|
whoami
7,059 posts
109 months
|
Steffan said: I rather thought you might.
The technicalities of banking are not my concern. The obvious misfeance, deliberate dishonesty and repeated revelations of wholesale international abuse in banking on a monumental scale do concern me.
The latest revelations of the circumstances at Standard Chartered are just that. The latest set of disastrous details. Before that within the last few weeks we have had the Libor revelations, the HSBC revelations, the PPI revelations, and so on. Time after time after time.
These problems can only be addressed by creating a profitable, controlled disciplined and trusted banking sector. The challenge is to address the problems and create a controlled and disciplined banking sector. Excusing the misfeance will only prolong the problems. It's misfeasance 
|
|
|
davepoth
19,862 posts
68 months
|
whoami said: It's misfeasance No, misfeance is a word. George W Bush made it up... 
|
|
|
whoami
7,059 posts
109 months
|
davepoth said: whoami said: It's misfeasance No, misfeance is a word. George W Bush made it up... Many thanks for your clarificationing
|
|
|
groak
3,254 posts
48 months
|
whoami said: davepoth said: whoami said: It's misfeasance No, misfeance is a word. George W Bush made it up... Many thanks for your clarificationing 'MALfeasance' is the more cultured version of the term.
|
|
|
whoami
7,059 posts
109 months
|
groak said: whoami said: davepoth said: whoami said: It's misfeasance No, misfeance is a word. George W Bush made it up... Many thanks for your clarificationing 'MALfeasance' is the more cultured version of the term. They have different meanings.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
johnfm
9,002 posts
119 months
|
Steffan said: johnfm said: I cannot believe I didn't short STAN yesterday when the story hit the papers.
Dropped 24% (about 340 points) so far - would have been a very nice few grand.
Still, good opportunity to buy soon I reckon. No way will the fines and loss of business be as much as 23% of its worth - unless the yanks get really stupid. Interesting that you defend the losses and fines on the basis that the business can afford them. Unless the Americans " Get really stupid". Your approach underlines the real problem with this banking business. Honesty in all business requires the business to make every effort to comply with the laws governing the transactions. Particularly international banking business where transactions are cross border and inevitably require detailed and precise reporting. By law. Honesty does NOT involve seeing what you can get away with and deliberately misleading and hiding transactions, with criminal intent. That is simple dishonesty. The fact that you cannot seem to distinguish between those two different approaches is not a defence to the dishonesty. Or even a plea in mitigation. I think you may find extremely serious consequences to the bank concerned. I suspect the authorities may consider revoking the banking licence. In which case, game over. Steffan, you presume that laws and regulations devised in Washington, or NYC or London or Beijing or elsewhere are some inviolable axioms, to be accepted without question. Well guess what; many of them are politically motivated (you've heard of political lobbying haven't you?), poorly thought out, poorly drafted and generate more unintended consequences than I've had hot dinners. You are free to pontificate about what YOU think the laws should or shouldn't be etc. Any business and its owners will, every day, take decisions designed solely to operate within a fag paper of the letter of the law as advised by a coterie of well paid accountants and lawyers, constantly trying to stay one step ahead of law makers (who clearly have shares in ink and paper manufacturers, printers and book binders). So, while you choose to side with the DFS in NYC, or the FSA or Vince Cable, I choose to side with the lawyers, the facts and the evidence. I don't think you (or I) or 99.9% of the UK financial journalists have a clue about what SCB have been doing. If the farcical showboating duing the LIBOR issue is anything to go by, I guess the journalist don't know much. I do think, however, that the intent of US authorities to try to undermine London's position at the top of world finance is crystal clear.
|
|
|
Steffan
Original Poster
6,178 posts
97 months
|
johnfm said: Steffan said: johnfm said: I cannot believe I didn't short STAN yesterday when the story hit the papers.
Dropped 24% (about 340 points) so far - would have been a very nice few grand.
