Leading banks likely to be drawn into Libor inquiry

tar

Legendary member
Messages
10,443
Likes
1,314
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Le...XZWVrZW5kVGFrZW92ZXIEc2xrA3JlYWRtb3JlMTg3?x=0

Regulators in the UK, US and Japan will broaden their investigation into the banking sector following allegations UBS manipulated the Libor interbank lending rate.

Industry insiders say more than 15 banks have been contacted by regulators, with detailed investigations expected to begin into the ways leading financial institutions could have artificially fixed the leading benchmark for international borrowing.

On Tuesday, Swiss banking group UBS admitted it had "received subpoenas" from Wall Street regulator the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the US Department of Justice in its annual report, published on Tuesday.

The allegations relate to London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) submissions made by UBS to the British Bankers' Association (BBA), which sets the rate.

The bank added it has also received an order to provide information to Japan's Financial Supervisory Agency "concerning similar matters".

Senior banking sources told The Daily Telegraph several other major banks were likely to be drawn into the inquiry. One said: "If you ask whether the system is being manipulated you have to answer three things: do the banks have the means, motive and opportunity to do this? I would argue the answer to the first two is yes, which leaves you with opportunity and you have to make your own mind up about that."

Neither UBS nor the British Banking Association (BBA), which is responsible for setting the Libor rate, would comment any further on the story.

Other banks contacted by The Daily Telegraph refused to comment on whether they were under investigation. The only exception was West LB, the German Landesbank, which denied it was involved.
 
and the US FED, along with others gave UBS gazillions in bailout money stolen from hard earned taxpayer's money. The politicians are the real crooks.

Peter
 
UBS didn't get any tarp money, it's swiss.

True.

The fed did not give TARP money, but made secret zero interest loans totaling $3.3 billion over 2 1/2 years. UBS was a large benefactor. In December congress forced the fed to show these transactions and list them on the balance sheet. In reality congress was upset because it was done without their approval, which they most likely would have given anyway, but the public outcry would have been a political mess.

Peter
 
UBS was bailed out by the SNB. I have no idea what "secret" loans the Fed made to UBS. That's a crazy idea.

As to the LIBOR probe, it's an interesting exercise, but, if I had to guess, quite a lot of it is political grandstanding.
 
UBS was bailed out by the SNB. I have no idea what "secret" loans the Fed made to UBS. That's a crazy idea

You can google UBS FED BAILOUT and find hundreds of articles about what happened. In short the GAO (Gov't Accounting Office) did an audit at the behest of congress and all this came to light. If I remember correctly the money was dispersed from 2007 to sometime in 2010.

Here's a link from USA Today newspaper article thats shows money given out IN ADDITION TO THE $3.3 BILLION. This WAS TARP money and some was funneled to UBS with the gov't's knowledge and approval.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2009-03-16-some-aig-billions-went-to-banks_N.htm

Peter
 
You can google UBS FED BAILOUT and find hundreds of articles about what happened. In short the GAO (Gov't Accounting Office) did an audit at the behest of congress and all this came to light. If I remember correctly the money was dispersed from 2007 to sometime in 2010.

Here's a link from USA Today newspaper article thats shows money given out IN ADDITION TO THE $3.3 BILLION. This WAS TARP money and some was funneled to UBS with the gov't's knowledge and approval.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2009-03-16-some-aig-billions-went-to-banks_N.htm

Peter
Ah, you're referring to the AIG payouts... If so, this wasn't a bailout. It was a payment on a bunch of legally binding contracts that AIG had with the banks. Obviously, the US govt, when it took AIG over, could have just reneged on everything, but they decided that the global financial system wouldn't have been able to stand it. Whether you agree with the decision or not, there wasn't anything all that underhanded.
 
also, it's pretty unlikely that the counterparties to AIG deals didn't need to ship the money on themselves - to, say, Citigroup or whoever. One of the big problems at the time is that because the nature of the deals being done weren't explicitly fungible, everyone had their hands in each others pockets.
 
Does anyone actually read my posts? or does everyone just skim a few keywords and comment on entirely the wrong thing?

Must be me I guess, but posting here is becoming less and less interesting.

Peter
 
buying commercial paper isn't exactly giving money out, is it mate. Nor is it zero interest, looks to me like the taxpayer made pretty well out of it.
 
Does anyone actually read my posts? or does everyone just skim a few keywords and comment on entirely the wrong thing?

Must be me I guess, but posting here is becoming less and less interesting.

Peter

before you go, who's the parrot?
 
Does anyone actually read my posts? or does everyone just skim a few keywords and comment on entirely the wrong thing?

Must be me I guess, but posting here is becoming less and less interesting.

Peter
It must be my response you're referring to. I honestly don't see what wrong thing I am commenting on.

Regardless, I am unaware of any secret conspiracy to keep UBS afloat.
 
Top