Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he had informed authorities there would have been massive arrests. Either that, or like all other regulations that have been broke over the last decade or so, they all simply decided to ignore it.
Markets collapsed. It was in their best financial interests to keep their mouths shut.
Markets collapsed. It was in their best financial interests to keep their mouths shut.
Bull****. It is never in anyone's best interest to turn a blind eye to massive fraud. You take your lumps so people will keep their faith in the system. Faith in our systems have taken a massive hit and that's part of today's problem.
If he had informed authorities there would have been massive arrests. Either that, or like all other regulations that have been broke over the last decade or so, they all simply decided to ignore it.
Arrests?
Here's the thing. The times they are a-changin'. We've heard quite a lot about the "culture" of the banking and finance industry. We've heard about bonuses, and insane compensation levels and about perks like trips to the Bahamas and to Italy and to Paris for banking seminars. Banking/finance/insurance has a sub-culture that gave them license to indulge in practices that weren't accceptable for the rest of us. It was a very forgiving sub-culture that developed "golden parachutes" as the ultimate example of forgiveness. Even in this scandal, the man at the helm (an American, by the way) had a golden parachute. But the times they are a-changin'. Which is why the man at the helm isn't going to be using his golden parachute. And is why what was perceived as a financial issue in 2007-2008 is now perceived as a criminal issue. Because the larger culture, American culture, British culture, is reining in the sub-culture in light of the damage that the sub-culture has done.
Even Bernanke in testimony to Congress says that the NY Fed acted appropriately and in full accordance with the law. They alerted the BRITISH regulatory body that had authority over LIBOR rates of the problem, with recommendations of ways to address the problem. They alerted AMERICAN regulators of the problem, but AMERICAN regulators had no authority and have no authority over BRITISH banking practices.
And in 2008 it simply wouldn't have been a scandal. Because at that time, the banking/finance/insurance sub-culture that dominated didn't consider LIBOR manipulation a crime.
You know, at one time, insider trading wasn't considered a crime. It became a crime when the larger culture decided that it was a crime. And that's the same dynamic at play here. Banks, financial houses, insurance companies, have abused the public at large, and the public at large is re-defining what it will and will not tolerate. The system had an incentive to manipulate LIBOR rates, that incentive is explained over and over again by the Barclay employees, and that incentive needed to be removed. The British regulators were aware of the problem, and did nothing. And now Barclay's can share the blame with those British regulators.
But I don't think that Geithner can share the blame in a problem when he evidently was one of the whistleblowers who tried to let the British know of the problem and suggested what could be done to fix the problem. That's not complicity. Whistleblowing isn't complicity.
This doesn't just apply abroad. He has all sorts of things he could do when the international bankers are breaking laws left and right.
But go ahead, keep on defending the big banks. It's been a boon for them.
Where did I defend the big banks?
Answer: I didn't.
What I am saying is that the OP's implication that Geithner was complicit with the LIBOR manipulations is untrue. He wasn't a participant in the LIBOR manipulations, he was someone who notified the authorities that it was happening, he was someone who notified the appropriate regulatory agency, a BRITISH regulatory agency, of how to fix the problem. That's not a participant.
We've heard quite a lot about the "culture" of the banking and finance industry. We've heard about bonuses, and insane compensation levels and about perks like trips to the Bahamas and to Italy and to Paris for banking seminars. Banking/finance/insurance has a sub-culture that gave them license to indulge in practices that weren't accceptable for the rest of us. It was a very forgiving sub-culture that developed "golden parachutes" as the ultimate example of forgiveness. Even in this scandal, the man at the helm (an American, by the way) had a golden parachute. But the times they are a-changin'. Which is why the man at the helm isn't going to be using his golden parachute. And is why what was perceived as a financial issue in 2007-2008 is now perceived as a criminal issue. Because the larger culture, American culture, British culture, is reining in the sub-culture in light of the damage that the sub-culture has done.
Don't hold your breath waiting on criminal charges.
Quote:
Even Bernanke in testimony to Congress says that the NY Fed acted appropriately and in full accordance with the law. They alerted the BRITISH regulatory body that had authority over LIBOR rates of the problem, with recommendations of ways to address the problem. They alerted AMERICAN regulators of the problem, but AMERICAN regulators had no authority and have no authority over BRITISH banking practices.
What Bernanke says is pretty worthless. He was one of those at the helm when the economy crashed. He was assuring us over and over that there was no problem that everything was under control.
Quote:
And in 2008 it simply wouldn't have been a scandal. Because at that time, the banking/finance/insurance sub-culture that dominated didn't consider LIBOR manipulation a crime.
You know, at one time, insider trading wasn't considered a crime. It became a crime when the larger culture decided that it was a crime. And that's the same dynamic at play here. Banks, financial houses, insurance companies, have abused the public at large, and the public at large is re-defining what it will and will not tolerate. The system had an incentive to manipulate LIBOR rates, that incentive is explained over and over again by the Barclay employees, and that incentive needed to be removed. The British regulators were aware of the problem, and did nothing. And now Barclay's can share the blame with those British regulators.
But I don't think that Geithner can share the blame in a problem when he evidently was one of the whistleblowers who tried to let the British know of the problem and suggested what could be done to fix the problem. That's not complicity. Whistleblowing isn't complicity.
His job is not to be a whistleblower. He is one of the top law enforcement officials in the country. You act like he is simply a secretary as opposed to the Secretary of the Treasury.
To note the old adage, you can't get the fox to gaurd the henhouse.
What I am saying is that the OP's implication that Geithner was complicit with the LIBOR manipulations is untrue. He wasn't a participant in the LIBOR manipulations, he was someone who notified the authorities that it was happening, he was someone who notified the appropriate regulatory agency, a BRITISH regulatory agency, of how to fix the problem. That's not a participant.
One can point out to you over and over that this was not just a problem with British banks. It was widespread. If one notes that a bank is perpetually getting robbed it's not good enough to simply install more locks. You have to go after those who robbed the banks also or they simply move on to another target.
His job is not to be a whistleblower. He is one of the top law enforcement officials in the country. You act like he is simply a secretary as opposed to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Does The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States have any authority over regulators or banking institutions in other countries?
One can point out to you over and over that this was not just a problem with British banks. It was widespread. If one notes that a bank is perpetually getting robbed it's not good enough to simply install more locks. You have to go after those who robbed the banks also or they simply move on to another target.
Do you have evidence that any of the American banks involved with setting LIBOR rates were manipulating their figures?
Widespread? How many banks involved?
Do you understand what LIBOR rates are, and how they are set?
Does The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States have any authority over regulators or banking institutions in other countries?
It does no good trying to convince a broken clock to give me the correct time.
More than a dozen banks are being investigated for their roles in setting Libor, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Deutsche Bank, HSBC Holdings Plc , UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland..
Dimon seems to be involved in every single bank scandal that comes down the road but yet for some reason it seems he is untouchable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
