Showing posts with label LIBOR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LIBOR. Show all posts

Saturday, August 11, 2012

US drops investigations of Goldman Sachs

By Barry Grey
11 August 2012

The US Justice Department announced Thursday evening it was ending a one-year criminal investigation and would not file charges against the giant Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs or any of its employees.

In April 2011, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a voluminous report on the role of major banks, federal regulators and credit rating firms in the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and ensuing financial crash of September 2008.

Of the report’s 640 pages, 240 pages, or 40 percent, were devoted to a detailed examination of Goldman Sach’s deceptive practices in marketing mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. The report alleged that Goldman bilked clients by selling them mortgage-backed securities without informing them that the bank itself was betting the investments would fail.

The Senate report concluded by listing federal securities laws the committee believed had likely been violated by Goldman and other banks. The committee referred its findings to the Justice Department and federal prosecutors for a criminal investigation of Goldman and its executives. It also called for an investigation into whether Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein had perjured himself in his public testimony before the panel.

In releasing the report, the chairman of the committee, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, said the panel’s two-year probe had found “a financial snake pit rife with greed, conflicts of interest and wrongdoing.” He recommended that charges be brought and said, “In my judgment, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled Congress.”

In its statement released Thursday, the Justice Department said it had conducted “an exhaustive review of the report,” but concluded that “based on the law and evidence as they exist at this time, there is not a viable basis to bring a criminal prosecution with respect to Goldman Sachs or its employees in regard to the allegations set forth in the report.”

There is not a shred of credibility in this assertion. In the course of its investigation, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations amassed 56 million pages of memos, documents, prospectuses and emails. The section of its report on Goldman Sachs gave chapter and verse, provided dates and named names, to meticulously document how the bank defrauded its clients by selling them mortgage securities while betting against the same investments, without telling them it was doing so.

“We are pleased that this matter is behind us,” a bank spokesman said Thursday of the Justice Department decision.

Also on Thursday, Goldman revealed in a regulatory filing that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had informed the bank it had ended a separate probe of a $1.3 billion subprime mortgage deal stemming from 2006, and had decided to take no action. This was an about-face by the SEC, which had notified the bank last February that it planned to pursue a civil action in relation to the Goldman security.

The SEC decision to drop the investigation comes as regulators are approaching a statute of limitations deadline for mortgage securities issued before 2007.

These two actions are part of an ongoing government cover-up of financial fraud and criminality on a massive scale, both before and after the 2008 crash. They underscore the duplicity behind President Barack Obama’s announcement last January of the formation of a Justice Department task force to investigate banking practices in the mortgage industry.

The Obama administration, like its Republican predecessor, is at the center of a corrupt nexus between Wall Street and all of the branches of the government—the presidency, Congress and the courts. The financial oligarchy operates with impunity, standing above the law as it manipulates and swindles to capture an ever greater share of the social wealth. Every government agency, from the White House on down, is directly or indirectly on the bankers’ payroll.

Four years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, not a single major bank or top bank executive has been prosecuted, even though their crimes have been amply documented and new bank scandals continue to break out on a weekly basis.

Just last month, Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), gave an interview on the occasion of the publication of his new book on the bank bailout in which he complained of the failure to hold to account any of the bankers responsible for the financial disaster. “It was shocking how much control the big banks had over their own bailout,” he said.

He went on to accuse Obama’s treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, of a cover-up while president of the New York Federal Reserve of the banks’ manipulation of Libor, the most important global benchmark interest rate. “Geithner and other regulators should be held accountable,” he said. “They should be fired across the board… I hope to see people in handcuffs.”

Last March, Greg Smith, an executive director at Goldman, announced his resignation in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, in which he denounced the bank’s “toxic” culture of avarice and fraud. “It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off,” he wrote.

Goldman Sachs was at the center of a scandal that erupted in late 2009 over the collusion of top federal officials in secretly using public funds as part of the 2008 bailout of American International Group (AIG) to cover billions of dollars in mortgage securities held by the banks and insured by the bankrupt insurance firm. Then-Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman CEO) Henry Paulson, then-New York Federal Reserve President Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke funneled $62 billion to the big Wall Street firms, with Goldman getting the biggest share—$12.9 billion.

Part of the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and the government is the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street. Bank regulators build up their résumés for advancement to seven-figure-salary posts at financial firms by running interference for the banks.

