Lieborgate not the end yet

Here Come The Arrests

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/22/2012 13:12 -0400 Thanks to his thorough investigations and comments

As Reuters reports, here come the arrests.

For over four years, virtually everyone in the finance industry knew that Libor was manipulated. The stench of manipulation rose to the very top and thanks to a document release of formerly confidential information, we now know for a fact that even the Fed was in on it - recall that as part of production, the Fed provided a transcript of an April 2008 phone call between a Barclays trader in New York and Fed official Fabiola Ravazzolo, in which the unidentified trader said: "So, we know that we're not posting um, an honest LIBOR." 

And yet without any tangible, black on white evidence, there was no catalyst for pursuing legal action. That all changed when in a desperate attempt to protect its ass, Barclays decided to rat out everyone by settling with regulators, and "turn state" producing e-mail based evidence, most of it quite visual (after all what is more tangible to the common man that evil bankers sipping on Bollinger), which essentially threw years of quiet cartel cooperation under the bus. 

As a result, regulators, enforcers, and legal authorities, many of whom were in on this manipulation from the beginning, no longer had an excuse to not pursue civil and criminal charges against perpetrators, who until recently were footing the tabs at various gentlemen's venues and ultra expensive restaurants. And while the imminent waterfall of civil prosecution will force bank litigation reserves to go through the roof, here comes, with a very long delay, the criminal charges. 

But before we get into it, we wanted to share something mildly curious involving that British Bankers Association: the entity that until recently at least, was implicitly in charge of the Libor fixing, submission, and distribution process (also the entity that will quite soon be non-existent). It involves the BBA's self-professed Governance process and obligations. The extract below shows what it is currently.

All aspects of the operation and management of bbalibor as a benchmark are the responsibility of the independent Foreign Exchange and Money Markets Committee ('FX&MM Committee'). This includes design of the benchmark and the governance and scrutiny of all bbalibor data and all panel bank contributions. BBA LIBOR Ltd undertakes the day to day running of the benchmark under the supervision of the Foreign Exchange and Money Markets Committee. As of 1st January 2010, BBA LIBOR Ltd. has been governed by an independent Board.

Thomson Reuters - the 'Designated Distributor' of BBA LIBOR - is tasked with collecting the daily submissions that are inputs into the bbalibor process and submitting them to rigorous checks before publishing the resulting calculation to the market. If any bank submission falls outside a defined set of parameters, Thomson Reuters will consult the contributor and request confirmation that the rate provided is correct, thus allowing any simple typing errors to be amended promptly. These parameters are agreed by the FX&MM Committee and are regularly reviewed to ensure they reflect prevailing market conditions and maintain the highest level of scrutiny over the rates.

There is a named individual at each bank responsible for submitting the daily bbalibor rates to Thomson Reuters and this will be the person responsible for the bank's cash - usually their title is 'treasurer' or similar. There is written guidance on what information that person should take into account when calculating that day's rates for his or her bank. As all contributor banks are regulated, they are responsible to their regulators, rather than BBA LIBOR Ltd. or the FX&MM Committee, for maintaining appropriate procedures for contributing, including the maintenance of internal chinese walls.

The reason we have bolded the third paragraph is that if one had gone to the BBA's Governance section as recently as a few weeks ago, or prior to Liborgate becoming front page news, the paragraph read something totally different. However, courtesy of the Way Back Machine, we have a great idea of just what the BBA quietly and under the radar tried to change vis-a-vis its own obligations and responsibilities in the Libor scandal. This is what the third paragraph said before.

BBA LIBOR Ltd. receives the fixings and underlying contributor data at the same time as all other live data recipients and monitors all submissions into the fixing process. Any anomalous rates are queried with the submitting bank, and a log of these queries is kept and given to the FX&MM Committee on a periodic basis, who may choose at their discretion to follow up these queries in line with established governance and scrutiny procedures.

Up until literally minutes ago, the question to be asked was why was this change made on the page, on a governance page of all places, a change which shirks responsibility and accountability and begs the question, did BBA log any queries of anomalous rates, did the FX&MM Committee follow up on any queries, or are they simply trying to bury something here? Now, thanks to Reuters, we know.

