Reply With Quote
Barclay's cooperated. It remains to be seen whether those who didn't get off harder, or easier.
Calculated Deal in a Rate-Rigging Inquiry
The question needs to be faced in the wake of the bank’s admitted efforts to manipulate the London interbank offered rate, known as Libor, the benchmark for countless interest rate determinations and approximately $450 trillion in derivative contracts.
If the Justice Department was looking for a textbook case of white-collar financial crime — including a conspiracy that was flourishing at the height of the financial crisis — this would seem tailor-made. As the facts released by the government make clear, there were two separate but overlapping schemes to manipulate Libor within Barclays. Yet the bank secured a nonprosecution agreement and agreed to pay a penalty of more than $450 million, a comparatively paltry sum for a bank that had more than £32 billion ($50 billion) in revenue in 2011. “The perception so far has been that the regulators have been toothless,” John C. Coffee Jr., professor of law and specialist in white-collar crime at Columbia Law School, told me this week.
Full article
Barclay's cooperated. It remains to be seen whether those who didn't get off harder, or easier.
"The perception so far has been that the regulators have been toothless"
perception?REALITY
Geithner as head of NY Fed new about it 2008. Nothing was done.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...2008_20120713/
$100Bs, $Ts?, to be made by all the conspirators over the years.
Mission Accomplished as corrupt regulators remain passive.
"settlements", "cooperation", to follow. Nobody jailed
Miss you court date with a blood-sucking debt-collector wanting a few $100, you're jailed.
I blame the regulators... Tim Geithner, in particular.
New York Fed knew of Libor cheating in 2008
Say, isn't he a member of Obama's Cabinet?
Sure. He was also the president of the NY Fed during dubya's tenure, when the bulk of this wrongdoing happened... but Geithner wasn't a regulator.
The Federal Reserve Regulates monetary policy. Perhaps you've seen the Chairman of the Fed report on that at Congress. It's kind of a big deal.
And, you're right; I think President Bush was ill-served by Treasury Secretary Paulson in this regard.
US monetary policy. Barclays is a UK bank. The UK has it's own regulators. Geithner did what he was authorized to do back then: write a letter to the director of the central bank of the UK letting him know what was going on.
Don't get me wrong. All these guys are apparently beyond the law anyways.
With foresight, he might have concluded the practice, gone unchecked (as it did), would eventually affect U.S. banks and, perhaps, done something here to reduce our exposure.
I like that you're defensive for the Tax Cheat in Chief, though. It's endearing.
Oh, I haven't gotten you wrong.
Hindsight is 20/20... if you had that kind of insight you wouldn't be wrong all the time... lol cracker for Cain!
I don't think you like it at all... but then again I'm not defending him either. The claim of Geithner wrongdoing is all yours, the burden is on you to back it up with more than "he should've been clairvoyant!!1!1"
I don't have a tie with Geithner, Paulson or any of these guys that were at the helm when this happened.
As President of the New York Fed, he was responsible for discerning the effects of international monetary policies and practices on U.S. monetary policies. He obviously knew there was a problem if, as you say, he reported it to his equivalent in the UK. It's not a large leap to suggest he should have seen nothing happening over there and concluded it would eventually affect the US. But, , he couldn't even operate TurboTax so, I guess you have a point.
I don't believe I was claiming wrongdoing as much claiming incompetence.
He should've known!
Which brings us squarely back to my original point, ing regulators are incompetent yet, this kind of activity always leads to calls for more incompetent regulators.
Thanks for the trip, ElNono.
I don't even think it's incompetence... when you have the big bucks it's simply a way of doing business...
And, more regulation is the answer?
Effective regulation is the answer. It's clear that removing the leash isn't the answer either.
It's equally clear the regulators are part of the problem...a BIG part of the problem.
Banks and lenders are some of the most heavily regulated commercial enterprises in existence and yet, they still manage to up royally.
I know it's a point of political disagreement but, during the Bush administration, he attempted, on several occasions, to introduce controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were persistently and successfully blocked by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and their proxies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The problem isn't with regulation per se. The problem is with how effective the regulation is.
There's currently no incentive for these banks to act within the law, and no safeguards to ensure that they do. It's basically fairly close to a de-regulated situation.
I suspect that until some of their execs start facing jail time, there's no incentive to change their ways. It's patently obvious that meager monetary damages won't get it done.
Well, this was no up. As argued on the article, this was deliberate criminal activity.
Knowing how deeply interconnected the global the financial system is, Geithner had to at least suspect that US banks in his Fed NY backyard were also LIBOR criminals, esp since the big UK (and French, German, Japanese) banks have US/NY operations. But he kept his head down, wrote a letter, and didn't rock the boat (would have been a BAD career move).
I thought the market regulated itself in your fairy tale world?
the financial regulators ARE identical to the regulated financial sector.
Banks and lenders are some of the most heavily regulated commercial enterprises in existence
Your Repug buddies have defeated Warren as CFPB head, and have gutted and defunded financial regulations everywhere they get paid to do it.
they know they are too big to fail, taxapayers have and will bail them out. private gain, public risk. The higher the risk, the higher the payoff.and yet, they still manage to up royally.
For-profit scam colleges (which have plenty of 1% investors) are the same: govt guaranteed student loans (public risk), while the colleges pay their top people extremely well (private gain).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
