department of Justice filing on the settlement contained excerpts of emails and other evidence that recall the taped phone conversations in the Carollo case: once again, we have seemingly incontrovertible evidence of wide-scale market manipulation. From Alison Frankel at Reuters:

    Barclays employees agreed to manipulate the rates they submitted to the banking authority that oversees the daily Libor report for seemingly anyone who asked them to monkey with it: senior Barclays officials concerned that the bank would look weak if it reported too high a borrowing rate; interest rate swap traders trying to improve Barclays' derivatives trading position; even former Barclays traders begging for favors. We're talking naked, blatant manipulation. Here's one exchange cited in the DOJ filing:
    Trader: "Can you pls continue to go in for 3m Libor at 5.365 or lower, we are all very long cash here in ny."
    Libor rate submitter: "How long?"
    Trader: "Until the effective date goes over year end (i.e. turn drops out) if possible."
    Submitter: "Will do my best sir."




    This is unbelievable, shocking stuff. A sizable chunk of the world’s adjustable-rate investment vehicles are pegged to Libor, and here we have evidence that banks were tweaking the rate downward to massage their own derivatives positions. The consequences for this boggle the mind. For instance, almost every city and town in America has investment holdings tied to Libor. If banks were artificially lowering the rates to beef up their trading profiles, that means communities all over the world were cheated out of ungodly amounts of money.

    First there were huge bid-rigging settlements for Chase, UBS, Bank of America, GE and Wachovia. Now we’ve got a $450 million settlement for Barclays for Libor manipulation, and one imagines this won’t be the end of it. Anyway, more on this to come soon, and if you’re wondering, yes, there should be a lot more press on this.


    Another Domino Falls in the LIBOR Banking Scam: Royal Bank of Scotland



    by: Matt Taibbi


    The Royal Bank of Scotland


    Another one bites the dust. The Royal Bank of Scotland is about to be fined $233 million (£150 million pounds) for its role in the Libor-rigging scandal. It joins Barclays as the first banks to walk the plank in what should be, but so far is not, the most sensational financial corruption story since the crash of 2008.

    Many of the banks implicated in the Libor mess have also been targeted in the various municipal bond bid-rigging investigations, and RBS is no different – its subsidiary Natwest is also a defendant in the major civil lawsuit in the bid-rigging case. The cases aren't related, except in the sense that they both involve manipulation and anticompetitive cooperation. It's going to be harder and harder to make the case that the major banks do not routinely cooperate at the expense of the public when it serves their purposes to do so.

    The news that RBS is involved comes with a perverse twist. This is from the Times UK:

    The bank, which is 82 per cent owned by the taxpayer, is preparing for a political firestorm over the affair because it believes that it has no power to claw back bonuses from the traders responsible. Instead, the expected fines would be borne by the shareholders — largely the Government.


    Libor manipulation is a crime that already robs the public to create bonuses for bankers. By artificially lowering interest rates, the banks caused cities, towns, countries, and other public entities to receive smaller returns on their variable-rate investment holdings. If it turns out that taxpayers end up paying the fine for RBS's crime of robbing taxpayers, how perfect would that be?

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...tland-20120629

  • #2
    Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

    Why is Nobody Freaking Out About the LIBOR Banking Scandal?








    The LIBOR manipulation story has exploded into a major scandal overseas. The CEO of Barclays, Bob Diamond, has resigned in disgrace; his was the first of what will undoubtedly be many major banks to walk the regulatory plank for fixing the interbank exchange rate. The Labor party is demanding a sweeping criminal investigation. Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, responded the way a real public official should (i.e. not like Ben Bernanke), blasting the banks:

    It is time to do something about the banking system…Many people in the banking industry are hardworking and feel badly let down by some of their colleagues and leaders. It goes to the culture and the structure of banks: the excessive compensation, the shoddy treatment of customers, the deceitful manipulation of a key interest rate, and today, news of yet another mis-selling scandal.