With arrests on deck, the BBA is doing everything it can to distance itself from what it knows with absolute certainty is about to be a shitstorm of epic proportions:

U.S. prosecutors and European regulators are close to arresting individual traders and charging them with colluding to manipulate global benchmark interest rates, according to people familiar with a sweeping investigation into the rate-rigging scandal.

Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., have recently contacted lawyers representing some of the individuals under suspicion to notify them that criminal charges and arrests could be imminent, said two of those sources who asked not to be identified because the investigation is ongoing.

Defense lawyers, some of whom represent individuals under suspicion, said prosecutors have indicated they plan to begin making arrests and filing criminal charges in the next few weeks. In long-running financial investigations it is not uncommon for prosecutors to contact defense lawyers for individuals before filing charges to offer them a chance to cooperate or take a plea, these lawyer said.

The prospect of charges and arrests of individuals means that prosecutors are getting a fuller picture of how traders at major banks allegedly sought to influence the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, and other global rates that underpin hundreds of trillions of dollars in assets. The criminal charges would come alongside efforts by regulators to punish major banks with fines, and could show that the alleged activity was not rampant in the banks.

Actually what it will show is that criminal activity was not only rampant, but everyone knew about it, certainly the regualtors, and most certainly the Fed and the BOE. After all how could they not: they are the ultimate entities who manipulate rates. But for them it is a matter of "policy." As such they are desperate to throw anyone under the bus, as long as public attention is redirected from them.

So where will the first arrests come? Why the world's biggest bank of course.

The source familiar with the regulatory investigation in Europe said two traders who have been suspended from Deutsche Bank were among those being investigated. A Deutsche Bank spokesman declined to comment.

Then, once DB is down and out, next it will be a turn to not only break up of the IR derivative trading cabal in Geneva, but also extract a solid fee from the Swiss banks in the process.

The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that regulators were looking at suspected communication among four traders who had worked at Barclays, Credit Agricole, HSBC and Deutsche Bank.

And so the tide turns, as banks, all of which should have ended up as bailed out utilities in the aftermath of the Lehman collapse, will now be forced to fork over billions in cash to the same governments and administrations that bailed them out in the first place, under the guise of civil and criminal penalty disgorgement in what will almost certainly end up as the biggest financial settlement in history, one which will leave most of the world's banks sorely undercapitalized and force the Basel implementation of various capital requirements to be scrapped indefinitely.

LIBORGATE follow up

The Real Libor scandal 

and The Bond Market Armageddon!

Paul Craig Roberts, Economist and Former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury under Reagan, will discuss what he calls “the real Libor scandal,” and tell us what we may all be missing from this latest hullaballoo.

The dirty little secret (well, not so secret if you can do basic math) is that banks have been living off borrowed time since the onset of the 2008 financial crisis. They have assets on their books that they refuse to mark to market, and are dependent on cheap financing and easy liquidity to keep their insolvency from officially bankrupting their institutions.

This is what characterizes a zombie bank, and zombie banks no longer speak only Japanese. This is a western phenomenon now, with the zombie virus having crossed the pacific, and then again the Atlantic.

The Real Libor Scandal

To sum up, what has happened is that irresponsible and thoughtless--in fact, ideological--deregulation of the financial sector has caused a financial crisis that can only be managed by fraud. Civil damages might be paid, but to halt the fraud itself would mean the collapse of the financial system. 

Those in charge of the system would prefer the collapse to come from outside, such as from a collapse in the value of the dollar that could be blamed on foreigners, because an outside cause gives them something to blame other than themselves.

According to news reports, UK banks fixed the London interbank borrowing rate (Libor) with the complicity of the Bank of England (UK central bank) at a low rate in order to obtain a cheap borrowing cost. The way this scandal is playing out is that the banks benefitted from borrowing at these low rates. Whereas this is true, it also strikes us as simplistic and as a diversion from the deeper, darker scandal.