This was exemplified last June in JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s appearance before the House and Senate banking committees. Dimon was summoned to explain the bank’s sudden announcement the previous month of a multi-billion-dollar trading loss, which the bank failed to report in its first quarter financial disclosure.

The Wall Street Journal noted in passing, evidently not considering it worth further comment, that sitting directly behind Dimon was JPMorgan’s general counsel, Stephen Cutler, who had joined the firm after serving as the enforcement chief of the SEC.

In April of 2010, the SEC brought a civil suit against Goldman for fraudulently marketing a subprime mortgage-based collateralized debt obligation (CDO) in 2007 called Abacus. Goldman sold the security without telling its clients that hedge fund billionaire John Paulson had asked the bank to set up the investment so that he could make a killing by betting the underlying mortgages would go bad and the security would lose money. The bank concealed the fact that Paulson had selected the mortgages and was “shorting” the CDO.

Rather than bring the case to trial, the SEC settled with the bank in July 2010, agreeing to a sweetheart deal in which the bank admitted no wrongdoing and paid a relatively minor fine of $550 million. The SEC has similarly settled cases with Countrywide Financial, the subprime giant that was saved from collapse by being sold to Bank of America, and major banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup.

The Obama administration and federal regulators have avoided public trials of the banks because the ruling class senses they would rapidly expose the criminality of the entire system. It would mean putting the capitalist system itself on trial.

The author also recommends:

Ex-TARP overseer denounces US government cover-up of Wall Street crimes[31 July 2012]

JPMorgan scandal: The tip of the iceberg[17 July 2012]

An insider’s view of Wall Street criminality


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/gold-a11.shtml


[15 March 2012]

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Jim Rogers, War and the Financial Mafia - LIBOR, Centrals Banks and JP M...

Libor Scandal: New York Fed Silent On Barclays' Admission Of Rigging Benchmark Interest Rate


Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who was then head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, did not communicate in key meetings with top regulators that British bank Barclays had admitted to Fed staffers that it was manipulating Libor, the Washington Post said, citing people familiar with the matter.
Documents released by the New York Federal Reserve Bank this month showed regulators in the United States and England had some knowledge that bankers were submitting misleading Libor bids during the 2008 financial crisis to make their financial institutions appear stronger than they were.
The reliability of the London interbank offered rate, which underpins transactions worth trillions of dollars, has been rattled by revelations that bankers manipulated it to profit on trades and hide their own borrowing costs during the crisis.
Among other details, the Fed documents included the transcript of an April 2008 telephone call between a Barclays trader in New York and Fed official Fabiola Ravazzolo, in which the unidentified trader said: "So, we know that we're not posting um, an honest Libor."
However, senior officials and investigators never heard an appeal from the New York Fed to investigate possible wrongdoing over Libor, the Washington Post said, citing two people with knowledge of the matter.
Geithner, through a spokesman, referred questions to the New York Fed, which declined to comment, the newspaper said.
The New York Fed and Treasury Department could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters outside regular U.S. business hours.
(Reporting by Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore; Editing by Jacqueline Wong)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/libor-scandal-new-york-fed-timothy-geithner_n_1700385.html

Behind the Libor Scandal

I'm just putting a link here.  This is a NY Times article that has charts showing the effect of the Libor rate on everything. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/07/10/business/dealbook/behind-the-libor-scandal.html

Libor scandal: Barclays executive Jerry del Missier given £8.75m pay-off

Jerry del Missier, the former Barclays Bank executive at the centre of the interest-rate rigging scandal that cost the lender £290m, has walked away with a pay-off of almost £9m.

Mr del Missier, the bank’s former chief operating officer who resigned three weeks ago, is understood to have negotiated the deal with Barclays’ outgoing chairman Marcus Agius in the days before he quit. The pay-out looks certain to trigger another political storm over bankers’ pay.
Mr del Missier was one of Barclays’ highest-paid executives, receiving a salary and bonus package for 2011 worth £6.7m plus a further £10.8m from share awards from previous years.
He became co-head of the investment bank in January 2011, when former chief executive Bob Diamond was promoted to the top job, but emerged as a leading figure in the Libor rigging scandal.
Only last week Canadian Mr del Missier conceded to MPs on the Treasury select committee that he had told Barclays traders to lower the bank’s Libor submissions in the autumn of 2008.
That followed a controversial telephone call between Mr Diamond and Paul Tucker, the deputy governor of the Bank of England.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9427881/Libor-scandal-Barclays-executive-Jerry-del-Missier-given-8.75m-pay-off.html

