Jag82 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Just googled the BBA......and guess what......this is how their board is made up.... How are we governed? The BBA is governed by the Board, which meets 4 times per year and comprises the BBA Chief Executive and the Chief Executives of the largest banks operating in the UK, both retail, wholesale and from overseas. The Board represents the whole of the BBA membership. In addition to this the BBA Council meets twice yearly. The BBA Board is made up of senior executives from: Barclays Bank plc BNP Paribas Citibank NA Credit Suisse Deutsche Bank AG Hampshire Trust plc HSBC Bank plc J.P. Morgan Europe Limited Lloyds Banking Group Santander UK plc Standard Chartered Bank The Royal Bank of Scotland plc So i guess we can see why they wont be in a rush for any criminal proceedings. If I rob a bank I'll get to spend 14 yrs in HMP Gartree (without conjugal visits) If the banks rob me , The Government loans them my money at 1% so that they can lend it back to me at 5%, no prison time, no conjugal visit required because they have already had all our trousers down. Don't ya just love unfettered neoliberal laissez-faire capitalism ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 A must read by CH4 blog.... http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-anatomy-of-a-banking-scandal/10849 The claim “The authorities, the regulators – they are there in order to regulate these issues…they are the ones who supervise what is actually undertaken. That is where the responsibility lies.” Angela Knight, Chief Executive, British Bankers’ Association The background Much of the discussion surrounding today’s revelations about Barclays’ involvement in a rate-fixing scandal has focussed on the weakness of banking regulation. Barclays has been fined a total of £290m for letting its traders manipulate the Libor and Euribor interbank lending rates to suit the bank’s trading positions. The high street giant is one of 16 banks who tell the compilers of Libor the rate at which they are prepared to lend to other banks every morning. An average is taken and the overall rate is seen as a key indicator of health in the global markets. Between 2005 and 2009 Barclays gave false information about their real borrowing rates in a bid to mask their financial problems. Now George Osborne has wholesale reform of the banking regulation system is needed, and criminal investigations could follow. The Chancellor also blamed the “light-touch” style of regulation favoured by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and then City Minister Ed Balls for the failure to crack down on the abuse. The British Bankers Association (BBA) – the trade association which publishes Libor - said it had launched a review into how Libor is set, adding: “As part of this review we will now be asking the authorities to consider in what manner the Libor-setting mechanism should be regulated in the future.” Despite the BBA’s apparent ownership of the Libor brand, outgoing chief executive Angela Knight appeared to shift the blame to other “authorities” and “regulators” when interviewed by Channel 4 News today. But all this talk of inadequate regulation ignores the fact that the BBA was actively monitoring Libor throughout the period when the wrongdoing took place. The analysis The Wall Street Journal first broke this story in April 2008. The newspaper reported: “In a development that has implications for borrowers everywhere…bankers and traders are expressing concerns that the London inter-bank offered rate, known as Libor, is becoming unreliable.” The implications of the world’s most trusted interest rate losing its credibility were “actually kind of frightening if you really sit and think about it”, one mortage banker told the paper. Indeed. Questions about Libor had actually been raised as far back as November 2007 at a Bank of England meeting with bank chiefs, and it seemed clear to everyone at the time that it was the BBA that was responsible for putting its house in order. BBA spokesman John Ewan said the trade group was already monitoring the situation in early 2008 and would bring forward an internal review, saying: “We want to ensure that our rates are as accurate as possible, so we are closely watching the rates banks contribute.” And no wonder. By now independent economists had begun to come up with analysis that showed there was evidence of jiggery-pokery. A 2008 study by the Bank for International Settlements concluded that Libor rates could “be manipulated if contributor banks collude or if a sufficient number change their behaviour. At around the same time, a study commissioned by the government found “little evidence of manipulation” by banks. But by August of that year three US economists published this paper, using sophisticated analysis to find evidence of “questionable patterns” where the Libor rate, again, had not behaved as you would expect it to under normal market conditions. What was the BBA doing during this period? On 17 April 2008 a spokesman said the association was conducting a review of Libor and working closely with the Bank of England on the matter. He added that the BBA would strictly enforce the rules and remove banks who had submitted inaccurate figures from the panel of 16. But there was no independent oversight: the review would be carried internally by BBA investigators who would remain anonymous. In May of that year Mr Ewan said he had interviewed banks, hedge funds and academics as part of the review. The BBA initially