Banks are not the only beneficiaries of lower Libor rates. Debtors (and investors) whose floating or variable rate loans are pegged in some way to Libor also benefit. One could argue that by fixing the rate low, the banks were cheating themselves out of interest income, because the effect of the low Libor rate is to lower the interest rate on customer loans, such as variable rate mortgages that banks possess in their portfolios. But the banks did not fix the Libor rate with their customers in mind. Instead, the fixed Libor rate enabled them to improve their balance sheets, as well as help to perpetuate the regime of low interest rates. The last thing the banks want is a rise in interest rates that would drive down the values of their holdings and reveal large losses masked by rigged interest rates.

Indicative of greater deceit and a larger scandal than simply borrowing from one another at lower rates, banks gained far more from the rise in the prices, or higher evaluations of floating rate financial instruments (such as CDOs), that resulted from lower Libor rates. As prices of debt instruments all tend to move in the same direction, and in the opposite direction from interest rates (low interest rates mean high bond prices, and vice versa), the effect of lower Libor rates is to prop up the prices of bonds, asset-backed financial instruments, and other "securities." The end result is that the banks' balance sheets look healthier than they really are.

On the losing side of the scandal are purchasers of interest rate swaps, savers who receive less interest on their accounts, and ultimately all bond holders when the bond bubble pops and prices collapse.

We think we can conclude that Libor rates were manipulated lower as a means to bolster the prices of bonds and asset-backed securities. In the UK, as in the US, the interest rate on government bonds is less than the rate of inflation. The UK inflation rate is about 2.8%, and the interest rate on 20-year government bonds is 2.5%. Also, in the UK, as in the US, the government debt to GDP ratio is rising. Currently the ratio in the UK is about double its average during the 1980-2011 period.

The question is, why do investors purchase long term bonds, which pay less than the rate of inflation, from governments whose debt is rising as a share of GDP? One might think that investors would understand that they are losing money and sell the bonds, thus lowering their price and raising the interest rate.

Why isn’t this happening?

in IPE Review June 5 column, “Collapse at Hand, explained that despite the negative interest rate, investors were making capital gains from their Treasury bond holdings, because the prices were rising as interest rates were pushed lower. 

What was pushing the interest rates lower?

The answer is even clearer now. First, Wall Street has been selling huge amounts of interest rate swaps, essentially a way of shorting interest rates and driving them down. Thus, causing bond prices to rise. Secondly, fixing Libor at lower rates has the same effect. Lower UK interest rates on government bonds drive up their prices.

In other words, we would argue that the bailed-out banks in the US and UK are returning the favor that they received from the bailouts and from the Fed and Bank of England’s low rate policy by rigging government bond prices, thus propping up a government bond market that would otherwise, one would think, be driven down by the abundance of new debt and monetization of this debt, or some part of it.

How long can the government bond bubble be sustained? How negative can interest rates be driven?

Can a declining economy offset the impact on inflation of debt creation and its monetization, with the result that inflation falls to zero, thus making the low interest rates on government bonds positive?

According to his public statements, zero inflation is not the goal of the Federal Reserve chairman. He believes that some inflation is a spur to economic growth, and he has said that his target is 2% inflation. At current bond prices, that means a continuation of negative interest rates.

The latest news completes the picture of banks and central banks manipulating interest rates in order to prop up the prices of bonds and other debt instruments. We have learned that the Fed has been aware of Libor manipulation (and thus apparently supportive of it) since 2008. Thus, the circle of complicity is closed. 

The motives of the Fed, Bank of England, US and UK banks are aligned, their policies mutually reinforcing and beneficial. The Libor fixing is another indication of this collusion.

Unless bond prices can continue to rise as new debt is issued, the era of rigged bond prices might be drawing to an end. It would seem to be only a matter of time before the bond bubble bursts.

Does this mean that the US and UK financial systems can only be kept afloat by fraud that harms purchasers of interest rate swaps, which include municipalities advised by sellers of interest rate swaps, and those with saving accounts?

The answer is yes, but the Libor scandal is only a small part of the interest rate rigging scandal. The Federal Reserve itself has been rigging interest rates. How else could debt 
issued in profusion be bearing negative interest rates?

As villainous as they might be, Barclays bank chief executive Bob Diamond, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs are not the main villains. The main villains are former Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs chairman Robert Rubin, who pushed Congress for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, and the sponsors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. Glass-Steagall was put in place in 1933 in order to prevent the kind of financial excesses that produced the current ongoing financial crisis. 

