= Subscriber content; or subscribe now to access all American Banker content.

Libor Scandal Undermines Bankers' Claims of Overregulation

"Save me from these evil deeds before I get them done." – Fiona Apple

The Libor fixing scandal is really not a very entertaining story. It's a boring scandal. There's no evil masterminds, no clandestine operations. Calling it a sham would give real sham a bad name. Fixing the Libor is as simple as nudging the golf ball closer to the hole. It comes down to this: Libor rates are what I say they are.

The traders who were fixing the Libor didn't think they were doing something wrong. Everyone else was doing it, so why should they be any different?  They don't even have to be scheming bad guys for participating in the fixing. There was simply no coherent alternative mechanism to report those rates independently. The little tweak here and there, in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't do much damage. The reward is personal and immediate. The loss is borne by many customers who won't even notice that they have been shortchanged. I mean, what are the benefits of blowing the whistle? Whom are you going to complain to – the Fed? The SEC? Nobody wants to be a martyr, especially for such an obscure and unsexy, to an average observer, matter. If there's no upside in exposing the weakness of the system to the feds, one will find an upside in exploiting these same weaknesses to his advantage. And try to explain to the general public why they should care about a few corporate investors being scammed of a few basis points on their investments. It's not like selling toxic securities to unsuspecting customers.

The more interesting angle here is how this sort of "enchantment" has spread to the regulatory quarters. After all it's hard to blame bankers for this sort of behavior – that's what bankers do. They are in business to exploit every opportunity to make money.

The emerging story now is that the Fed and Bank of England might have known about the fixings. What was the Fed's reason not to have done anything? The Fed was acting like a parent of a misbehaving child on the plane, careful not to take any drastic measures to rein him in and subject everyone to even more annoying cries. Sure, the parent has powers to discipline but enforcement would create noise and annoy those disapproving passengers even more, so the Fed would rather keep the whole thing as is. The child, of course, is perfectly aware of this kind of dynamics and is exploiting it with impunity.

Wall Street is gleeful every time the public focus shifts onto regulators.  You know, we weren't policed like we were supposed to, what did you expect us to do – follow the rules unsupervised? It's reminiscent of last summer's British hacking scandal where the Rupert Murdoch-controlled media defended the actions of those involved in the hacking along these lines: "Sure there were some misdeeds, but look at the police! Why didn't they police us? How could they let us do this?" There was nobody there to "save me from these evil deeds." Got it? Now leave us alone, if you can't even enforce your own rules.

That's a tactical mistake. The fact that regulators have tacitly approved or simply decided not to intervene into business as usual does not let bankers off the hook. In fact it kills one of their major arguments about regulations being too aggressive. As soon as the public sees that regulators didn't do their job, it becomes harder to convince us of the Wall Street-peddled notion that regulations are an impediment to a normal flow of business.  Bankers can't have it both ways: they either suffer from too much regulation in which case they admit that regulators actually have some pull; or they proceed to do their business because regulators are too weak, in which case their complaints about regulatory hurdles and heavy government oversight that harms business are simple disingenuous posturing. You can't claim to be a victim of watchdogs and at the same time blame watchdogs for being dumb, inept and disorganized.

The scandal affects trillions of dollars of investments that are reliant on the Libor rate, but the headlines of wrongdoing on Wall Street fail to shock at this juncture. This is business as usual. This is also the beauty of a Wall Street crime. If a wrongdoing occurs, the bosses blame the subordinates, the subordinates blame the bosses and the corporate lawyers find a technicality that absolves all parties.

This time, however, the victims of this scandal are not just the average Joe Schmos who lost money on their mortgage, but major financial institutions and municipalities who invested in Libor-linked securities. If regulators, lawmakers and ordinary citizens can't police the banks, then those institutional investors are our last recourse. I wonder if some of them can find the will to engage with Wall Street in the same manner as Nicky Santoro engaged Charlie the Banker in Martin Scorsese's Casino

You think they'll get the point?

Katya Grishakova left the financial industry after spending more than a decade at various Wall Street firms. She is now a member of the alternative banking subgroup of the Occupy Wall Street movement.


