It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Barclays Bank fined by FSA for manipulating key bank rates

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Hi everyone,

This comes from the BBC today:





The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined Barclays Bank a record £59.5m for manipulating the interest rates at which banks lend to each other.

Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond and three other of the banks' most senior executives will forgo their bonuses for this year.

Including the record FSA fine, Barclays has agreed to pay penalties totalling £290m to UK and US authorities.

Barclays said its actions "fell well short of standards".

The FSA said: "Barclays' misconduct was serious and widespread."



www.bbc.co.uk...

Talk about a 'slap on the wrist'!

Anyone here who thinks that banks act in the best interest of their customers, think again! They are, in the most part, owned by scumbags who screw the little people over and then line their own pockets in the process!!

ALSO: Is today's activity (manipulated) in Syria a diversion so that we wont consider what is happening with the banking system?

edit on 27-6-2012 by chemistry because: a new thought




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Headlines like this are popping up more and more. Is it that they are getting careless or are the regulating agencies more aware of the people being fed up with the manipulation? All those resignations and retirements a while back seems to point to the big boys getting out while they can.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by chemistry
 


I have just been hearing about this on the radio but i have to confess i don't really understand it - basically because i do not know see how one bank can manipulate the interbank rates. Surely most if not all banks would have to involved? It could only be one bank manipulating if they controlled the lions share of the market but HSBC are bigger?

Must have missed something somewhere with this story........



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Well I wouldn't be surpised if many more banks are involved in this scandal. There is another thread here on ATS about how NatWest/Royal Bank of Scotland have not been processing payments for 48 hours (www.abovetopsecret.com...). I wonder if they are worried about this news (which I am certain the big wigs at NatWest/RBS knew was coming a few days ago), and they are stalling so as to figure out what to do. Could be a case of damage limitation, or it could be totally unrelated.

Either way, I think more people will now be aware that most big banks are run by scumbags.
edit on 27-6-2012 by chemistry because: spelling



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
A few news sources are reporting this story now:

www.cnbc.com...

www.forbes.com...

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

www.itv.com...



Also, PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO DIGEST THIS COMMENT (from Robert Peston, BBC Business Editor):






Barclays has admitted that a group of traders lied about what it was costing the bank to borrow.

Now, why does this matter?

It matters because lots and lots of deals involving clients of Barclays used the interest rate into which Barclays was feeding this information, about its own borrowing costs, to determine the profit and loss on their own deals.

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.




www.bbc.co.uk...


Is this actually what the Illuminati want? Obviously, I am appalled by this story. However, do the bloodlines want us to be appalled so that we shall beg for a one world bank, with a one world global currency? Is this a step in that direction?
edit on 27-6-2012 by chemistry because: broken link


ALSO: Is today's activity (manipulated) in Syria a diversion so that we wont consider what is happening with the banking system? So that it becomes so bad before we are awake enough to stop the whole bubble from bursting?
edit on 27-6-2012 by chemistry because: clarity



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Found this on Zerohedge about manipulation in around 2005, there is no reason to think it stopped. It is apparently a transcript of messages sent from traders.
I also had to add the recommendation below the article.




From the FSA' breakdown of Barclays traders caught in the act of manipulation: On Friday, 10 March 2006, two US dollar Derivatives Traders made email requests for a low three month US dollar LIBOR submission for the coming Monday: i. Trader C stated “We have an unbelievably large set on Monday (the IMM). We need a really low 3m fix, it could potentially cost a fortune. Would really appreciate any help”;





Our advice to anyone who had an adjustable rate mortgage in the period between 2005 and today: sue the living feces out of Barclays, and all other banks who crawl out of the woodwork with purported settlements. Because due to their undisputed mark manipulation, it is absolutely safe to say that ARMs, which rely on Libor for interest rate formation, were grossly manipulated by the same idiot traders who left written evidence of their manipulation year after year. Now it is their turn to pay.
Zerohedge

Full pdf of the Financial Services Authority report here
FSA pdf

It really is a must read!!! Check this excerpt.




71. On the majority of occasions where Barclays’ Submitters were contacted by Barclays’ Derivatives Traders with requests, Barclays’ submissions (for US dollar LIBOR and EURIBOR) were consistent with those requests: i. the FSA analysed 111 requests made by Barclays’ Derivatives Traders in the period from 3 January 2006 to 6 August 2007 relating to US dollar LIBOR submissions. On around 70% of those occasions the submissions were consistent with the requests. On 16% of occasions it was unclear if the submissions were consistent with the requests. On 14% of occasions the submissions were inconsistent with the requests; and ii. the FSA analysed 42 requests made by Barclays’ Derivatives Traders in the period from 23 February 2006 to 3 June 2008 relating to EURIBOR submissions. On 86% of those occasions the submissions were consistent with the requests. On 2% of occasions it was unclear if the submissions were consistent with the requests. On 12% of occasions the submissions were inconsistent with the requests.


It's shocking but not surprising.
They should really get more than just fined, it's a joke.
edit on 27-6-2012 by Threegirls because: to add link

edit on 27-6-2012 by Threegirls because: typo




top topics
 
3

log in

join