President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, presented the removal of all constraints on financial chicanery as “financial modernization.” Taking restraints off of banks was part of the hubristic response to “the end of history.” Capitalism had won the struggle with socialism and communism. Vindicated capitalism no longer needed its concessions to social welfare and regulation that capitalism used in order to compete with socialism.

The constraints on capitalism could now be thrown off, because markets were self-regulating as Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, among many, declared. It was financial deregulation--the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the removal of limits on debt leverage, the absence of regulation of OTC derivatives, the removal of limits on speculative positions in future markets--that caused the ongoing financial crisis. No doubt but that JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and others were after maximum profits by hook or crook, but their opportunity came from the neoconservative triumphalism of “democratic capitalism’s” historical victory over alternative socio-politico-economic systems.

The ongoing crisis cannot be addressed without restoring the laws and regulations that were repealed and discarded. But putting Humpty-Dumpty back together again is an enormous task full of its own perils. 

The financial concentration that deregulation fostered has left us with broken financial institutions that are too big to fail. To understand the fullness of the problem, consider the law suits that are expected to be filed against the banks that fixed the Libor rate by those who were harmed by the fraud. Some are saying that as the fraud was known by the central banks and not reported, that the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England should be indicted for their participation in the fraud. 

What follows is not an apology for fraud. It merely describes consequences of holding those responsible accountable.

Imagine the Federal reserve called before Congress or the Department of Justice to answer why it did not report on the fraud perpetrated by private banks, fraud that was supporting the Federal Reserve’s own rigging of interest rates (and the same in the UK.) 

The Federal reserve will reply: “So, you want us to let interest rates go up? Are you prepared to come up with the money to bail out the FDIC-insured depositors of JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, etc.? Are you prepared for US Treasury prices to collapse, wiping out bond funds and the remaining wealth in the US and driving up interest rates, making the interest rate on new federal debt necessary to finance the huge budget deficits impossible to pay, and finishing off what is left of the real estate market? Are you prepared to take responsibility, you who deregulated the financial system, for this economic armageddon? 

Obviously, the politicians will say NO, continue with the fraud. The harm to people from collapse far exceeds the harm in lost interest from fixing the low interest rates in order to forestall collapse. The Federal Reserve will say that we are doing our best to create profits for the banks that will permit us eventually to unwind the fraud and return to normal. Congress will see no better alternative to this.

The End of the Dollar

But the question remains: How long can the regime of negative interest rates continue while debt explodes upward? 

Currently, everyone in the US who counts and most who don’t have an interest in holding off armageddon. No one wants to tip over the boat. If the banks are sued for damages and lack the money to pay, the Federal Reserve can create the money for the banks to pay. 

If the collapse of the system does not result from scandals, it will come from outside. The dollar is the world reserve currency. This means that the dollar’s exchange value is boosted, despite the dismal economic outlook in the US, by the fact that, as the currency for settling international accounts, there is international demand for the dollar. Country A settles its trade deficit with country B in dollars; country B settles its account with country C in dollars; and so on throughout the countries of the world.

For whatever the reason--perhaps to curtail their accumulation of suspect dollars or to bring Washington’s power to an end--the BRICS countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, are agreeing to settle their trade between themselves in their own currencies, thus abandoning the use of the dollar. 

According to reports, China and Japan have reached agreement to settle their trade between themselves in their own currencies.

The moves away from the dollar as the currency of international transactions means that the dollar’s exchange value will fall as the demand for dollars falls. Whereas the Federal Reserve can create dollars with which to purchase the Treasury’s debt, thus preventing a fall in bond prices, the Federal Reserve cannot prop up the dollar’s exchange value by creating more dollars with which to purchase dollars. Dollars would have to be taken off the foreign exchange market by purchasing them with other currencies, but in order to have these currencies the US would have to be running a trade surplus, not a long-term trade deficit. 

In the short-run, the Federal Reserve could arrange currency swap agreements in which foreign central banks swap their currencies for dollars in order to supply the Federal Reserve with currencies with which to soak up dollars. However, only a limited number of swaps could be negotiated before foreign central banks understood that the dollar’s fall in value was not a temporary event that could be propped up with currency swaps.