Still, good opportunity to buy soon I reckon. No way will the fines and loss of business be as much as 23% of its worth - unless the yanks get really stupid. Interesting that you defend the losses and fines on the basis that the business can afford them. Unless the Americans " Get really stupid". Your approach underlines the real problem with this banking business. Honesty in all business requires the business to make every effort to comply with the laws governing the transactions. Particularly international banking business where transactions are cross border and inevitably require detailed and precise reporting. By law. Honesty does NOT involve seeing what you can get away with and deliberately misleading and hiding transactions, with criminal intent. That is simple dishonesty. The fact that you cannot seem to distinguish between those two different approaches is not a defence to the dishonesty. Or even a plea in mitigation. I think you may find extremely serious consequences to the bank concerned. I suspect the authorities may consider revoking the banking licence. In which case, game over. Steffan, you presume that laws and regulations devised in Washington, or NYC or London or Beijing or elsewhere are some inviolable axioms, to be accepted without question. Well guess what; many of them are politically motivated (you've heard of political lobbying haven't you?), poorly thought out, poorly drafted and generate more unintended consequences than I've had hot dinners. You are free to pontificate about what YOU think the laws should or shouldn't be etc. Any business and its owners will, every day, take decisions designed solely to operate within a fag paper of the letter of the law as advised by a coterie of well paid accountants and lawyers, constantly trying to stay one step ahead of law makers (who clearly have shares in ink and paper manufacturers, printers and book binders). So, while you choose to side with the DFS in NYC, or the FSA or Vince Cable, I choose to side with the lawyers, the facts and the evidence. I don't think you (or I) or 99.9% of the UK financial journalists have a clue about what SCB have been doing. If the farcical showboating duing the LIBOR issue is anything to go by, I guess the journalist don't know much. I do think, however, that the intent of US authorities to try to undermine London's position at the top of world finance is crystal clear. We disagree. I actually appreciate the argument in your last paragraph. I think anyone in business must be aware that the USA looks after the USA. I do not disagree that there could be an underlying jealousy pervading the USA attitude. However I think your other comments suffer from the same defect as the arguments of most of the other supporters of banking, in that you simply refuse to recognise and face the real problems, but concentrate on the one element where there may be a slim chance of some possible argument. It is a debating technique that I recognise. But it fails to recognise and admit that the rest of the criticism being made is correct. You seek to defuse the impact of the condemnation without admitting that the criticism is substantially correct. And clearly provides evidence of deliberate law breaking by banks. Thus you ignore the fact that HSBC only a few weeks ago was massively fined for money laundering. By the same country. These problems are endemic in the banking sector currently, have been deliberately hidden for years, but must now be faced and dealt with effectively. I favour the change to prevent this kind if abuse. I cannot see how any trust will remain in banking if things go on as they have been.
|
|
|
johnfm
9,002 posts
119 months
|
Steffan said: We disagree. I actually appreciate the argument in your last paragraph. I think anyone in business must be aware that the USA looks after the USA. I do not disagree that there could be an underlying jealousy pervading the USA attitude.
However I think your other comments suffer from the same defect as the arguments of most of the other supporters of banking, in that you simply refuse to recognise and face the real problems, but concentrate on the one element where there may be a slim chance of some possible argument.
It is a debating technique that I recognise. But it fails to recognise and admit that the rest of the criticism being made is correct. You seek to defuse the impact of the condemnation without admitting that the criticism is substantially correct. And clearly provides evidence of deliberate law breaking by banks.
Thus you ignore the fact that HSBC only a few weeks ago was massively fined for money laundering. By the same country. These problems are endemic in the banking sector currently, have been deliberately hidden for years, but must now be faced and dealt with effectively.
