RATE-RIGGING SCANDAL: as The Slog predicted, detection of the scam is going global.

Mood changing rapidly towards a full Glass-Steagal separation of retail and investment banking

The German regulatory equivalent of the FSA, BaFIN, on Friday announced an investigation into Libor/Euribor fraud. Reuters I think had the story first after Der Spiegel, which noted ‘Two Deutsche Bank employees have been suspended after it used external auditors to examine whether staff were involved in manipulating interbank lending rates.’

Yesterday, I posted at length about the blindingly obvious connotations of the FSA’s basis for accusing Barclays – viz, that it was more concerted, international and longstanding than either the MSM or the Tory Party care to admit. This has now been recognised by Brussels, which is mullig new criminal laws a proposal to cover ‘the manipulation of market indices across the EU and a fundamental review of the rules on how Libor is set.’

Michel Barnier, the EU commissioner overseeing financial services, will amend reforms to EU market abuse rules so that potential “loopholes” are closed and criminal sanctions to specifically cover lying about Libor and Euribor. Yesterday, Barnier called mendacious reportig of such benchmark rates a “betrayal” with potentially “systemic consequences”.

And in the US, Barney Frank told the FT that banks “monkeying” with Libor for their own benefit was “outrageous”.

Their own culture of sociopathic iniquity has brought this new regulatory clamp-down onto the heads of investment bankers. Although the naif Dan Hannan still chirrups away about regulation as if it were some form of leprosy, wiser heads who know what they’re talking about (and have a weakness for the odd ethic here and there) disagree. In an interview with the Evening Standard three days ago, old hand Peter Hambro argued for a full-on Glass-Steagal separation between retail and investment banking. Curiously, he referred to retail banks ‘lending to the real economy, and thus operating with a government backed guarantee of deposits’, while he thought merchant bankers should operate only with unlimited liability, and get nothing from the taxpayer at all. I agree with him, but am left wondering what exactly the point then is of such banks per se.
Certainly, if Matt Levine is to be believed, the Next Big Thing in the investment banking sector (to provide a rationale for its existence) is the selling of derivatives contracts to itself as a hedge against identical derivatives contracts it has on the balance sheet. Levine writes:
‘I think [this Credit-Suisse wheeze] says “if our counterparty doesn’t pay us when this derivative, which is in-the-money if our other counterparties don’t pay us when their derivatives are in-the-money, is in-the-money, then we’ll just pay ourselves ourselves.”’
Yes, things truly are that mad. But Peter Hambro in the Standard was reassuringly outspoken:
“It’s this unlimited liability that made merchant — or investment — bankers more circumspect in the past because they put their balls on the block,” he said. “But most of today’s financial problems are because the investment bankers, using the balance sheets of the retail banks, don’t share in the pain. They don’t lose anything — and their culture has infected retail banking. They should never have been together and now they should be split, completely.”

Hallelujah for sound experience, honesty, and common sense. But who was it who repealed Glass-Steagal completely? Step forward Dick Nixon, the most disgraced President in American history.

Vince Cable continues to be vilified for his entirely sensible (and as time has proved, 100% accurate) comments about Rupert Murdoch and investment banking, purely because he is a Big Stateist LibDem with a Labour Party background. It is childish stuff, but nothing blinkers an intelligent person more efficiently than adversarial playground politics. I started with a high regard for Dan Hannan, but it is falling with every polemically illogical tweet he makes….and this Irritable Quotation Syndrome he seems to have contracted is reaching risible proportions.

BREAKING: LIBOR II – THIS TIME IT’S DERIVATIVES AND P 19901

94 thoughts on “RATE-RIGGING SCANDAL: as The Slog predicted, detection of the scam is going global.

  1. I always thought Glass Steagal survived until that nice Mr Clinton signed it away… Wiki suggests as much. But otherwise, yes, Hambro and Cable are spot on. Issue for me is whether the “regulators” can for once manage not to throw babies out with bathwater – although this particular bathwater is rancid

  2. A Slogger on a previous thread left the link below where I found this:
    “We are forced to recognize that market practitioners follow no rules but their own, and all the efforts of Governments and Regulators to tame those instincts are usually illusory. As soon as a new rule or regulation is created, then the practitioners will be busy finding ways to avoid it, or better still, ignore it altogether. The British Government tried to outlaw short selling after the South Sea Bubble crisis in 1720, but no-one in the market took any notice of them.
    This episode did spawn one interesting observation. Because short selling was now officially prohibited, dealers could not make written records of their deals, because to do so was to leave proof of their own criminality lying around. So dealers had to trust one another to meet their obligations if called upon so to do. The system worked as long as everyone played by the rules, and out of it emerged the motto of the Stock Exchange ‘My word is my bond’. It has never ceased to amuse me that this motto, which so many generations of city practitioners have taken as a sign of high integrity and clean dealing is in fact, nothing more than a criminals’ charter!”
    http://rowans-blog.blogspot.co.uk/

  3. Yesterday it was the blame game!
     I remember my dear old dad going on about ‘dirty Dick’, my father has been dead these last 40 years!
     Why not blame Cromwell! 
    I believe it was Clinton who removed the relevant acts. 

  4. The bigger this gets the less likely anybody will be prosecuted over it.
    Too big to fail. too big to prosecute, too endemically corrupt to do anything about it. After all, who watches the watchers?

  5. John. Don’t blame it on Nixon. He had nothing to do with it. It was Bill Clinton who proposed and got the abolition of Glass Steagal under his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, ex Chief of Goldman Sachs. Rubin went on to become Chairman of Citibank and convert it into an Investment bank making over $120 million before decamping right in front of the global crisis in 2008 which he had been greatly responsible for.

    Rubin was supported by his deputy ‘Fat Larry’ Summers, who then became Secretary before going on to make squillions with hedge funds while moonlighting from his job at Harvard.

    • Yes it was definitely Clinton who repealed the glass-steagel act …while everyone was focusing of “clinton’s sex life with Monica” he was busy with screwing over the planet….he should be jailed and tried for his crimes against humanity alongwith the other presidents that are still alive…the Bush’s etc. Al Gore,(not a pres. but worthy of jail due to his carbon taxing on the science fraud of global warming), Obama and on an on all the bankers and basically all the people serving in congress are criminals…..just look what they voted for…selling out the country and their taxpayers…There will be peace after this cabal and all their minions are done away with completely so they will not resurface under some other lie…..the UN is a good example of a lie to the people….most of them should be jailed as well….

  6. Hey JW, lets not play the play the blame game on Glass Steagall, energy should be focused on reinstating it in UK and Osborne’s new act which fudges the issue needs to cause a complete split in investment and retail banking asap. Peter Hambro has my vote if he can do anything towards engineering this. Vince Cable was also bang on over the weekend, the banks are strangling our small business sector because of their fascination with investment bank. You say they need to define what they are for. Isn’t that obvious? Making a big shedload for those who work in them and hang the rest.

  7. Agree with the other commenters – Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act (though, of course, this could be neo-con revisionism at work).
    Tricky Dicky closed the gold window.
    Not sure which of the two was the most damaging.

  8. It’s going to be hard to bring back Glass Steagal because the US system is so much more corrupt than it was in the 1930s with the Congress utterly controlled by the financial sector. Without the US moving it will be hard for the UK to move since Europe will not go far either.

  9. Professor Nouriel Roubini has said without proper justice of the criminality of the bankers,the only solution will be a swinging banker on a lampost,funny how his outlook has changed!Meanwhile the accountants,those chiefs of probity,are silent-why?Blame will be spread around and the politicians will chose those most convenient.

  10. Pingback: John Ward – Rate-Rigging Scandal : As The Slog Predicted, Detection Of The Scam Goes Global – 9 July 2012 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  11. The casino opperations shouldn’t be backstopped by the government, but neither should the retail section. So, the real qeation is why should the banks be kept afloat at all? All people want is a safe place to park their fiat – number 1; and number 2 any little return, benifits, customer service, that might be on offer. Well I think the free market is more than able to provide that. Indeed its the government backstop that allowed casino banking with peoples savings in the first place – if there was never a guarentee in place and banks actually failed people would be a heck of a lot more weary and prudent when deciding where to park their cash.

    Further government backstops and regulations will only produce more social engeneering (as the government will, in effect, decide where depositrs money can be lent out). The answer, yet again, is freedom.

    • My definition of freedom is putting my hard earned money in a bank and being sure it will be there when I come to take it out, even if its worth a lot less! I’d be happy if it was a local mutual offering a decent non LIBOR manipulated savings rate. When the lowest you can borrow in personal loans is around 7% surely it is not beyond the wit of someone to make an honest buck by paying savers 5%. Isn’t that what the free market is supposed to be about?

      • Well yes and no. In a free market we wouldn’t be on a government fiat currency in the first place; and in a time of deleveraging you’d be seeing your savings go up handsomely in value rather than falling. But yes without government intervention the free market would offer competative rates and safety – people would have the choice of which they deem more important.

      • Lets face it, there is no such thing as a free market. It would appear they are all rigged. So lets have them rigged in favour of the depositors rather than the banksters.

      • try zopa where you can borrow from about 6,.25% plus arrangement fee. Lenders are mostly ordinary Joes who want a better return than rip off banks. peer2peer is power to the people.

    • ‘Free markets’ are unable to provide anything. The notion that markets are either efficient or self adjusting is simply a self serving fantasy based on junk mathematics. The ‘government’ backstop did not allow casino banking – deregulation and faith in the inherent virtue of markets allowed City gamblers to securitise green slime and lack of regulation allowed corrupt rating agencies to give it a AAA rating. Most people want a realiable pubiic banking system.

  12. Dan Hannan fell quite a few points in my estimation when he was so blindly praising of Liam Fox for supporting an EU referendum despite Fox’s openly traitorous views that the UK should act like a US state.

  13. O/T but anybody else notice that we are back on the rollercoaster known as Spain’s borrowing costs?
    Step in Super Mario your time is now (again).
    What a farce.

    • God no. You see if JW was to mention that, he would be admitting that Europe’s supposedly regulated banks were no better than the UKs allegedly unregulated banks. Clearly this would undermine his own argument wouldn’t it? At least the UKs “unregulated” financial sector has made some many. Spains financial sector has mostly just lost money.

      • Has the UK banking sector made money? Surely the taxpayers bailouts for the banking sector are far greater than the profits it has ever made.

      • And the solution for Spaniards is for someone else to pay for the losses. True to form! Why doesn’t someone in the EU tell Spain that now would be a good time to come clean and take responsibility for its absurd construction boom? A decade of cats getting fat from the weird way in which money was lent without normal criteria, or indeed any criteria in a lot of cases. The old rules of money lending were there for a purpose. Being in the EZ did not change that, it merely suspended if for a while. Now is the day of reckoning and the Spaniards should not shift the cost onto others. That would be a terrible precedent.

  14. Not sure they don’t lose anything. Clearly they lost everything, which is why they got bailed out. And they didn’t get bailed out because they mixed retail and merchant banking. They got bailed out because they contrbute 12% of UK tax receipts, i.e. about £60bn/year as well as employing huge numbers of people. So it was a case of “spend and save”.

    • How very Keynesian of you.

      Just how does giving them money (even if in exchange for junk) that they then give back in taxes, help the overall scenario?

  15. The current thinking of our politos appears to be lacking in any logic.
      Currently 60% of Barclay’s profit are delivered by it’s Investment arm. The retail group have large losses, if one considers all the miss selling activities.
     The removal of the Diamond geezer and any splitting of the group will be a disaster for the shareholders, the countries tax take and the employees. The employees will lose salary, pension rights and any promotion when one considers there status as a building society. 
     It really is a no win situation.
    Also, why would lending to SME’s improve?

    • It’s exactly because the investment banking arms are so profitable that they have to be reined in. Where do we think their profits come from? Thin air? No, they come from us (and a lot of foreigners) via all sorts of ‘products’ and derivative activities. They are skimmers and the great British public is wholly unaware of what they do and how they work. Don’t listen to their wails of protest, it’s pure self-interest at work. We need transactional banking (less the egregious and utterly selfish miss-selling) and sensible lending at prices that reflect the risk) but we do not need investment banking. The latter exists solely for the benefit of bankers and taking the activity as a whole, including any taxes they may deign to pay, it is a net loss to society – even when we are not bailing them out!

      • Don’t need investment banking? So where would large companies get the finance for long-term projects with long lead-times before turning a profit? Where would companies making an aquisition find the finance? Where would large companies find finance to cover short-term cash-flow problems?

        The role of the investment bank is a large one. Take investment banking out of the picture and you end up with a big hole in the way UKPLC works.
        I remember when the big telecom companies ran out of cash in 2001 – this happened because the investment banks considered themselves over-exposed to the telecom market after the 3G mobile phone licensing charade. They stopped financing the telecom sector. Ericsson the mobile phone company went from 110,000 employees to 40,000 in 6 months. Marconi went under. Alcatel and Lucent were forced to merge, as were Nokia Networks and Siemens Networks. That dramatic turn of events is what led to the Greenspan/Brown/Merkel credit expansion after 2001 that in turn led to the current synchronised credit bust.

        No, I would be very careful about saying “No” to investment banking!

      • Investment banking profits are a mirage generated by accounting tricks and failure to adequately price in risk. All in order to generate big bonuses for the banksters. A lot of investment banking finance is only attractive to big business because it builds in cross border tax avoidance into financing arrangements which is why the large multi-nationals use them. Look at the balance sheets of UK multinationals, many of them are cash risk but won’t invest it in UK unless they are offered a tax reduction bribe. Oh and investment banks offer access to the murky shadow banking sector of regulatory avoidance, tax evasion and illegally made cash.

        Most banks won’t lend to UK smes because they believe they can get a better return from investment bank dodges, see this link on Paul Mason’s excellent blog re Barclays http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18688417

        If we had proper commercial banks that invested UK cash into UK business es who pay UK tax we would all be better off.

    • As a tax-payer, somehow I don’t think I’d be bothered about losing Barclay’s ‘profit’ if I also didn’t have to worry about all the tax-payer guarantees that are also backing Barclay’s, and which are causing the UK’s overall credit rating worthiness to be impaired and thereby increasing the UK’s borrowing costs……Likewise, as a UK tax-payer in the real economy and not enjoying all the salary, pension rights and status of Barclay’s employees (especially those of the casino side of things), why should they enjoy these benefits because of my backing as a tax-payer? Let’s get back to a real economy, making real things, and not just thinking about financial scams to make a quick buck.

    • Yess siree, and if you suspect the counrty you’ve loaned money may be wanting to join the queue well we’ve got this brand NEW product that will insure against any losses you might incur. Roll up Roll up, a new game has just started, get in quick so you’ll be sure not to loose out…

      • Update. The e petition ifor a Public enquiry into the wrongdoings and ethics of bankers is now standing at 16,090

  16. so long as you leave the control and supply of money in the hands of private banks and allow it to be created as debt sending anyone to prison will still not change anything. I can’t remember who said that but it was back in he 18thC. People need to wake up that most of the problems, wars, corruption, poverty etc have been a result of this simple fact. It is not as simple as returning to glass steagle we also need to move from debt created money, and a banking system that can not rape people with outrageous interest and fees

  17. Yes, it was clinton who got rid of GS. and JW needs to stop just bashing the tories as both sides were in on it and labour needs to be exposed big time, so people don’t start fooling again for that funny idea if they put labor back in power things will be better

    • God no. JWs whole plan is to get people to believe it was the bank’s fault and not Labour’s. He’s about as “non aligned” as Guido Fawkes.

      “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Edmund Burke. Sadly what counts is that you understand history first. If you deliberately misunderstand history because it happens to suit you then you will learn from it alright, but all the wrong lessons. Which is why the boom/bust cycle of the Great Depression was repeated in the 70s, again today in the 2010’s and of course probably around 2050 when the next generation will have their hand on all the levers. It’s human nature. Makes life interesting I suppose.

      Credit busts are preceded by credit booms, and credit booms are started by keeping interest rates too low and interest rates are set by governments. Ergo, governments are to blame. In the US it is usually the Republicans (who want to finance wars), in the UK it is usually Labour.

      • Let’s not forget it was the Tories who introduced “Big Bang” which introduced the inherent conflict of interest into UK banking. The US was effectively forced to repeal Glass Steagall because all the business went from New York to London.

  18. I really do wonder just how much of all this manipulation is driven from Washington. They seem to be the guys who like this sort of thing, they manipulate their inflation figures, and their bond prices by buying up their own. Their retention of an AAA grade is therefore questionable.

    The unknown here is what would the world-wide effect of a dollar collapse actually be? That is, after all, what they (and practically all other politicians) are scared of.

  19. @JW: I agree with virtually everybody else here: it was Clinton (Blair’s early New Labour model and mentor) who did for Glass-Steagal, not Nixon (a Republican). Such a basic error(?) in your evaluation – stated as fact – does not inspire confidence in your misguided comments about Dan Hannan and blaming the Tories for the Libor scandal because of tenuous connections between them and several players. Must try harder :-)

    So let me say it again: the Libor scandal happened when Gordon Brown was Chancellor and Blair was PM. Brown later as PM. In case you missed that: Gordon Brown. That is irrefutable. HE was the madman who swept away City regulation and presided over the Libor racket…as well as many other rackets. There are plenty of things to be angry with the Tories about, but the Libor scam is not one of them, except for people who secretly harbour an allegiance to the socialist Labour Party.

    • “There are plenty of things to be angry with the Tories about, but the Libor scam is not one of them, except for people who secretly harbour an allegiance to the socialist Labour Party.”

      Up until the second part of that sentence you were doing ok BT, but the last bit is just shooting from the hip with nothing to back it up.

      Keep kicking the Left as often as you like and I’ll agree. Keep excusing the Cons and I won’t. The moronic behaviour we got from the Left was after all much as expected. The Cons keep spouting on about the evil of the Left, much as you have, and promised to sort it. They aren’t even pretending to get started on that bit of it yet. Why? They will certainly never have such an opportunity again. In fact, correction, they have already missed the boat for that one. My disgust of the left is that they do what is to be expected of them. My disgust of the Cons is that they don’t do what is expected of them.

      The coalition isn’t their ‘get out of jail free’ card either. Cameron could have won a majority but didn’t through his own failings. Forming the coalition was his next mistake. Except of course he might have seen it as a golden opportunity to continue to behave in any way but Conservative. (But that is speculation like your last half sentence, the difference is I admit it.)

      So, yes keep kicking the Cons, until they actually start to show they are prepared to behave like Cons. Otherwise as has been said by many others there is nothing to choose between them.

      • @Jwoo:
        The second part of the sentence reads “…except for people who secretly harbour an allegiance to the socialist Labour Party“. You claim I have no evidence to back it up. Well, if you need evidence, it’s there for all to see in the form of JW’s relentless attacks on Cameron and the Tories (he’s now started on Dan Hannan) with manufactured nonsense. He has all but blamed the Tory Party for the Libor scandal by introducing extremely tenuous connections etc.
        And does anybody really care that Hunt MAY have unintentionally misled The Commons on some trivial matter? The last Labour Govt lied its way through 13 years of mis-government and scandals on a breathtaking scale which ended in national ruin? But New/Old Labour meanwhile get away with the occasional side swipe from JW.
        How else should I interpret his tactics? I mentioned the other day that I’m not the only slogger to have noticed this. One or two in this thread…

        Apart from that, my interpretation of your own comments is that when Labour are in office they always do exactly what is expected of them – make a complete shambles of everything. And when they deliver exactly as expected, nobody raises an eyebrow. But you expect much much more from the Tories and when they don’t deliver in accordance with your expectations, they are fair game for being attacked and abused. Is that about right?
        … … … …

        This a good place to explain another huge scandal which will be perped on the British taxpayer IF Labour are voted back in.

        Brown and Milipede have both talked about creating a new agency of the state which will have the power to overide bank decisions when it comes to lending to SMEs and start-up companies etc. We all know banks have cut lending in recent years for a number of reasons, so it will be sold to mug voters as a progressive policy.

        So, imagine a prospective borrower gets refused a loan of £100,000 for his brilliant new business idea. The new Milipede agency will seek to override the bank decision but the bank will say “we will only lend the money IF the govt act as guarantor”. Wham! The taxpayer will then be acting as guarantor for £millions of dodgy loans some of which will almost certainly be fraudulent. It gets worse. Some loans which a bank would normally make today will only be available if backed by the taxpayer. After all, why would a bank take the lending risk when the taxpayer is there as a fall guy?

      • @ BT

        “Apart from that, my interpretation of your own comments is that when Labour are in office they always do exactly what is expected of them – make a complete shambles of everything. And when they deliver exactly as expected, nobody raises an eyebrow. But you expect much much more from the Tories and when they don’t deliver in accordance with your expectations, they are fair game for being attacked and abused. Is that about right?”

        Yep that’s about right BT. I appreciate it isn’t an everyday view but the Left is what it is (and fair game because of it) and Cameron isn’t what he is supposed to be on the basis of the flag he drapes around himself (and fair game because of it).