The Libor scandal and you

By Polyana da Costa · Bankrate.com
Monday, July 9, 2012
Posted: 8 am ET
As you follow the story of one of the biggest banking scams in the world, you might wonder whether Barclays' Libor rate-setting scandal affected the interest rate on your loans.
About $10 trillion in loans to consumers and small banks are tied to the Libor, including adjustable-rate mortgages, credit cards, auto and student loans. Many ARMs are indexed to the one-year Libor.
But it's unlikely your pocket was directly affected by this scandal, says Greg McBride, CFA, senior financial analyst for Bankrate.com.
"The heart of the issue is that any attempted manipulation undermines the integrity of financial markets," McBride says. "It's like murder. You don’t have to actually kill somebody for it to be a crime. Nearly trying could be a crime."

The scandal

Barclays, one of the banks that provided daily rate information used to calculate the Libor, manipulated its rates submissions from 2005 to 2009, at least. Other banks are under investigation for submitting artificial rates for the LIBOR calculation.

Why the Libor matters to mortgage borrowers

Borrowers with ARM loans that are indexed to the Libor pay a margin plus the Libor. Say the margin on your loan is 2.5 percent and your loan resets today when the Libor is 1.07 percent. The rate on your loan will be 3.57 percent. The Libor wasn't always this low. In January 2007, the one-year Libor was about 5.4 percent.
When your ARM loan resets, if the Libor used to determine the interest rate on the loan is incorrect -- as a result of banks' manipulation -- you may be overcharged or undercharged for your loan.
As of 2008, nearly all subprime ARM loans and 60 percent of prime ARMs were tied to the Libor, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

Who sets the US Libor?

Picture a couple of people in a fancy London office. Each day, they collect rate information from a panel of 16 banks and use the numbers to calculate the Libor for 10 currencies, for borrowing periods ranging from overnight to one year.
Now, picture the bank representatives on the other end of the line providing the rate information.
"For you ... anything. I am going to go 78 and 92.5 … if you did not want a low one I would have gone 93 at least." This is an email reply by a Barclays rate submitter to a trader who had asked the submitter to provide an artificially lower rate in 2006.
"Done ... for you big boy," another reply by a Barclays submitter to a similar request in 2007, shows the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, order against Barclays.
Barclays wasn't alone. Several other banks are under investigation.

Just how dirty is the Libor behind your loans?

A senior Barclays Treasury representative sort of answered that question in a conversation with a representative of the British Bankers Association.
"We're clean, but we're dirty-clean, rather than clean-clean," the Barclays representative told the BBA representative in 2008 in a surveillance call, according to the CFTC order.
The BBA representative answered: "No one's clean-clean."

Did the manipulation affect the rate on ARM loans?

It's unlikely Barclays' attempt to manipulate the Libor affected U.S. mortgage borrowers, McBride says.
That's because of the way the Libor is calculated.
Each day, the 16 banks surveyed provide the rate they would need to pay to borrow money on that particular day. Of the rates provided, the top and bottom four are discarded. The final numbers are based on the average of the eight remaining figures.

So what if the investigation finds that several banks were providing artificial rates?

McBride says that unless several banks were part of the manipulation scheme and agreed to bid on the same side, it is unlikely that the Libor indexed to ARM mortgages would be affected.
Say the Libor was affected. It's difficult to say whether borrowers were helped or hurt by the mess.
Depending on when a loan reset, a borrower could have been overcharged or undercharged for the interest. That's because during the financial crisis of 2008, when media started to question Barclays' financial stability, Barclays suppressed its rates and reported artificially lower rates to make it look like the bank was doing well.
In theory, if the Libor was affected by the manipulation, borrowers who had loans resetting during that period probably got cheaper rates than they should have.
Related posts:
  1. Investors lose in Libor scandal?
  2. Will Libor go away?
  3. Libor and your credit cards
  4. Libor: Winners and losers
  5. Will your bank be sued over Libor?


Read more: The Libor scandal and you | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/financing/mortgages/the-libor-scandal-and-you/#ixzz22e0eVI3E