As the value of the dollar will fall as countries move away from its use as reserve currency, the values of dollar-denominated assets also will fall. The Federal Reserve, even with full cooperation from the banking system employing every fraud technique known, cannot prevent interest rates from rising on debt instruments denominated in a currency whose value is falling.

Think about it this way. A person, fund, or institution owns bonds or any debt instruments carrying a negative rate of interest, but continues to hold the instruments because interest rates, despite the increase in debt, are creeping down, raising bond prices and producing capital gains in the bonds. What happens when the exchange value of the currency in which the debt instruments are denominated falls? Can the price of the bond stay high even though the value of the currency in which the bond is denominated falls? 

The drop in the exchange value of the currency hits the bond price in a second way. The price of imports rise, and this pushes up prices. The inflation measures will show higher inflation. How long will people hold debt instruments paying negative interest rates as inflation rises? Perhaps there are historical cases in which bond prices continue to rise indefinitely (or even hold firm) as inflation rises, but I have never heard of them.

As the Federal Reserve can create money, theoretically the Federal Reserve’s prop-up schemes could continue until the Federal Reserve owns all dollar-denominated financial assets. To cover the holes in its own balance sheet, the Federal Reserve could just print more money.

Some suspect that the Federal Reserve, in order to forestall a declining dollar and thus declining prices of dollar-denominated financial instruments, is behind the sales of naked shorts every time demand for physical bullion drives up the price of gold and silver. The short sales--paper sales--cancel the impact on price of the increased demand for bullion.

Some also believe that they see the Federal Reserve’s hand in the stock market. One day stocks fall 200 points. The next day stocks rise 200 points. This up and down pattern has been ongoing for a long time. One possible explanation is that as wary investors sell their equity holdings, the Federal Reserve, or the “plunge protection team,” steps in and buys. 

Just as the “terrorist threat” was used to destroy the laws that protect US civil liberty, the financial crisis has resulted in the Federal Reserve moving far outside its charter and normal operating behavior. 

To sum up, what has happened is that irresponsible and thoughtless--in fact, ideological--deregulation of the financial sector has caused a financial crisis that can only be managed by fraud. Civil damages might be paid, but to halt the fraud itself would mean the collapse of the financial system. 

Those in charge of the system would prefer the collapse to come from outside, such as from a collapse in the value of the dollar that could be blamed on foreigners, because an outside cause gives them something to blame other than themselves.

LIBORGATE

Behind the Libor Scandal

SEE LINKS AT THE END

The recent settlement with Barclays Bank over its LIBOR(1) fixing fraud has gotten.... some.... attention. Not a lot of attention, though. Why is that, given that this fraud potentially affected trillions of dollars in assets?

I think the obvious answer is that (a) it's really complicated and (b) everyone's a little vague about just who got ripped off here. On a list service I subscribe to, a seemingly knowledgeable participant (2) said the victims of the scam include investors who owned floating rate notes, LIBOR-linked CDs, or pay-fixed-receive-floating interest rate swaps; or anyone who traded LIBOR contracts on a U.S. futures exchange and lost  money. And let's face it: that doesn't sound much like widows and pensioners, does it?

What's more, the LIBOR scam wasn't about pushing LIBOR systematically up or down. Sometimes it was pushed up, sometimes it was pushed down, depending on whatever happened to be good for the Barclays trading desk on any given day. 

Nonetheless, it's a big deal, and I think the Economist pretty much nails it here:

The attempts to rig LIBOR [...] not only betray a culture of casual dishonesty; they set the stage for lawsuits and more regulation right the way round the globe. This could well be global finance’s “tobacco moment”....Despite the risks of banker-bashing, a clean-up is in order, for the banking industry’s credibility is shot, and without trust neither the business nor the clients it serves can prosper. 

Right now the scandal is not limited to Barclays, UBS is said to be next in line, and other banks that haven't cooperated as willingly will take longer to prosecute. In theory, though, the news is likely to be even worse once those cases finish up.

Roughly speaking, the view from inside Barclays is that they're being treated unfairly. They cooperated, after all, and they say that other banks were way more involved in the LIBOR-fixing scam than they were. If that's true, one of two things will happen. 

