Well done you.

Nurse will be along with a nice cup of tea soon.

Again I appreciate the correction. I thought that the earlier post from Coboman referred to the rate fixing. The further report from djstevec again relates to the libor manipulation, I think. Where does that leave us?

Again, if I may, does anyone actually believe a word of Bob Diamonds claim to know nothing? Given the apparent facts, concerning the FSA being aware since 2007. Apparently? If that is in fact the case?

Equally does anyone seriously believe that the UK can allow the level of uncertainty and apparent failure of control that was clearly present in the banking system prior to the banking collapse, to continue? If so, it seems to me, another banking crisis is almost a certainty?

But others may disagree.

I very much doubt Diamond was aware of trader manipulation at the time (2005-2007), or possibly for some time after that as Barcs own compliance dept were not checking or monitoring LIBOR at all, until Dec 2009 at the earliest.

Barcs implemented basic (very basic) checks in Dec 2009 and more comprehensive monitoring in 2010, but the report does not mention if any retrospective auditing of the rate prior to the implementation of the checks in Dec 2009 took place. Its entirely possible he didn't know of the trader manipulation until much later.


Interesting to note that UBS were fined by DofJ (with conditional immunity) in 2011 and Swiss regulators (+ immunity from prosecution) in Feb 2012 for exactly the same LIBOR manipulation, didnt make the mainstream news though.

July 26 2011 (Reuters) - Swiss bank UBS said it had been granted leniency or immunity from potential violations by some authorities, in return for its continuing cooperation in an ongoing LIBOR manipulation probe.

Feb. 7 2012 (Bloomberg) - UBS AG said it was given immunity from a second antitrust regulator as part of an investigation into whether the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, was manipulated.

Feb 21, 2012 (Bloomberg) UBS AG’s decision to become first confessor as regulators probe the alleged manipulation of interest rates will ratchet up the risks for other banks that set the benchmark for $360 trillion of securities worldwide.

I find the continued failure to differentiate between the vastly different circumstances very boring....

Interesting post munky. I find the last paragraph particularly so. If we accept your argument then there is no way to prevent such defaults except by state ownership of banks. I disagree.

For many years since the Marine Fire and Auto Insurance collapse in the 1960's with another fraudster in charge Dr Emile Savundra a system if self regulation has covered insurance in the UK. The British Insurance scheme which is independent of government, has ensured a fund is available to rescue any insurance collapses in the UK. There has never been a call on public funds in any insurance failure since.

This is what the banks must achieve IMO. We need a properly structured, self regulating system in place agreed by all the banks and paid for by the banks. We then meed a bail out fund agreed by all the banks and paid for by the banks but held separately from the banks, which builds up each year to be big enough to resolve any failure of an individual bank.

If the banks cannot be trusted not to overtrade then the banks cannot continue in business. Their regulation must be their problem. My concern is to get the understanding of the problems, into the open and change the system, so that it is, largely self regulating. That must be the first step to real progress.

Turning to sidicks comments that the reality is:

1) Traders trying to manipulate Libor submissions for profit - this was reported to the FSA in 2008 and of which Diamond was obviously aware (and has not claimed otherwise)

2) Potential under quoting of Libor during the credit crunch where it appears that following a conversation of Diamond's with the FSA which was relayed to the Libor submitter, subsequent Libor submissions may have been reduced.

Then my position is simple. My interpretation is that Bob Diamond and a number of other directors at Barclays, knew full well, about both the Libor manipulation and the Libor reductions at the time of the events. They thought it would go unnoticed. It has not. Goodbye Barclays board and hello SFO.

I am no fan of the SFO or the FSA or acronyms but this mess is entirely the responsibility of the Bankers and the Banks. No one else. I think GB and Darling were pretty hopeless, the FSA was supine and the BofE totally ineffective, But only one group bears primary responsible for this. The bankers. That us why self regulation, paid for by the banks and bankers is essential.

I started this thread because, I could not believe the nonsense being put forward as reasons for bank failures. The reasons are that the banks made a series of bigger and bigger mistakes and tried to hide them. The markets lost confidence, and the banks were right on the point of collapse and were rescued by the taxpayer who was never consulted. As yet the Taxpayer remains out of pocket. But for the Taxpayer there would be no banks.

The bankers have to come up with a plan to sort this. They have, currently, got the FSA, BofE, MP's and half the city of london running around like headless chickens trying to ensure that they can prevent the madness being repeated. This is completely wrong. The banks want to trade. Let them first provide a process which ensures this can never happen again.

If the banks cannot do that, then they cannot continue, Make the banks be respobsible for their own future, That is the way forward.

Isn't that why there are various rules and why the SFO is currently investigating the situation which could lead to criminal prosecutions?

You forget the other professions - car sales, insurance, drug co's, oil co's, estate agents....

Perhaps the Daily Mail are using this as some sort of Equaliser/Harry Brown hit list.

If I were a car salesman I'd be papping my pants and getting out of Dodge now

Where is the evidence that BD did know?

OK so there is no evidence just a culpability for the actions of your staff as the 'buck stops with you'. Fair enough but it wont be enough to hit him hard.

Ineffective internal and external governance, culture, human nature, political pressures, greed, world wide 'its the way it is', exaggerated and inaccurate reporting.....is more to blame than any individual.