UBS - One Billion

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Do YOU defend the actions of the corrupt and evil banking industry?

I have in the past defended some actions of the banking industry, but not those actions that I state in this thread, big difference.

Some of the activities that have taken place are indefensible - few people would argue against that, and few would try and defend the individuals that carried out those actions.

However, continually talking about the industry being corrupt, rather than a small proportion of the people within the industry, is pure idiotic rhetoric.

Fair enough, but with the continuing trickle of news regarding bad practice within the industry it hardly covers the industry in rose petals. LIBOR when this corruption became public knowledge it was stated by many to be insignificant and just a few banks affected, as stated earlier by another poster,this was wholly wrong and much more serious. Many different aspects of malpractice continue to trickle out including the insurance selling scandal. Root and branch reform would not be required within an industry that would be seen to be anything other than rotten. Of course we all know that many individuals are honest and hard-working, sadly they work within an industry far removed from those persons ethics. The small proportion of people you mention as corrupt appear to be those that were movers and shakers whilst others being sales people. You can't polish a turd.

Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 19th December 16:27

[OdramaSwimLaden]

Newc said:

"Hi - is that UBS? SEC here. We're just wondering if you would like to continue to operate in the US and offer services to US residents and receive money from US institutional investors ?"

"Er, yes"

"Great. That'll be a fine of $1bn then please. Cheque to the usual address."

Nicely put....

[OdramaSwimLaden]

shoestring7 said:

Except £1B is a week's pocket money for UBS>

SS7

In the good days it might be closer to the truth; in todays markets it's a kick in the teeth that will hurt them.

[Eric Mc]

sidicks said:

Eric Mc said:

So - were these serial "misdemeanours" the result of the behaviour of a few "bad'uns" or are they symptomatic of a particular culture prevelant in the industry?

The number of people involved in Libor fixing is probably measured in 'tens'.

The number of people involved in the banking industry is probably measured in 'tens of thousands'.

You 'do the math'....

I wasn't just talking about LIBOR matters. The banks have been found to be involved in other misdemeanours, such as misselling. And the people involved in misselling numbered in the thousands, not tens.
An outfit misbehaves because of a bad culture - not because of bad people. The culture was wrong.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

trickywoo said:

I think they have yes. There is a pretty strong banking contingent on here that shout ignorance of everyone bar themselves as a defense of many of the ills of modern banking practice.

I don't really have the time to find them but I've seen lots of posts in the early days of the scandal implying that if it did go on the percentages involved were so small they didn't affect the public and it was just a bit of fun.

I think you'll find that the actions of the traders were severely criticised - the practice was certainly NOT defended - but that it was explained that the impact on end customers was likely to be small (as there were plenty of misleading claims that customers had incurred billions of losses because of the fixing).

trickywoo said:

I personally find the no consequence attitude to risk which has been adopted by the industry repulsive.

Oh, I see, another idiot who is unable to differentiate between 'the industry' and a small proportion of people within the industry...

maybe these excerpts from the loooooong banking thread may help those with memory failings,

djstevec said:

Steffan said:

It would seem we agree that Barclays "are culpable". It would seem that your concern is that no comment should be made until after the trials. I think the outright dishonesty of Barclays and the banking sector currently, requires immediate comment now. Hence this post.

You may be correct in the detail. But a fraud of £85 million in a British bank is a disgrace quite sufficient, to warrant immediate comment and action.

If that offends your sensibilities, then so be it. Fraud offends mine. Particularly fraud in high office by very wealthy individuals. There is no excuse. This misfeance is ruining the banking sector steadily in the UK. It is in all our interests that this is stopped NOW.

If serious fraud has been found to have occurred, then they will be prosecuted in line with the law and yes, likely imprisoned and Im sure you'll be happy. BUT let the authorities deal with this, in a criminal or civil case, then if you feel the outcome isnt harsh enough, then spout off some more.

djstevec said:

If Barclays decision to lower its LIBOR submissions stopped a public run on the retail side and/or a freezing of other institutions lending to it, leading to a bigger RBS style bailout and the obvious knock on effect to taxpayers and the wider economy, then I don't have too much of a problem with how they handled that.

Traders collusion is a different matter.

Murph7355 said:

Eric Mc said:

Sometimes a nation has to decide whether it is prepared to tolerate wrongdoing in its major institutions or not.

Are we supposed to accept wrong or criminal behaviour at the top as long as it delivers economic benefits?

Do economic benefits trump moral responsibility?

You're using the word "criminal" again without any proof that this was. If it was, then no, we should not go to those lengths.

turbobloke said:

Eric Mc said:

I have little confidence in the SFO making anything stick. They have been singularly unsuccessful in many of their cases.

Or, there might not be any or sufficient evidence. But let's not consider that, when certain minds can be made up without evidence. Then again there may be prosecutions.

turbobloke said:

People are however saying and on a regular basis that those guilty of either regulatory breaches or indeed breaking the law (if it happened) should be dealt with accordingly, while not tarring the entire planetary banking executive or employee roster with the same brush, lacking evidence for this beyond an apparent personal distaste for the profession which is not the same thing at all.