Either this scandal will explode way beyond the financial press, where it's mostly played out so far. Or it will turn out that declining to cooperate makes it really hard to prosecute the other banks and Barclays will look like idiots for doing so. I'm not sure which to put my money on.

1LIBOR is the London Interbank Offered Rate. It's basically the current interest rate banks charge each other to borrow money, and it changes on a daily basis. So if you have an adjustable rate mortgage, for example, your interest rate might be LIBOR + 3, or something like that.

2How's that for a reliable source?

 Culture of Casual Dishonesty

As I spend most of days trying to recover from Traumatic Brain Injury - does one actually "recover" from such? I have been reading Economic materials to stimulate my cognitive processing. And I am beginning to wonder if Bankers have Traumatic Brain Injury they seem to exhibit much of the same traits and behaviors. 

Typical behavioral problems experienced by traumatic brain injury survivors include:

Self-centeredness

Aggression

Inappropriate sexual behavior

Extreme temper

Cursing

Manipulative behavior

If that doesn't describe a banker what does? Shoot I may have a new career as at least mine is official. 

To many the LIBOR scandal is not even on the radar or its thought of as some scandal in England. Well in this case you are half right. But its actually also being handled in England appropriately. And like the Murdoch scandal it is not being ignored. If anyone thinks that the Murdoch's kept their illegality and impropriety in Journalism confined to across the pond I have a bridge to sell you and JP Morgan Chase can finance it for you.

I think Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone, a writer whose ire I admire, does an excellent job covering technical economic issues I think with plain speaking and the rough edges I admire. Here is the link to his blog articles on the subject: 

See the BOE note in the article 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/libor-banking-scandal-deepens-barclays-releases-damning-email-implicates-british-government-20120704

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is also expected to appear before the Senate Banking Committee in the coming weeks to face similar questions.

Last Friday the New York Federal Reserve, which Mr Geithner was in charge of at the time, released a trove of documents showing that Barclays informed the regulator about its concerns over Libor manipulation as far back as August 2007.

The documents also showed that by June 2008 Mr Geithner was concerned enough to formally contact Bank of England Governor Mervyn King to report the problems relating to Barclays and other banks, and made recommendations to shore up the Libor setting process.

The Bank passed the email on to the British Bankers Association (BBA), which, according to Mr King, assured both the Bank and the NY Fed that it would take on board the recommendations.

The BBA has responsibility for overseeing Libor. It is not yet clear how it dealt with the information from the Fed.

And I have reprinted the article below from today's New York Times and it does a great and simplistic way of explaining why LIBOR matters. 

SEE INFOGRAPHY Click the link below to see the full graphic.
Behind the Libor Scandal – Graphic – NYTimes.com

The British, at Least, Are Getting Tough

NY TIMES : By GRETCHEN MORGENSON Published: July 7, 2012

The unfolding story of how Barclays — and, in all likelihood, other big banks — rigged interest rates is full of telling tidbits about the way Wall Street works. It also represents yet another teachable moment.

By now the world knows that Barclays manipulated the most widely used benchmark rate, the London interbank offered rate. But Barclays is just one member of the cozy club that sets the Libor, which is supposed to be based on the average rate at which large banks can borrow money overnight. It’s not based on actual transactions, however — and that leaves room for mischief.

And mischief there was, according to e-mails and other documents that Barclays has turned over to regulators in the United States and Britain. The upshot: traders colluded by posting rates that either helped their bets in the markets or their bank’s perceived financial strength during the harrowing days of 2008.

In October 2008, a Bank of England official questioned why Barclays’ submissions were high compared with other banks. After this, the Barclays rates fell closer to those of other banks. Barclays has released documents saying that some bank executives believed the official had instructed them to lower its rates, but the official has denied any improper actions.

Manipulating the Libor is a big deal because it affects the cost of money for almost everyone. The Libor is used to set rates on mortgages, credit cards and all manner of loans, personal and commercial. The amount of money affected by the phony rates is at least $500 trillion, British regulators have estimated.

Barclays is not the only bank under investigation for rigging the Libor. It was simply the first to own up to the behavior and settle with regulators, paying $450 million. Other banks will almost certainly follow, and the documents bound to bubble up in those cases will surely prove fascinating.