said it would not be making any major changes to the Libor system, then suddenly hinted that it would increase the panel of banks reporting their borrowing costs in the biggest shake-up for a decade, saying: “The changes will boost the confidence of its many users.” But two months later there was another change of heart, with the BBA rejecting several radical proposals designed to ensure accuracy. The panel of 16 would remain unchanged. But the association did promise to improve its scrutiny of the rates submitted by banks. Banks’ input would be “actively monitored every day” and a BBA committee would meet every month to review questionable quotes. Despite these assurances, in September 2008 accusations of inaccuracy flared up again after analysts noticed that borrowing rates for a US Federal Reserve auction were much higher than Libor, in defiance of all market logic. BBA spokeswoman Lesley McLeod insisted: “Libor is accurate. It is constantly monitored and currently reflects the extreme market volatility present in these unprecedented circumstances.” The verdict We’ve got to take issue with Angela Knight’s suggestion that the responsibility for this scandal lies elsewhere. When suggestions of rate-rigging first surfaced years ago, along with widespread suspicion among bankers and academics, the BBA made no attempt to shift the blame to others. The association clearly knew about market misgivings about the veracity of the Libor rates as early as November 2007. Throughout 2008 the BBA promised investors it was monitoring the information supplied by banks closely. There were no revelations of wrongdoing – and no suggestion that it was anyone else’s responsibility to supervise Libor. The trade body promised to monitor the situation on a daily basis, but failed to undercover wrongdoing that we now know was rife at Barclays. The BBA professed to be “shocked” at the report into wrongdoing at Barclays today, but the long history of its involvement in this scandal makes that difficult to believe. The cover ups and deletions of emails will be vast..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 'Question Time' might be intersting tonight.... (BBC1 10.35pm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Sorry, duplicate post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The question is 'What is the FIGURE the fine is FOR?' We will never know this. Taken this from 'The Scope': 'The number of parties potentially damaged is staggering, encompassing much of the World's financial system, given that something in the neighbourhood of $350 TRILLION Dollars in transactions are callibrated to Libor and Euribor. Lending rates determine contract rates for individual mortgages to interest rate swaps, corporate loans, and virtually anything else that varies according to the current cost of money.' And this: 'Large Investors (like Pension Funds) who may have invested in bundled mortgage bonds, (Derivatives) would have received a lower return, if mortgage rates were artificially depressed. There are already murmerings of class actions to sue the banks for Damages.' So if you've just been offered a crap pension annuity on your hard earned savings, now you know why. And why we're all going to have to work until you're 68 (soon to be upped again...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saunaman Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 If we don't like the bankers' behaviour , we could always vote with our feet ( see ads at side and bottom of thread!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 For once I am in agreement with Ed Miliband, if there is a possibility of bringing criminal charges, it should be pursued. It may be difficult to prove, but it would at least put more pressure on Diamond to resign. Is it time banking executives had to be licensed, with the threat of withdrawing their licence (effectively banning them from the banking industry sector) when bad practice occurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Dr. Lional Hill, World Inovation Federarion: "This time our politicians have to 'fully' take to task these bankers who have thought for a very long time that they are above domestic and international law. This time, if they just get a slap on the wrist as usual, our political system is completely corrupt also. Let's just see this time if they are all hand in glove." Well, let's see... Bob Diamond has just announced he is not resigning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJRB Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 A must read by CH4 blog.... http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-anatomy-of-a-banking-scandal/10849 The claim “The authorities, the regulators – they are there in order to regulate these issues…they are the ones who supervise what is actually undertaken. That is where the responsibility lies.” Angela Knight, Chief Executive, British Bankers’ Association This sounds as plausible as a criminal laying the blame for his crime on the police for failing to regulate his behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Has any criminal law been broken, or is it just a matter of financial regulations? I'm not a lawyer (and I don't fancy my chances against Barclay's lawyers either!), but many financial regulations are criminal & can lead to people spending time in jail. There are a few laws to protect against market manipulation & fraud. People have been sent to prison for running price fixing cartels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.