I favour the change to prevent this kind if abuse. I cannot see how any trust will remain in banking if things go on as they have been. Your train of thought seems to be: bank is fined-->bank must have broken the law---->bank must have done it knowingly--->all banks are dishonest It breaks down in the very first link. Like the decisions they make to do business in certain ways and risk a fine, they (and all business faced with regulatory or commercial disputes) will take a view whether paying a fine is in the long run cheaper than fighting a charge in court. The second link is one that also fails scrutiny. You think any breach of regulation is either intentional or negligent. There are countless instances in many business sectors when where a regulation being broken or not broken hinges on interpretation of one of the many thousands of rules. You are debating using sweeping generalisations - I 'concentrate on the one element where there may be a slim chance of some possible argument' because I am not debating 'are all bankers in every bank dishonest criminals' - which seems to be your proposition. My proposition is 'a small number of reported bank investigations or charges relative to the number of banks, departments and annual transactions does not suggest this banking business is out of control. To put it another way, one swallow does not a summer make. You may counter with 'there is no smoke without fire'...
|
|
|
AyBee
5,212 posts
71 months
|
davepoth said: Scandal yes, but not of this order. $250bn. Just think about that. Two hundred and fifty billion dollars. Over 10 years and 60,000 transactions for a bank that processes $190bn daily, it really doesn't sound like that much!
|
|
|
davepoth
19,862 posts
68 months
|
AyBee said: davepoth said: Scandal yes, but not of this order. $250bn. Just think about that. Two hundred and fifty billion dollars. Over 10 years and 60,000 transactions for a bank that processes $190bn daily, it really doesn't sound like that much! But that $190bn is just swirling around - they probably handle the "same" money dozens of times a day. It's a bit like when the London Underground reports over a billion passengers a year, when they actually mean that a billion journeys were taken, but when a single person can easily make 4,000 journeys a year (two tube trains each way a day, five days a week, 200 days a year), you realise that the actual number of people is much, much lower. It only starts to mean something when the money comes out at the other end as a deposit, as it does in this case in Tehran.
|
|
|
Voight Kampff
1,107 posts
29 months
|
Guam said: I seem to recall a number of years ago, Economists banging on about the Iranian/US issue being rooted in the fact that Iran was trying to move the Oil business into the Euro and away from the USD which would have had huge implications for the US financial system, due to its pre-eminence as a reserve currency. I think the argument made, was that there was real danger of bankrupting the US if it was successful.
Hopefully those in the know can put some flesh on the bones.
One does wonder if true, whether this is driven by that conceptually, rather than by sanction busting motives? Hence Obama continually bringing up the euro problems, throwing s  t at it and hoping enough will stick. People say that Saddam's desire to shift away from USD was the real reason for American hostility. There must be a study that suggests how reliant the U.S is on having their currency as the predominant reserve?
|
|
|
Voight Kampff
1,107 posts
29 months
|
|
|
1point7bar
1,091 posts
17 months
|
Global liquidity does rely to some extent on the SWIFT system.
Using this system for anything other than this purpose can easily become political
control of capital.
I think some nations may look for options.
|
|
|
groak
3,254 posts
48 months
|
davepoth said: ...... but when a single person can easily make 4,000 journeys a year (two tube trains each way a day, five days a week, 200 days a year)....... There's something bankerish about that calculation, is there not?
|
|
|
AyBee
5,212 posts
71 months
|
davepoth said: AyBee said: davepoth said: Scandal yes, but not of this order. $250bn. Just think about that. Two hundred and fifty billion dollars. Over 10 years and 60,000 transactions for a bank that processes $190bn daily, it really doesn't sound like that much! But that $190bn is just swirling around - they probably handle the "same" money dozens of times a day. It's a bit like when the London Underground reports over a billion passengers a year, when they actually mean that a billion journeys were taken, but when a single person can easily make 4,000 journeys a year (two tube trains each way a day, five days a week, 200 days a year), you realise that the actual number of people is much, much lower. It only starts to mean something when the money comes out at the other end as a deposit, as it does in this case in Tehran. True, but do you know that both numbers were not calculated on the same basis?