    The furor is over revelations that Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and other banks were monkeying with at least $10 trillion in loans (The Wall Street Journal is calculating that that LIBOR affects $800 trillion worth of contracts).

    The banks gamed LIBOR for two semi-overlapping reasons. As noted here last week, there were instances of Barclays traders badgering the LIBOR submitters to "push down" rates in order to fatten their immediate bottom lines, depending on what they were trading or holding that day. They also apparently rigged LIBOR downward in order to produce a general appearance of better health, essentially tweaking their credit scores a few ticks upward.

    Most intriguingly, or perhaps disturbingly, there were revelations last week that Bank of England deputy Governor Paul Tucker had a conversation with Diamond at the peak of the crisis in 2008. The conversation reportedly left Diamond, and subsequently his traders, with the impression that the bank had carte blanche to rig LIBOR downward in order to help allay spiraling public fears about the banks’ poor financial health.

    British officials, and Tucker individually, deny that Tucker gave Diamond permission to rig rates. But a report by British regulators did conclude that the two were talking about Barclays LIBOR submissions on October 29, 2008, and that as a result of that conversation, Diamond came away with a “misunderstanding.” The Daily Mail quotes the Financial Services Authority report:

    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.



    That is explosive stuff. Members of Parliament will be grilling Tucker tomorrow about those events in what is sure to be a far more combative and entertaining legislative inquiry than the Jamie Dimon dog-and-pony show we just went through here in the states in recent weeks.

    The implications of that part of the story should be particularly chilling to Americans, who in recent years have been party to a number of revelations about strange and seemingly inappropriate contacts between senior regulatory officials and big bankers during the heat of the crisis.

    We know that American officials in 2008-2009 were extremely concerned about the appearance of weakness in the financial markets, so much so that they may have resisted pursuing criminal prosecutions against big banks, and we also know that they spent a lot of time commiserating with Wall Street figures before and during the crisis.

    If Bob Diamond and Paul Tucker were having these talks about LIBOR, is it fair to wonder what else Hank Paulson and Lloyd Blankfein were talking about in the 24 discussions they had in the six days following the AIG disaster? When Paulson had a secret meeting with the entire board of Goldman Sachs in, of all places, his hotel suite in Moscow, in June of 2008? Or what other material nonpublic information was exchanged when Paulson met with a gang of hedge fund chiefs at the offices of Eton Park management in July 2008, and laid out for them a possible scenario for putting Fannie and Freddie into receivership?

    Anyway, the LIBOR story is leading the front pages of most of Britain’s dailies, it’s on TV, and it’s producing blistering editorials and howls of outrage amongst politicians and activists. But as compadre Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism put it, where’s the outrage here in America?

    The big story on our shores in the last few weeks has been the health care ruling, which makes sense, but then after that… what? The heat? Tom and Katie? (There’s actually a story about how Katie can wear heels again, now that she’s not married to a short person). Joe Sandusky? Nightline’s big story tonight, which is already being hyped on the net, is about how fat Chris Christie is and why the hell he hasn’t done the bypass surgery yet:
    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie opened up about his weight problem in an interview with ABC News and stressed he is "trying" to lose weight, a battle he's waged for 30 years, but said he's never considered gastric bypass surgery because it's "too risky."
    "I mean, see, listen, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding among people regarding weight and regarding all those things that go into, to people being overweight," Christie said in an interview that will air Tuesday on "Nightline."


    Glad to be informed! The New York Times, meanwhile, did chime in with a house editorial yesterday, and it was appropriately somber. And there has been some coverage in the financial press.

    But to me what’s missing from all of this is the “Holy ******* Shit!” factor. This story is so outrageous that it shocks even the most cynical Wall Street observers. I have a friend who works on Wall Street who for years has been trolling through the stream of financial corruption stories with bemusement, darkly enjoying the spectacle as though the whole post-crisis news arc has been like one long, beautifully-acted, intensely believable sequel to Goodfellas. But even he is just stunned to the point of near-speechlessness by the LIBOR thing. “It’s like finding out that the whole world is on quicksand,” he says.

