Going to hit you again with another Libor tale of woe….It all seems plenty complicated but I have been trying to make some sense of it….so here is my very basic take on it….and a quick summary …Labour is lying, and the BBC, at least in many areas are not doing the homework or are deliberately downplaying Labour’s role in this…with some exceptions.
It is a curious thing but either by design or as a sign of dysfunction the BBC frequently doesn’t seem to draw together all the disparate parts of a story to make a coherent whole….often you hear the ‘expert’ journalist make his analysis but by the time it filters through to the news and other programmes that assessment has changed or been ignored…especially if it doesn’t fit the ‘usual’ BBC narrative…is that down to deliberate decisions by editors or merely lack of care?
After Bob Diamond appeared at the parliamentary committee today the BBC TRUMPETED that he had admitted that he didn’t believe that the message he received was an instruction to manipulate the Libor rate….this of course has been the BBC’s line all day….therefore it was solely down to Diamond that his bank went rogue.
But that is far from the whole truth.
This is all pretty damning of the BBC’s coverage…it is failing entirely to adequately inform us of what really went on. I know nothing about inter bank lending rates and the ins and outs of bank regulation, however just reading a wide selection of information and trying to make sense of it I come to the conclusion perhaps Barclays is not quite so guilty as the BBC and Labour would like us to believe.
In April 2008 the Wall Street journal published this, along with many other articles by others, that said there was huge doubt over the credibility of the Libor rate…ie it was being rigged too low.
April 16, 2008
LIBOR FOG
Bankers Cast Doubt On Key Rate Amid Crisis
LONDON — One of the most important barometers of the world’s financial health could be sending false signals.
In a development that has implications for borrowers everywhere, from Russian oil producers to homeowners in Detroit, bankers and traders are expressing concerns that the London inter-bank offered rate, known as Libor, is becoming unreliable.
The growing suspicions about Libor’s veracity suggest that banks’ troubles could be worse than they’re willing to admit.
Bankers and other market participants have quietly expressed concerns to the British Bankers’ Association, which oversees Libor, about whether banks are reporting rates that reflect their true borrowing costs, according to a person familiar with the matter and to government documents. The BBA is now investigating to identify potential problems, the person says.
Questions about Libor were raised as far back as November, at a Bank of England meeting in which United Kingdom banks, the firms that process bank trades and central bank officials discussed the recent financial turmoil. According to minutes of the meeting, “several group members thought that Libor fixings had been lower than actual traded interbank rates through the period of stress.”
A spokesman for the BBA, John Ewan, said the trade group is monitoring the situation. “We want to ensure that our rates are as accurate as possible, so we are closely watching the rates banks contribute,” Mr. Ewan said. “If it is deemed necessary, we will take action to preserve the reputation and standing in the market of our rates.” Libor is expected to be on the agenda of a bankers’ association board meeting on Wednesday.’
Now today Diamond said he warned Labour about this but they ignored him (presumably because it suited them…a low Libor meant more confidence in the banks):
‘The Barclays executive said that he was concerned in autumn 2008 that the Government may seek to nationalise the bank if they thought Barclays was struggling to raise money.
At the time, Barclays was declaring a Libor rate higher than other banks – which may have been interpreted that it was in financial difficulty. In fact, Mr Diamond believed this was because other banks were manipulating their rates to be lower.
Mr Diamond also added that Barclays had repeatedly warned regulators in Britain and America about the problems with the Libor rate.
“There was an issue out there and it should have been dealt with,” he said. “We were disappointed.” ‘
So it was common knowledge that the banks were manipulating the Libor rate by at least April 2008….Diamond was warning Labour but they ignored him.
In other words it was Labour that was condoning the manipulation of the Libor.
It was Labour and the Bank of England that were questioning why Barclays had a too high Libor rate…which presumably was in fact a more true reflection of Barclay’s position than other bank’s rates.
Why do this? Did they want him to lower that rate…somehow?
Shriti Vadera says it was the government’s job to be ‘concerned’ but the follow on from ‘concerns’ is surely some sort of action to remedy those concerns? What did Labour do…especially as Treasury committee chairman Andrew Tyrie says:
‘The memo reads like it was a ‘nod and wink’ to rig the rate.’
At least one at the BBC believes there is more to this than Labour is letting on:
afneil Andrew Neil To say there was no ‘instruction’ from Tucker to Barclays to lowball libor is Aunt Sally. V clear from Diamond note it was v strong steer.
Oh and look another doubter of the prevailing BBC line:
8.15 BBC Business Editor Robert Peston has been speaking to Radio 4 on the Barclays scandal:
“It’s inconceivable that the Bank of England and Barclays did not have a conversation around how to get Libor rates lower, and that Paul Tucker gave a hint Barclays should be doing this. Banks regard Paul Tucker as a hero for doing this.’
So all in all it seems the Labour story might be unravelling but that there seems some confliction at the BBC on how to report this.