        I grant you that any kicking given to the Left or the Cons should be evidence based and if you see a biase in the way JW treats the Cons, so be it. But a bias isn’t proven just because the Left are to blame for everything between 1997 and 2010, in my view.

      • @Jwoo:
        It may not be a majority view, but IME it is certainly quite common.

        It is this that explains why after a period of Labour govt, the Tories get voted in to sort out the mess – see the Thatcher years and now Cameron. Putting it another way…it’s almost as though voters believe they can indulge in a wild party under Labour, knowing full well they will destroy everything, because when the drugs run out and the music stops, they can always bring in the Tories to clear up the mess. When the clear up is complete, voters want another party.

    • Deregulation
      The idea of deregulating financial markets is driven by the free market philosophy of social and economic relations. While the idea had been bandied about since the Nixon administration, it was the Reagan administration, with George H.W. Bush as vice president, that began the legislative push to end federal oversight over Wall Street, the banks and the financial services sector.

      http://www.ehow.com/info_7748733_deregulation-markets-under-george-bush.html

    • Labour, Tories, Liebour, Conservatives, Labour, Tories…..blah blah blah blah……..

      These “parties” exist to let you think you have a choice of who runs things when you come to cast your vote. You don’t. Both “parties” are controlled by the same tiny, super-powerful clique. Out of view but pulling all the levers. Wake up folks, you’re being played.

      • @supafeckinmingster:
        “Both “parties” are controlled by the same tiny, super-powerful clique.”

        Do tell…..

  20. After the Eclipse Stakes at Sandown,last week,the Group 111 to watch is the 4.30,Monday,at Westminster,the 6 furlong sprint,the Barclays Diamond Jubilee Rossminster Gold Cup,where the odds on favourite,’Old Lady’,trained by Mick King,ridden by the apprentice P.Tucker ,is up against a field of twelve,including the up and coming 4 year old, ‘My Revenge’,trained and ridden by A.Tyrie,who has form on soft ground…

  21. I won’t repeat what others have already said, but to blame Nixon for this is shocking — it’s off by 25 years! I don’t even recall any Glass-Steagall discussions during Nixon’s time. I wonder now about the accusations you make around other issues where I’m not so well informed.

    • You are correct. The relevant part of Glass Steagall was repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999. It was a Republican initiated bill signed into law by Bill Clinton. It allowed commercial banking and investment banking to be carried out by the same instituations, just as had been permitted in most other parts of the western world for many years.

  22. “It is very easy to endure the difficulties of one’s enemies. It is the successes of one’s friends that are hard to bear.”

    Oscar Wilde for those left wondering.

    Seemed appropriate after reading criticism where once wonderment went. Would a private email between friends be more appropriate if we feel our friend has erred, rather than public censure?

    He might have even explained his rationale for linking the two seemingly unconnected events for those unminded to research themselves.

    Research doesn’t just have to be limited to Wikipedia you know.

  23. Pingback: Rate-Rigging Scandal: Detection of the Scam is Going Global

  24. The race report from the 4.30 at Westminster makes poor reading for the amateur jockey,P.Tucker,on board the favourite,Old Lady.In spite of his 4 years in the Barings stable,Tucker denies the normal practice to make notes of conversations with dodgy bookmakers during periods of market turbulence.Tucker alleges that the bookies’ key rate ,known as LIBOR,is not his responsibility,but is actually down to the bookies’ trade association,called the BBA. And,clearly,Tucker has never encountered the internet in general, and Zerohedge in particular,that has been reporting on the rigging of LIBOR for years,as he has clearly stated he had no knowledge of this scam UNTIL A MONTH AGO.Anyone know Eddie George’s telephone number?

      • Hmm, another convenient death for New Labour! Add that to John Smith, Robin Cook, Princess Diana and Dr David Kelly.

  25. Yes good old Bill Clinton signed the annullment of Glass Steagall. The same bloke signed a presidential pardon on his last day as President, for Marc Rich, a person wanted for tax evasion in the US, who fled to Switzerland ( quite clearly for health reasons).
    It appears that a large donation by his ex-wife, Denise Rich, to a fund for the establishment of his presidential library, helped convice Bill that Marc Rich wasn’t that bad a guy after all.
    Denise Rich has now given up her US citizenship and will go to live in Austria, avoiding US global taxes on her wealth ( which no doubt had been carefully structured to minimise the exit tax she will need to pay.
    If the President of the US can be so openly corrupted by money none can be exempt from independent scrutiny and any self certifying system should be immediately tossed out.
    I must admit that I am puzzled as to why the President still retains the power to grant pardons after such a clear example of abuse. But then the politicians of the US did sign the NDAA into law recently..