I dont think the banking "defenders" were ignoring potentially unlawful activity at all, maybe just allow due process to be undertaken BEFORE the hangings.

[shoestring7]

OdramaSwimLaden said:

shoestring7 said:

Except £1B is a week's pocket money for UBS>

SS7

In the good days it might be closer to the truth; in todays markets it's a kick in the teeth that will hurt them.

From what I can see their share value has increased by 30% in the past 6 months.

SS7

[eccles]

The other point which has been mentioned on a few news shows was that so far all the scandals involving banks don't seem to be costing many board members their jobs....

[loafer123]

eccles said:

The other point which has been mentioned on a few news shows was that so far all the scandals involving banks don't seem to be costing many board members their jobs....

Presumably because the scandals all happened when previous board's were in place?

[OdramaSwimLaden]

shoestring7 said:

OdramaSwimLaden said:

shoestring7 said:

Except £1B is a week's pocket money for UBS>

SS7

In the good days it might be closer to the truth; in todays markets it's a kick in the teeth that will hurt them.

From what I can see their share value has increased by 30% in the past 6 months.

SS7

More to do with the fact they have announced they are shedding 10k jobs, major internal restructuring and getting rid of their Fixed Income desk entirely; if you're suggesting that a $1Bn fine won't be felt or that it has somehow increased their share price, you are wrong on both counts.

To put the £1Bn fine into persepctive they announced £560m group profits in the first quarter of 2012.

Will it finish them off; no, of course it wont. I just hope the authorities go after the fkers on a personal level and string them up....

[Driller]

Eric Mc said:

sidicks said:

Eric Mc said:

So - were these serial "misdemeanours" the result of the behaviour of a few "bad'uns" or are they symptomatic of a particular culture prevelant in the industry?

The number of people involved in Libor fixing is probably measured in 'tens'.

The number of people involved in the banking industry is probably measured in 'tens of thousands'.

You 'do the math'....

I wasn't just talking about LIBOR matters. The banks have been found to be involved in other misdemeanours, such as misselling. And the people involved in misselling numbered in the thousands, not tens.
An outfit misbehaves because of a bad culture - not because of bad people. The culture was wrong.

[Ozzie Osmond]

sidicks said:

the relatively few rogues that undertake inappropriate and in some cases crinimal activities which may have significant financial impact.

Unfortunately the rogues are in the bardrooms and manage,ment structure. Hence the whole industry tainted by their activities.

Mind you, I don't believe for one second that it's just a few rogues. Every trader involved in rate fixing must have known exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it. Just like every salesperson who was pulling the wool with PPI.

[whoami]

sidicks said:

The number of people involved in Libor fixing is probably measured in 'tens'.

Extremely doubtful.

[chrisp59]

This question has probably been asked before. Who collects the fines and what do they do with the money?

[anonymous-user]

chrisp59 said:

This question has probably been asked before. Who collects the fines and what do they do with the money?

FSA has the authority to fine the banks, and upto mid last year fines were kept by the FSA to reduce the fees paid by other banks the following year, the Treasury now take the fines instead.

[Eric Mc]

And because they are not official "legal" fines, they are fully tax deductible. So, essentially, the fine is around 80% of the full amount levied.

[GnuBee]

Eric Mc said:

An outfit misbehaves because of a bad culture - not because of bad people. The culture was wrong.

The problem is has anything changed? Rather than "The culture was wrong" is there not more than a faint whiff of "The culture is wrong".

You can't expect to change the culture when the biggest stick you can wave is a fine which to us as mere mortals appears huge but to an international bank was/is probably considered an acceptable cost of business.

It doesn't matter if the "corruption" is/was confined to only a few, the perception is that the whole industry is morally challenged. Sad to tar all those hard working bankers with the same brush but that's what happens.

[Eric Mc]

It will take time. But atitudes can change. The first thing is to ensure those at the top are setting up procedures and practices which encourage proper and ethical behaviour.

[Skipppy]

The libor mechanism, in it's current form, involves taking a curve of offered rates from 1 month out to 30 years from 16 different banks.

The highest 4 prices in any given tenor are dinged, the lowest 4 prices in any given tenor are dinged. The mean of the remaining 8 are calculated and thus libor is set for that tenor.

I fail to see how one bank can manipulate the rate. If Libor was indeed manipulated, the conclusion is that the majority of them were in it together.

[dodgyviper]

Skipppy said:

The libor mechanism, in it's current form, involves taking a curve of offered rates from 1 month out to 30 years from 16 different banks.

The highest 4 prices in any given tenor are dinged, the lowest 4 prices in any given tenor are dinged. The mean of the remaining 8 are calculated and thus libor is set for that tenor.

I fail to see how one bank can manipulate the rate. If Libor was indeed manipulated, the conclusion is that the majority of them were in it together.

Exactly

I remember when this first kicked off and one of the bank praisers on here demonstrated how this would have raised very little money for the banks involved.

Put this to a dealer chum, and lets just say it wasn't just his socks that got laughed off

[whoami]

It's quite interesting to note that the usual suspects are absent from the thread.