£290 mill in fines, what do bankers have to do go to prison?
Discussion
How much did they actually make out of it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18612279
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18612279
Edited by Adrian W on Wednesday 27th June 15:43
Peston - "It's quite hard to think of behaviour by a bank as shocking as this: not telling the truth about what it is costing you to borrow, that then becomes a benchmark for pricing other deals."
Sums it up quite nicely. I really think a 10 year plus prison sentance is justified for behaviour like this and its probably the only deterent as they have almost certainly made more out of the scam than the fines amount to.
Sums it up quite nicely. I really think a 10 year plus prison sentance is justified for behaviour like this and its probably the only deterent as they have almost certainly made more out of the scam than the fines amount to.
Soovy said:
I would imagine that prison sentences will be handed out shortly.
Varley will not now be Governor of the Bank of England, I wouldn't have thought.
Probably just the traders/managers involved. It's a bit of dilemma in the sense that their [submitters] job is to 'fix' the price. Of course the collusion bit is the serious offence. And PR-wise it's a disaster.Varley will not now be Governor of the Bank of England, I wouldn't have thought.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/shocking-details-bar...
iii. On Monday, 13 March 2006, the following email exchange took place:
Trader C: “The big day [has] arrived… My NYK are screaming at me about an unchanged 3m libor. As always, any help wd be greatly appreciated. What do you think you’ll go for 3m?”
Submitter: “I am going 90 altho 91 is what I should be posting”.
Trader C: “[…] when I retire and write a book about this business your name will be written in golden letters […]”.
Submitter: “I would prefer this [to] not be in any book!”
Edited by fido on Wednesday 27th June 16:45
sorry, just imagining newspaper headlines in keeping with the current popular opinion of bankers.
the debate is hindered by the inability of most people to tell the difference between bankers (people who work for banks, probably quite reasonable, normal and nice people) and banks (f
ked up organisations).
the debate is hindered by the inability of most people to tell the difference between bankers (people who work for banks, probably quite reasonable, normal and nice people) and banks (f
ked up organisations). 
Use Psychology said:
sorry, just imagining newspaper headlines in keeping with the current popular opinion of bankers.
the debate is hindered by the inability of most people to tell the difference between bankers (people who work for banks, probably quite reasonable, normal and nice people) and banks (fked up organisations).
I'm having a little trouble with this, people manipulated the rates not organisations, however it does seem that people are immune from any consequences from their direct actions, in any other industry arrests would have been madethe debate is hindered by the inability of most people to tell the difference between bankers (people who work for banks, probably quite reasonable, normal and nice people) and banks (f
ked up organisations). Adrian W said:
I'm having a little trouble with this, people manipulated the rates not organisations, however it does seem that people are immune from any consequences from their direct actions, in any other industry arrests would have been made
Not that immune. Most are no longer employed, and those that are, only due to ongoing investigations, are now in the midst of a rather large arse feeling.On top of that I would not be surprised if legal proceedings were to soon follow on an individual basis from the regulators.
VinceFox said:
Can someone give me a potted down "newsround" version of this?
Libor and Euribor are set buy asking a bunch of banks "how much would you pay for an interbank loan at 11am today?" The 'setters' answer this Q.Some of the banks' business (revenues from derivaives, swaps etc) may more profitable depending on Libor.
So some traders at Barclays would ask the team of 'setters' to set the quote lower than the real value because it was advantageous for their trades.
Basically, artificially setting Libor in collusion (it seems ) with other banks.
It is naughty.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff