[Zenomorph]

(Original post by crcr)
I don't get it, LIBOR is an estimation (so not based on an actual trade) of what a bank thinks it can borrow funds at, how is that something that can be traded (the point here is that Barclays moved LIBOR away from where it could actually borrow to make money on swaps it had already closed, isn't it?)? if the LIBOR submission is some kind of contract, why are the people who submit "seperate" from traders? Most of your earlier points about what Barclays were doing don't make sense a whole lot of sense (i.e. your point about Barclays getting cheaper funds), i'll take my evidence from the actual lawsuits in the US/CAN/JPN.

EDIT: it also isn't clear that "all" will lose out more, the net result of Barclay's action was nothing, it changed the distribution of funds but not the amount (stating the obvious but...).

If you don't want a reply then don't ask ( highlighted ).
I think this is the end of our conversation. Bye.

[NothingOnYou]

(Original post by gangst)
The irony is that this 'manipulation', actually probably served to ease lending (to a very small degree), and may have actually had some public/ social benefit. On top of this is actually very unlikely that Barclays actually benefited but rather a few traders were looking to protect their books (and jobs) rather than trying to directly benefit the bank.

However, this will just serve as another whipping stick for those who subscribe to the politics of envy to embrace.

The UK is doing an effective job at biting off the hand that feeds it.

Fixing risk can be colossal. If you have a few million GBP of fixing risk on your book and it's in your hands to influence it, diverging from the appropriate the level with respect to your banks cost of funding, is wrong.

[NothingOnYou]

(Original post by Zenomorph)
I was referring to something else.

But to this point LIBOR being fixed lower actually helped Barclays as they were also lending from the market at the time. Lower Libor - cheaper funds.
Also It does not mean they won't profit as much since old muggins , Joe Public that is will still be charged a big spread from wherever Libor is.

LIBOR is an indicative rate. You do not have to deal on it. OIS is a much better metric of traded rates.

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by NothingOnYou)
LIBOR is an indicative rate. You do not have to deal on it. OIS is a much better metric of traded rates.

You don't have to deal on anything but if you want overnight GBP @ x rate then it's Libor one way or another

[NothingOnYou]

(Original post by Zenomorph)
You don't have to deal on anything but if you want overnight GBP @ x rate then it's Libor one way or another

What does this have to do with anything?

Barcap quoting lower LIBOR didnot magically cut their cost of unsecured funding.
Was it case of minimising potential costs of fixing risk? Completely; and it isn't excusable.

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by NothingOnYou)
LIBOR is an indicative rate. You do not have to deal on it. OIS is a much better metric of traded rates.

You said this - I disagreed.

Bigger profit margin , understating risk - it all amounts to the same thing:a FIX. You don't think that they are unaware of the multiple benefits of fixing Libor, do you ?

[barnetlad]

One of the tabloid papers yesterday referred to the Barclays chief with the heading 'Shine on you Crazy Diamond'. I cannot imagine Syd Barrett (RIP) or Roger Waters as a bank manager somehow.

[Regent]

(Original post by gangst)

However, this will just serve as another whipping stick for those who subscribe to the politics of envy to embrace.

The UK is doing an effective job at biting off the hand that feeds it.

LOL. Oooookk theeeen!

[Frenchous]

(Original post by gangst)
The UK is doing an effective job at biting off the hand that feeds it.

brainwashed

[tkane]

(Original post by gangst)


The UK is doing an effective job at biting off the hand that feeds it.

This is painful stuff to read. Utter arrogance and ignorance.

The entire financial services industry (i.e casino banking PLUS everything else) only make up a tenth of UK GDP.

[Herr]

Another politics of envy issue that's being scandalized and blown far out of proportion to satisfy an angry public.

[Hackett]

Christ, he's gone and resigned and I didn't see that one coming tbh.

[Hackett]

Can someone please explain to me why Barclays and other banks fixed the LIBOR? From what I have gathered it was to balance their books and make them look more attractive than what they were...

[NothingOnYou]

(Original post by Hackett)
Can someone please explain to me why Barclays and other banks fixed the LIBOR? From what I have gathered it was to balance their books and make them look more attractive than what they were...

Let's write a contract where tomorrow you pay me x% of £1,000,000, and I pay you O/N LIBOR * £1,000,000.

Now where do my laurels rest?

[gangst]

(Original post by tkane)
This is painful stuff to read. Utter arrogance and ignorance.

The entire financial services industry (i.e casino banking PLUS everything else) only make up a tenth of UK GDP.

I know, but relatively speaking it is a lot given how many sectors there are which contribute to GDP, and the contribution per worker from finance.

[Frenchous]

(Original post by gangst)
I know, but relatively speaking it is a lot given how many sectors there are which contribute to GDP, and the contribution per worker from finance.

Drop your vault guide and go play football

[Teenage Pirate]

(Original post by Hackett)
Can someone please explain to me why Barclays and other banks fixed the LIBOR? From what I have gathered it was to balance their books and make them look more attractive than what they were...

Not even sure it made the bank overall more attractive, it made the books of the traders brazen enough to ask for different rates look more attractive

[crcr]

(Original post by Teenage Pirate)
Not even sure it made the bank overall more attractive, it made the books of the traders brazen enough to ask for different rates look more attractive

As I understand it, the incidents 2004-2007 were multiple banks, multiple traders trying to purely make money on their own account. The stuff in late '07 and in '08 was an attempt to stop BARC posting relatively high rates. The controversy with the latter is the question over who gave instruction to do this, BOE/"Whitehall"/CEO/COO (The general consensus is that it was the COO acting alone or with the implicit support of the CEO).