Apparently manipulating the LIBOR and EURIBOR interbank lending rates in the years 2005 - 2009 prior to the credit crunch in order to create a more beneficial trading environment.
A criminal investigation has been undertaken by: The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission; the U.S. Department of Justice;the UK's Financial Services Authority; and Canadian authorities.
It is also ongoing with other, as yet unnamed, banks still in the potential firing line.
So Barclays might be the first of many and for that they have received a joint US/UK fine of $453m / £291m.
Its still a case of Barclays agreeing to settle though possibly in order to qualify for a 30% discount?
Significantly the Justice Dept made clear that "in some cases the pressure to manipulate rates came from Barclays management" (uk.reuters.com: Barclays pays $453 million fine to settle Libor probe).
Which rather makes a mockery of comments from Barclays' CEO, Bob Diamond who said "he was sorry that "some people acted in a manner not consistent with our culture and values". (www.sharecast.com: Barclays guilty of market manipulation).
I for one wonder what are Barclays' culture and values?
And who was running the Barclays Capital dept during this period? It couldn't possibly be, could it?
Significantly the Justice Dept made clear that "in some cases the pressure to manipulate rates came from Barclays management" (uk.reuters.com: Barclays pays $453 million fine to settle Libor probe).
Which rather makes a mockery of comments from Barclays' CEO, Bob Diamond who said "he was sorry that "some people acted in a manner not consistent with our culture and values". (www.sharecast.com: Barclays guilty of market manipulation).
I for one wonder what are Barclays' culture and values?
And who was running the Barclays Capital dept during this period? It couldn't possibly be, could it?
Despite the FSA part of the fine being a record £59.5m, it still seems a very small offering from Diamond that he and other "leaders" would forego their bonuses.
Its seems wrong to think that their settlement and offerings might be small platitudes in comparison to what the bank might have made out of this and what it possibly means for customers of Barclays and other banks, who might be paying rather more or less than they otherwise would have done.
But such is the seemingly endless number of questionable practices and values (yes Bob I question the values), it is all too easy to mistrust their motives and what they might still be hiding.
Significantly for me is that: 4 Executives (incl. Diamond) have agreed to forego their bonuses when it has previously proven so difficult to shame them from their contracted rewards (does this dissipate the accountability and protect an individual or individuals) as; in spite of it being a
criminal investigation no-one has been punished, jailed, or sacked.
Citywire's article on the subject goes on to question why previous years' bonuses aren't being relinquished (www.citywire.co.uk: Barclays fined £290m for fixing bank lending rates).
criminal investigation no-one has been punished, jailed, or sacked.
Citywire's article on the subject goes on to question why previous years' bonuses aren't being relinquished (www.citywire.co.uk: Barclays fined £290m for fixing bank lending rates).
I would have wanted the FSA, Barclays et al to be much more determined to ensure that there is no ongoing PR damage to the Banking sector which is still trying to repair trust and reputation, or at least it should be.
As it stands...who knows.
Bizarrely, the shares finished up today which suggests little expectation that profits will be damaged.
Barclays @ 196.6p, +3.65p (+1.9%).
No comments:
Post a Comment