    • Each president agrees to grant immunity to the crimes of his predecessor. Unfortunately the crimes get progressively worse: Nixon was granted immunity for Watergate, and Reagan was never prosecuted for Iran-Contra. Now Bush II is being given a free pass on international aggression and torture. What’s next…..?

  26. I am sure Sloggers will be totally unconvinced by the arguments put forward by Paul Tucker at this afternoon’s ‘gentle grilling’ by the Treasury Select Committee, but there was one final and memorable line from the BoE’s Deputy Governor: ” (you).can’t be be confident about anything after this cesspit.”

  27. First, please define the terms.

    RETAIL banks accept deposits from SAVERS and then loan those deposits rom SAVERS(with interest), out to the LOCAL community of said RETAIL bank, not some lame ass ponzi half way around the world.

    INVESTMENT banks are not really ‘banks’ at all but CASINOS for GAMBLE-HOLICS who are addicted to gambling, like CRACK WHORES, with SAVERS deposits.

    If the two enterprises are legally separated, the VERY FIRST THING mandated is that the GAMBLING/ SPECULATORS can NOT ever, by law, even use the word “bank” in their name.

    This would be an outright BIG LIE, similar to the FEDERAL RESERVE, which has NOTHING to do with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, being prohibited, by law, from ever using the word ‘federal’ in it’s name.

    (How about PRIVATE GAMBLING SYNDICATE RESERVE as truth in advertising!)

    Max Keiser, for YEARS, has framed the whole financial spectacle now bursting like a pus filled boil, as a struggle between SAVERS vs SPECULATORS

    Hey, that overlays perfectly with the definition of RETAIL BANKS vs GAMBLING CRACK WHORE SPECULATORS.

    Now there, doesn’t that clear the smoke from the battle field?

    • @Desperado. I once attended a seminar ( read ‘sales pitch’) at a spread betting company in London. The director of the company stood up and said “Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, I am a bookie”.
      I admired his honesty. No-one could say they weren’t warned.

    • “INVESTMENT banks are not really ‘banks’ . Investment banks are what we used to call Merchant Banks. They are the original banks and were used to finance industry. They started way back in the middle ages when they were used to get wheat growers through the winter.

      Retail banking is a rather new-fangled idea by comparison, since it is only recently that ordinary people had enough cash to consider putting some of it in a bank.

  28. I think the context of Barney Franks “outrageous” comment had something to do with the outfit he wore on his wedding night.

  29. The one clear message from today’s evidence from Tucker was that Barclay’s was in a terrible state.
      At that time the Government, Bank of England, FSA and uncle Tom Cobley all wanted or expected Barclay’s to be the next domino. 
    Today, Barclay’s is one of the world’s leading banks.
      Lets get the man who saved the company – geezer Diamond ( the man who beat the system) 

       

  30. Pingback: RATE-RIGGING: New toxic Tory links to Iswap – the Libor of derivatives trading | A diary of deception and distortion

  31. Pingback: John Ward – Rate-Rigging : New Toxic Tory Link To ISWAP – The Libor Of Derivatives Trading – Revealed : The Secrets Of Michael Spencer’s ISWAP, Michael Fallon, Page 19901,And Controversy About Derivative Rates – 10 July 2012

  32. Reuters today———–
    “In the Spring of 2008, following the failure of Bear Stearns and shortly before the first media report on the subject, we made further inquiry of Barclays as to how Libor submissions were being conducted. We subsequently shared our analysis and suggestions for reform of Libor with the relevant authorities in the UK.”
    That collective amnesia sure is a nasty thing.

  33. Pingback: RATE-RIGGING SCANDAL: as The Slog predicted, detection of the scam is going global. [The Slog] « Mktgeist blog

  34. Pingback: PLANETARY RATES SCAM: Nobody can deny it now | A diary of deception and distortion

  35. Pingback: John Ward – Planetary Rates Scam : Nobody Can Deny It Now – 10 July 2012 | Lucas 2012 Infos

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s