One of the most revealing exchanges in the Barclays documents came when a bank official tried to describe why Barclays’s improper postings were not as problematic as those of other banks. “We’re clean but we’re dirty-clean, rather than clean-clean,” an executive said in a phone conversation. Talk about defining deviancy down.

“Dirty clean” versus “clean clean” pretty much sums up Wall Street’s view of cheating. If everybody does it, nobody should be held accountable if caught. Alas, many United States regulators and prosecutors seem to have bought into this argument.

British authorities have not. Last week’s defenestrations of Marcus Agius, the Barclays chairman; Robert E. Diamond Jr., its hard-charging chief executive; and Jerry del Missier, its chief operating officer, apparently occurred at the behest of the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority, the nation’s top securities regulator. (Mr. del Missier also seems to have lost his post as chairman of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the big Wall Street lobbying group. His name vanished last week from the list of board members on the group’s Web site.)

MR. DIAMOND seemed shocked to be pushed out. An American by birth, he probably thought he’d be subject to American rules of engagement when confronted with evidence of wrongdoing at his bank. You know how it works on this side of the Atlantic: faced with a scandal, most chief executives jettison low-level employees, maybe give up a bonus or two — and then ride out the storm. Regulators, if they act, just extract fines from the shareholders.

British officials are taking a different approach with this scandal. George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, was direct in his assessment of Barclays’s activities. “It is clear that what happened in Barclays and potentially other banks was completely unacceptable, was symptomatic of a financial system that elevated greed above all other concerns and brought our economy to its knees,” he said in a statement on June 28. “Punish wrongdoing. Right the wrong of the age of irresponsibility.”

Later, in a speech to Parliament, Mr. Osborne voiced the question that so many have asked recently in the United States. “Fraud is a crime in ordinary business — why shouldn’t it be so in banking?” he asked.

Perhaps the biggest lesson from the Libor scandal is how dangerous it is to rely on interested parties to set interest rates or prices of financial instruments, rather than on actual transactions conducted by investors. The Libor has been set in the current and vulnerable manner since the late 1960s. Maybe it has never been rigged before, but who knows?

It is far better to have the transparent and verifiable record of prices created by a tape of electronic trading. Such records are standard pricing mechanisms for many securities. But not all.

Prices of derivatives, especially credit default swaps that trade one-to-one, can still be based on one dealer’s say-so. That’s why a rule proposed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that would require pretrade price transparency in the swaps market is so important.

But it is also why Wall Street is pushing back, especially on the commission’s proposal that swap execution facilities provide market participants, before they buy or sell, with easily accessible prices on “a centralized electronic screen.” The commission’s rule would eliminate the one-to-one dealings by telephone that are so lucrative to traders and so expensive to investors.

A bill intended to gut the commission’s proposed rule and to maintain dealers’ profits in derivatives failed to go anywhere after being passed last year by two committees in the House of Representatives — Financial Services and Agriculture. That was a good thing.

But there are rumblings in Washington that this bill has resurfaced and that it may be quietly attached to a House Agriculture Committee appropriations bill scheduled for a vote this month. The bill, if passed, would bar the requirement for a centralized pricing platform to shed light on the enormous swaps market. It would also prevent regulators from requiring that a number of participants provide price quotations to customers, a way to ensure fairness.

It’s hard to believe, in the wake of the Libor mess, that Wall Street and its supporters in Congress would continue to battle against price transparency in any market. Then again, that’s precisely what they did after the credit crisis.

With each new financial imbroglio, the gulf widens between Main Street’s opinion of Wall Street and the industry’s view of itself. When Mr. del Missier, the former Barclays chief operating officer, took over as chairman of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association last November, he said: “We will continue to work on maintaining and burnishing the level of confidence investors have in our markets, in our own financial institutions, and in the general economic outlook for the future.”

Given the Libor scandal, let’s just say good luck with that.

SOME COMPLEMENTS SEE :

Le Temps LA CHRONIQUE DE JEAN-PIERRE BÉGUELIN Samedi14 juillet 2012

Le Libor: un enfant de bohème

LIBOR: Not a Scandal, but a Funeral

How it works and how it affects everybody