• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Market Rigging widespread in the City"

Collapse

  • centurian
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Well, I sure hope somebody goes to jail for this what appears to me conspiracy to defraud - making rates they pay lower than they should so some suckers who believed them would get less money
    The main difficulty is that the people submitting the false amounts did not personally gain from this (a bottle of Bollinger mainly), while the traders that did profit (increased bonuses etc.) did not submit false figures.

    However, I agree there must be some law they have broken - conspiracy to defraud, false accounting etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by centurian View Post
    Yes, but they knew that the published rates were a pile of tulip.
    Well, I sure hope somebody goes to jail for this what appears to me conspiracy to defraud - making rates they pay lower than they should so some suckers who believed them would get less money

    Leave a comment:


  • centurian
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Surely the same banks who are members of that "Union" were using published rates to decide their own policy?
    Yes, but they knew that the published rates were a pile of tulip.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gentile
    replied
    I'm shocked, shocked to discover this.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by centurian View Post
    It's the equivalent of the TUC being in charge of producing official statistics on workers productivity.
    Surely the same banks who are members of that "Union" were using published rates to decide their own policy? Nevermind lots of contracts around the world which used that benchmark rate.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
    I believe that's how they found out it was being fiddled?
    Why did not they not find that out next day rather than allowing this tulip go on for a few years?

    Leave a comment:


  • centurian
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    I mean surely whoever was responsible for aggregating data from all banks for LIBOR purposes did not employ cretins who just took simple Libor rate every day and instead insisted on complete list of transactions that would be spot checked?
    LIBOR is produced by the British Bankers Association - basically the trade union for all the big banks accused of said fiddling.

    It's the equivalent of the TUC being in charge of producing official statistics on workers productivity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Surely job of regulators was to check actual records in banks related to such lending and borrowing and it would have been easy to spot that Bank A lends to Bank B at rate of x% but Bank B reports it's lower?

    I mean surely whoever was responsible for aggregating data from all banks for LIBOR purposes did not employ cretins who just took simple Libor rate every day and instead insisted on complete list of transactions that would be spot checked?
    I believe that's how they found out it was being fiddled?

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Surely job of regulators was to check actual records in banks related to such lending and borrowing and it would have been easy to spot that Bank A lends to Bank B at rate of x% but Bank B reports it's lower?

    I mean surely whoever was responsible for aggregating data from all banks for LIBOR purposes did not employ cretins who just took simple Libor rate every day and instead insisted on complete list of transactions that would be spot checked?

    Leave a comment:


  • doomage
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Can I guess at how many there are in round numbers? Well in a round number actually.

    Everyone just gets the figures and accepts them. In early 90s BoE announced that interest swap market size had increased tenfold in a year. I had f**ked up the code - and it reported 100 times too much! No-one at the bank or BoE questioned the outlandish figures.....
    ftfy

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Shocking, but certainly not surprising.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by doodab View Post
    Surely it would be quicker to identify the markets that weren't overrun with thieving villains....
    Can I guess at how many there are in round numbers? Well in a round number actually.

    Everyone just gets the figures and accepts them. In early 90s BoE announced that interest swap market size had increased tenfold in a year. About a year later a friend of mine fessed - he had been at an IB and was responsible for collating their figures. He had f**ked up his code - and he reported 100 times too much! No-one at the bank or BoE questioned the outlandish figures.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Lockhouse
    replied
    I've worked at a consensus derivative pricing firm, in fact I wrote the system that allowed clients to send in their figures so that a consensus could be reached.

    Everyone in the quorum sends in an estimated price for a range of derivatives, these are then averaged and the averages sent back to the clients (in this case fund houses and banks) so they can see if their prices are low or high relative to the other fund houses and banks in the quorum. If some institutions had sent in figures that were obviously outlying they would get a friendly phone call asking them if they wanted to look again at their figures as they may be incorrect.

    All perfectly legitimate, but just goes to show that one man's rigged market is another man's benchmark.

    Leave a comment:


  • doodab
    replied
    Surely it would be quicker to identify the markets that weren't overrun with thieving villains....

    Leave a comment:


  • MrMark
    replied
    Personally, I'm shocked.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X