    So as far as the stateside press goes, I’ve got to assume the cavalry is coming soon. But when?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

      Nobody is freaking out because most folks in the G20 are gradually becoming accustomed to corruption, much like people in Somalia or Kazakhstan.
      It will not stop until some cheaters go to jail.
      The fines to the corporation just become a cost of doing business, which can be easily regained by more painless cheating.

      Throw a few senior executives in jail and seize all their personal assets under RICO and it would stop tomorrow.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

        funny how quick they are to launch on any BUT the bankster mob:

        http://www.npr.org/2012/07/03/156172...settle-charges

        RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:
        We turn now to what's being called the largest settlement in the history of the health care industry. British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $3 billion to settle charges that it illegally marketed some of its most popular drugs. U.S. officials say among other things, the company promoted an antidepressant to children that was approved only for adults.


        NPR's Jim Zarroli reports.
        JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: U.S. officials at GlaxoSmithKline prepared an article for a medical journal that falsely said Paxil was approved for use by those under 18. The company also is accused of promoting another antidepressant, Wellbutrin, by saying it could treat attention deficit disorder, obesity and substance abuse. Regulators have approved Wellbutrin only for treating depression.


        To encourage these off-label uses, the company allegedly gave doctors spa visits, concert tickets and trips to Europe and Hawaii.


        Assistant U.S. Attorney General James Cole said the settlement announced yesterday was unprecedented in size and scope.


        JAMES COLE: Let me be clear, we will not tolerate health care fraud, and in every instance where we uncover it, we will use all of our available tools to hold those responsible to account.


        ZARROLI: In addition to the penalties it will pay, the company agreed to allow the federal government to monitor the way it trains its sales force.


        Chief executive Andrew Witty released a statement expressing regret for what happened and saying the company had learned from its mistakes. While the illegal actions originated in a different era, he said, they cannot and will not be ignored.


        Jim Zarroli, NPR News, New York.

        ---------

        i wonder how many millions in bonuses HE got - but whatevah - at least the drug mob is producing something..
        guess glaxo must not have been on the right... uhhh i mean... correct side of the negotiations in 2009?

        but never mind that -
        has the total in penalties for whats proven to be outright FRAUD in the financial-industrial complex even approached 3 billion?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

          The Biggest Financial Scam In World History

          Thursday, July 5, 2012

          There have been numerous big banking scandals recently.




          But the Libor scandal is the biggest financial scam in world history. See this and this.

          The former CEO of Barclays said today that banks across the world were fixing interest rates in the run-up to the financial crisis .
          Professor of economics and law Bill Black notes:


          It is the largest rigging of prices in the history of the world by many orders of magnitude.
          Indeed, the scandal effects an $800 trillion dollar market – 10 times the size of the real world economy.

          Matt Taibbi explains that this is the “mega scandal of all mega scandals”, because Libor is the “sun at the center of the financial universe”, and manipulating Libor means that “the whole Earth is built on quicksand.”

          Homeowners, credit card holders, students, local governments, small businesses, small investors and virtually everyone else in the entire world has been impacted by the manipulation.

          Indeed, the scandal is so big that it will further destroy trust in our financial system and drive many people from investing in the capital markets altogether.





          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

            How critical is an artificial LIBOR to maintaining ZIRP?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

              Originally posted by don View Post
              How critical is an artificial LIBOR to maintaining ZIRP?
              isn't the purpose of ZIRP (at least in part) as a wealth transfer mechanism to give banks a free spread to create "profits" to "earn" their way out of their holes?

              letting them manipulate LIBOR just increases the cashflow to the same institutions, allowing them to skim more money off the productive economy (since they have further free spread to trade against & the rest of the public market is trading off of bogus numbers)

              EJ mentioned how it was falling interest rates that were stimulative rather than simply low rates. I bet with libor they fixed it in different directions at different points in time based on whatever trades they had on.
              Last edited by seobook; July 05, 2012, 09:59 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