(18) Comments



Comments (18)
Same thing about overregulation applies to credit unions. Yes, we had corporate credit unions (bankers banks) fail because of CMO holdings and the housing bubble. But we got caught up in the same "examiner does not want a failure on his/her watch" approach that community banks suffered through. Close down consumer credit card loans just because a credit score fell below some number that the examiner though was good was bogus and still hurts the consumer, institution and economy.

The CFPB is imposing additional compliance burdens on community banks and credit unions when we did not cause the problem. Yet, being treated the same because the Big 4 did bad stuff.

I agree with robrose. Quality of regulation should be the goal. Not the QUANTITY of regulations showing that the regulators are "doing" a good job.
Posted by no political hacks preferred | Tuesday, July 24 2012 at 3:57PM ET
Two comments. KVillani hit the nail on the head. The Fed wanted the Libor spread to be under reported and the fed does get what it wants almost all the time. This is no small fact!!!!!! Second, Banks and Mortgage companies have been over regulated for years. Over regulation does not mean that they have been properly regulated. Just because the efforts are enormous, time consuming, costly to all, does not mean that they are efficient or effective. The problem lies in quality & quantity. i am sure, after experiencing this for a lifetime, that the quantity can be reduced substantially while the quality needs to be upgraded to deal with the highly educated, highly experienced, highly compensated, highly imaginative individuals being regulated and audited.
Posted by robrose | Tuesday, July 24 2012 at 2:16PM ET
It is a pleasure to read a well written, incisive analysis of what Liborgate and many other scandals really are--outright criminality. Of course corporations will hide behind the diffusion of responsibility that such organizations inevitably facilitate. But OWS is fortunate to have someone of Katya Grishakova's experience and capability as a spokesperson. Not only are the usual critics making the expected points; it is noticeable and remarkable how the editorial pages of the Financial Times, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal and the American Banker are also expressing disgust.
Were bankers were not so blind they would be getting concerned that they are no longer being called out by mere "protesters" but by highly sophisticated critics who are willing to speak truth to power and who actually know what they are talking about. This is a subtle powershift that they won't notice until it is too late.
Posted by Lawrence Baxter | Friday, July 20 2012 at 4:52AM ET
@Alex. Who is Octodragon? I'm not sure I understand your point about money being created out of thin air. Do you mean credit default swaps? Also, what's wrong with writing for the American Banker? Where should we deliver our message?
Posted by Katya G | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 4:38PM ET

Btw, somebody must have gotten the message out there. GS and MS might sue their biggest rivals over Libor. It's like watching Freddy vs. Jason horror movie.
Posted by Katya G | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 4:07PM ET
What is going to happen when another $500 trillion in illusory assets disappears from the global economy? Do you think that humans will stop trading and bartering? You make light of mind control on the subject of money and banking. How many people do you personally know that really understand how money is created out of thin air by all these bad guys you claim to have disassociated yourself from yet you write for American Banker, a media outlet for the Octodragon?
Posted by alex s gabor | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 4:05PM ET
@RDKoncerak: "Let government REIMBURSE me for time and expense incurred to report on transactions and data trails that bear no relation to customer deposits."

This assumes that banks have no systemic influence or spillover effects in their behaviors. All transactions have a relation to customer deposits because too-big-to-fail banks are not just players in the system; they ARE the system.
Posted by Andrew125 | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 3:59PM ET
@JohnC: Isn't that precisely why banks that are in the trading risk business should not be in the deposit business?