|
|
|
Art0ir
3,534 posts
39 months
|
Standard Chartered said: Standard Chartered PLC (the "Group") refers to the order which it received today from one of its regulators, the New York State Department of Financial Services ("DFS") and which it placed on the RNS. The Group strongly rejects the position or the portrayal of facts as set out in the order issued by the DFS. The Group had previously reported that it is conducting a review of its historical compliance and is discussing that review with US agencies, including the DFS, the Department of Justice, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Federal Reserve Group of New York and the District Attorney of New York. The disclosure appears in our Annual Results of 2010, 2011 and, again most recently, in the 2012 Interim Results in the Risk Review section at p.21 under Regulatory Changes and Compliance. In January 2010, the Group voluntarily approached all relevant US agencies, including the DFS, and informed them that we had initiated a review of historical US dollar transactions and their compliance with US sanctions. This review focused primarily on transactions relating to Iran in the period 2001-2007, and in particular, their compliance with the U-turn framework established by the US authorities to enable ongoing US dollar trade with Iran by other countries. This review was conducted by external counsel and external consultants. The Group waived its attorney-client and work product privileges to ensure that all the US agencies would receive all relevant information. The Group also gave regular updates and presentations to the DFS and the other agencies on the results of the Group’s investigation. The materials included several thousands of pages of documents and interview notes, plus analysis of approximately 150 million payment messages. The Group does not believe the order issued by the DFS presents a full and accurate picture of the facts. The analysis, that the Group shared with all the US agencies, demonstrates that throughout the period the Group acted to comply, and overwhelmingly did comply, with US sanctions and the regulations relating to U-turn payments. As we have disclosed to the authorities, well over 99.9% of the transactions relating to Iran complied with the U-turn regulations. The total value of transactions which did not follow the U-turn was under $14m. The Group believes that the interpretation reflected in the DFS’ order, of the U-Turn exemption — a federal regulation administered and enforced by federal authorities — is incorrect as a matter of law. The Group’s review of its Iranian payments also did not identify a single payment on behalf of any party that was designated at the time by the US Government as a terrorist entity or organization. Standard Chartered ceased all new business with Iranian customers in any currency over five years ago. The Group has made presentations to the DFS and other US agencies concerning the strength of its global sanctions compliance programme during the period under review and through to the present day. The Group is engaged in ongoing discussions with the relevant US agencies. Resolution of such matters normally proceeds through a co-ordinated approach by such agencies. The Group was therefore surprised to receive the order from the DFS, given that discussions with the agencies were ongoing. We intend to discuss these matters with the DFS and to contest their position. The Group takes its responsibilities very seriously, and seeks to comply at all times with the relevant laws and regulations. It is in this spirit we initiated this review and have engaged with the US agencies. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-standard-ch...
|
|
|
davepoth
19,862 posts
68 months
|
AyBee said: True, but do you know that both numbers were not calculated on the same basis? Because the statement by the New York Authorities relates to remittances, specifically the Central Bank of Iran asking SCB to clear oil revenues for them. Churning the money around the financial system wouldn't have been illegal under the rules, just sending money to Iran.
|
|
|
Steffan
Original Poster
6,178 posts
97 months
|
It would appear there are three pleas in banking.
Not guilty, Guilty and I am very sorry. The third one being sufficient to establish innocence in all things banking wise.
We will have to wait and see what the results are in this. I do hope the bank remains relatively unscathed. I rather doubt that it will.
|
|
|
djstevec
2,034 posts
43 months
|
US Fed don't seem too happy with the DFS approach or public "grandstanding" by Mr Lawsky either.
"US federal regulators were surprised by New York state's stunning charges that Standard Chartered Bank illegally laundered $250 billion for Iranian banks, The New York Times reported Wednesday."
"The charges by the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) Monday that the London-based bank hid the transactions, violating US sanctions on Tehran, were not endorsed by the US Justice Department, the Federal Reserve, and the US Treasury, the Times said."
"Citing unnamed sources, the Times said that Treasury Department officials believe as well that many of the transactions, while questionable, "were not necessarily illegal." Moreover, both the Justice Department and the Fed had still been reviewing the evidence and had not decided on whether to bring charges."
"Some Treasury Department officials, while still reviewing the transactions, suspect that Mr. Lawsky has taken too broad a view, according to people briefed on the matter. The officials think that some of the transactions, though perhaps questionable, were not necessarily illegal."
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,253 posts
134 months
|
Britain's problem is that UK Regulators are ineffective.
The US's problem is that there are too many regulators all playing "Look at how tough I am" against their regulatory rivals.
|
|