                Taibbi and Dennis Kelleher on Spitzer

                http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/the-mob-learned-from-wall-street-eliot-spitzer-on-the-cartel-style-corruption-behind-libor-scam/


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

                  barclays.jpg
                  --ST (aka steveaustin2006)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

                    ONE PICTURE = worth billion$

                    (and with any luck at all.... a few decades.... in jail )

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

                      Reggie Middleton has an interesting comment on CDO and LIBOR, plus French Bank status . . .



                      jump ahead to second half

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

                        Originally posted by don View Post
                        Reggie Middleton has an interesting comment on CDO and LIBOR, plus French Bank status . .
                        jump ahead to second half

                        Like a fox that prays on the rabbit
                        I had to get you and so I knew
                        I had to learn your ways and your habits

                        Ooooh, you were the catch that I was after
                        But I looked up, and I was in your arms
                        And I knew I had been captured

                        What's this whole world comin' to
                        Things just ain't the same
                        Anytime the hunter...
                        Gets captured by the game


                        Originally posted by huffpo
                        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_201557.html

                        Consumer protection advocate Ralph Nader, meanwhile, was far more succinct in his skepticism. "We will look back at this and wonder how the country was so asleep," he said at the time. "It's just a nightmare."

                        When the Senate voted to pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley by a vote of 90-8, it reversed what was, for more than six decades, a framework that had governed the functions and reach of the nation's largest banks. No longer limited by laws and regulations commercial and investment banks could now merge. Many had already begun the process, including, among others, J.P. Morgan and Citicorp. The new law allowed it to be permanent. The updated ground rules were low on oversight and heavy on risky ventures. Historically in the business of mortgages and credit cards, banks now would sell insurance and stock.

                        Nevertheless, the bill did not lack champions, many of whom declared that the original legislation -- forged during the Great Depression -- was both antiquated and cumbersome for the banking industry.

                        Congress had tried 11 times to repeal Glass-Steagall
                        .
                        The twelfth was the charm.

                        "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

                        "I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.).

                        "The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown," said Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.).

                        "If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."

                        Looking back, members of Congress have tried to downplay the significance of their support. One high-ranking Hill aide notes that his boss, who voted for the bill, did so because banks were already beginning to merge with investment houses. It should be noted, additionally, that Dodd and Schumer were able to hammer out, as part of the legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to extend lines of credit to predominantly minority areas.

                        (the poster child for the effects of unintended consequences...)

                        Officials from the Clinton White House, meanwhile, shift between defensiveness and repentance. One former high-ranking official argued that while the legislation changed the balance between a bank's commercial and non-commercial activities, the problem was not necessarily the blurring of those lines. "What really brought the economy to its knees was the incredibly over-leveraged and unregulated risks taken by these non commercial banks." In short: there wasn't enough oversight.

                        (sure - after they advocated&voted to dump it all...)

                        "The White House task force meetings covered a whole series of these issues," said the official. "A lot of people raised serious questions about how far we were going. And it wasn't just here. There were a whole series of issues around the same time in which the Treasury was always promoting the interest of big finance. It was true under [Bob] Rubin and at least as true under Larry [Summers]."
                        any questions?
                        Last edited by lektrode; July 06, 2012, 02:23 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

                          Good one!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Taibbi on LIBOR

                            Consumer protection advocate Ralph Nader, meanwhile, was far more succinct in his skepticism. "We will look back at this and wonder how the country was so asleep," he said at the time.
                            Nader is smoking the same stuff he was smoking back in the 60's. "country was so asleep," yehh right Ralph. No one saw anything happening. Sort of like The Madoff Case used to placate the masses.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Taibbi on LIBOR



                              The New York Times and its outstanding financial reporter, Gretchen Morgenson, have published an important article about the LIBOR banking crisis, challenging American regulators to take this mess as seriously as the British appear to be.

                              We found out just over a week ago that Barclays CEO Bob Diamond, as well as several other senior Barclays officials, were pushed out of their jobs after Bank of England chief Mervyn King trained a mysterious Vaderesque power on them, impelling them to leave with an "inflection of the eyebrows."