"Banks are in the risk business and will take losses at times. Those losses fall back to the shareholders, not the depositors. The difficult part is that the government absorbs the loss of depositor monies."
Posted by Andrew125 | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 3:57PM ET
Another reason to keep investment and commercial banks separate. Right now, if regulators overreact, it's the small banks that will get the short end of the stick, not Wall Street with their loopholes.
Posted by Katya G | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 3:51PM ET
Well written, dry, not too verbose, but detailed enough to give unsuspected reader enough perspective on 'unsexy' banking scandal.
Now, not that I undermine the extent of Libor fixing manipulations, but I'd be careful using the term 'Wall S...treet crime', since 'crime' implies something very specific, that's been violated via standard legal channels.
Also, I'd like to get even more lowdown on UK's Central Bank role in this and particularly the parallel with Bernanke's discount window, arranged on multiple occasions in 2008 and used with full authority by investment banks to solidify their liquidity.
Posted by DmitryK | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 3:42PM ET
I value regulatory oversight--and accept the associated burden of expense--in areas where I'm putting depositors money to use in the marketplace. That's why as a banker I pay for FDIC insurance coverage and regulatory exams.
Bankers, however, are being pressed to spend an increasing amount of time and budget on things like OFAC reporting, CRA, RESPA and the like. These are areas where bankers bear the burden of expense with NO offsetting income. How about a trade: I'll embrace oversight and incur the associated expense of compliance in areas where I'm deploying MY capital and customer deposits. Let government REIMBURSE me for time and expense incurred to report on transactions and data trails that bear no relation to customer deposits.
Posted by RDKoncerak | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 3:14PM ET
There is a considerable difference between regulation and micromanagement. Banks are in the risk business and will take losses at times. Those losses fall back to the shareholders, not the depositors. The difficult part is that the government absorbs the loss of depositor monies. Regulation that becomes micromanagement virtually ensures losses since regulators add a huge layer of cost and prevent innovation and profit opportunities. Perhaps the answer is to intervene earlier when banks have exhausted equity or give less than 100% depositor guarantees.
Posted by John C | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 3:13PM ET
I am a two person compliance department with a community bank. We do the right thing regarding lending and investments, yet we have to pay for the sins of others. We have people in washington making the rules that do not understand the least thing about banking. The mortgage companies, payday lending and other companies "playing bankers" started the downfall along with a few rotten apples. Don't punish the average bank for the faults of a few greedly companies that did not know how to hire the right people and keep an eye on the ones they did hire.
Posted by pdf95499336 | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 3:05PM ET
Recall the Fed - Bernanke in particular - were responsible both for the credit and housing bubble and defended housing policy as late as 2006, also arguing there was no bubble. Then in 2007 and 2008 they denied there was any solvency crisis and treated the whole thing as a liquidity crisis. As John Taylor Getting Off Track, 2009 argued, the rising Libor spread proved the Fed wrong, that the counterparty risk reflected solvency concerns, which is why Fed policy didn't work. So the Fed wanted the Libor spread to be under-reported. The fed usually gets what it wants.
Posted by kvillani | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 3:02PM ET
Perhaps it comes down to this: regulators regulate what they can understand. And small banks' business is simple - take deposits and make loans. As soon as the matter becomes slightly more complicated they have neither capacity nor will to do their job. For this reason, and as much as I support Volcker Rule, I think that simpler approach, like stricter capital requirements for instance, would be a good start at this point.
Posted by Katya G | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 12:57PM ET
Current experience indicates that there is no such thing as Too Much Regulation for the Too Big To Behave Banks. But, this requires federal financial regulators that understand they cannot ham-handedly apply the same degree of regulatory compliance to smaller banks. It's hard to believe that federal regulators are incapable of differentiating between the level of regulatory rigor required with the top 20 banks in the country and the remaining 7,000-odd banks. Even harder to believe this could be accidental.
Posted by jim_wells | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 12:46PM ET
Yes. It is unfortunate. That's why I find all the complaints of too much regulations disingenuous.
Posted by Katya G | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 11:05AM ET
One might think that all but the most ardent banking industry sycophants would have gotten the message that the lack of regulatory rigor paved the way for the Financial Crisis of 2008. So it boggles the mind that the greedy, mega-banks that forced the government to prove that they were Too Big To Fail, are still allowed to opine on the regulatory reform legislation that was prompted by their nefarious activities. I'm not sure what action is more deplorable -- the continuing dishonest dealings of "banksters" who are repeatedly saved from suffering the consequences of their actions, or the disingenuous comments of federal financial regulators who promise tough supervision of mega-banks, yet fail to hold senior management accountable for their misdeeds. The old saying that fish rot from their heads is as applicable to regulatory agencies as it is to big banks.
Posted by jim_wells | Thursday, July 19 2012 at 11:00AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.