                              Morgenson's piece from Saturday, "The British, at Least, Are Getting Tough," wonders aloud why American regulators – Ben Bernanke, cough, cough – don't take a similarly stern approach with our own corrupt bank officials. First, she summarizes what seems to be the mindset of American officials:

                              "Dirty clean" versus "clean clean" pretty much sums up Wall Street’s view of cheating. If everybody does it, nobody should be held accountable if caught. Alas, many United States regulators and prosecutors seem to have bought into this argument.



                              This viewpoint has been particularly in evidence since 2008. Time and again, American regulators have appeared to be paralyzed by corruption in cases when most or all of the banks have been caught raiding the same cookie jar. From fraudulent sales of mortgage-backed securities, to Enronesque accounting, to Jefferson-County-style predatory swap deals, to municipal bond bid-rigging, the strategy of American regulators has been to accept "Well, everybody was doing it" as a mitigating factor when negotiating settlements, where that should have made them want to crack the whip even harder.

                              Why? Because "everybody is doing it" corruption is way more dangerous than corruption involving one or two rogue firms going off-reservation. Regulators who spot that kind of industry-wide problem, to say nothing of cartel-style anticompetitive corruption, should be in a panic: They should always impose serious, across-the-board punishments, and it goes without saying that senior executives responsible have to be removed.

                              This is exactly what has begun to happen in England, now that the British have gotten wind of this LIBOR scandal, which involves the worst and most serious form of corruption – huge companies acting in concert to fix prices/rates. As the Times explains:

                              Last week’s defenestrations of Marcus Agius, the Barclays chairman; Robert E. Diamond Jr., its hard-charging chief executive; and Jerry del Missier, its chief operating officer, apparently occurred at the behest of the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority, the nation’s top securities regulator. (Mr. del Missier also seems to have lost his post as chairman of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the big Wall Street lobbying group. His name vanished last week from the list of board members on the group’s Web site.)


                              Morgenson notes that the Barclays CEO, Diamond, seemed shocked that there were actual consequences for his misbehavior:

                              MR. DIAMOND seemed shocked to be pushed out. An American by birth, he probably thought he’d be subject to American rules of engagement when confronted with evidence of wrongdoing at his bank. You know how it works on this side of the Atlantic: faced with a scandal, most chief executives jettison low-level employees, maybe give up a bonus or two — and then ride out the storm. Regulators, if they act, just extract fines from the shareholders.


                              The article goes on to point out the frightening fact that del Missier, the outgoing Barclays COO, was at the time the scandal broke the sitting head of SIFMA, the trade group representing securities dealers. We know from the emails Barclays released last week that del Missier was privy to the discussions about rigging LIBOR rates; he was one of the people Diamond was writing to when he penned a memo claiming that Paul Tucker, the Bank of England deputy chief, had urged the bank to fake its LIBOR rates.

                              At the very least, del Missier should have said something, should have opposed the idea. Instead, he went right on being a front for Wall Street's largest professional association:


                              With each new financial imbroglio, the gulf widens between Main Street’s opinion of Wall Street and the industry’s view of itself. When Mr. del Missier, the former Barclays chief operating officer, took over as chairman of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association last November, he said: “We will continue to work on maintaining and burnishing the level of confidence investors have in our markets, in our own financial institutions, and in the general economic outlook for the future.”

                              Given the Libor scandal, let’s just say good luck with that.


                              Hear hear.

                              When the rest of this scandal comes out, and it turns out that up to 15 more of the world's biggest banks (including Chase, Bank of America, and Citi) were doing the same thing as Barclays, our regulators better start "inflecting their eyebrows" pretty damn vigorously. Because if it comes out that these other banks were all involved with this scandal (and it will come out that way, almost for sure), and their CEOs and COOs get to keep their jobs, that'll be a sure sign that the fix is in. Let's hope Ben Bernanke, Eric Holder, and Tim Geithner are listening.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X