3 ms·
This article contains a rather poor explanation of what LIBOR is and the history around it. Matt Levine does a much better job: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/a
by Afforess 9y ago
This article contains a rather poor explanation of what LIBOR is and the history around it. Matt Levine does a much better job: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-27/the-end-of-libor-and-non-voting-stock https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-27/the-end-o...
Back in the 1960s, a Greek banker in London[1] wanted to find a way for banks to make syndicated floating-rate loans. He found a very simple answer: The banks would lend money to a company, charging their cost of funds plus a spread, and every three months, you'd go out and ask the banks what their cost of funds was, and you'd average their answers, and that (plus the fixed spread) would be the new interest rate on the loan. This was a simple product for the banks: They could pass their costs on directly to the customer, and make a fixed profit (the spread). And by surveying all the big banks and throwing out outlier submissions, you could get a pretty fair approximation of the overall funding cost for banks.
And so this -- Libor, the London interbank offered rate -- became the normal way that everyone did floating-rate loans, and then it became the normal way that everyone did interest-rate derivatives, and then it became the normal way that everyone did ... sort of ... everything? Libor just sort of became The Interest Rate, used for discounting cash flows in all sorts of transactions, "the most important number in the world." But it was always based on a survey of banks' funding costs, and so it was always a little hazy. One problem was that the banks could lie. But a second problem is that the banks might not even know. Libor surveys asked banks each day what they would have to pay to borrow money unsecured from other big banks, but over time the banks sort of stopped doing that, particularly in some of the more obscure combinations of tenors and currencies that nonetheless reported Libor rates. So the banks' Libor submitters would guesstimate their submissions based on deposit rates and commercial-paper rates and secured-borrowing rates and other tenors and what brokers and their buddies were telling them. It was all more or less good enough as a casual system for resetting the rates on a few billion dollars worth of syndicated loans, but it was not accurate down to the hundredth of a basis point as a foundation for the financial system, or as the source for pricing hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives.
[1] Minos Zombanakis: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-11-29/the-man-who-invented-libor-iw3fpmed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-11-29/the-man-w...
- tptacek 9y agoMatt Levine is so much better on these topics than Matt Taibbi that one might hope the site would switch URLs. But, of course, accuracy is not the reason people read Taibbi's financial reporting. They're both humorous writers (though in different ways; Taibbi is the better of the two as stylists), but Taibbi is also emotionally satisfying. It would be helpful if people kept providing Levine pieces to accompany Taibbi pieces.
- res0nat0r 9y agoThe Spider Network, about the banker in the center of the scandal from a ways back just came out earlier this year and was an entertaining read. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062452983/ref=cm_sw_su_dp https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062452983/ref=cm_sw_su_dp
- al452 9y agoIn some ways agree, except that I do not find Taibbi's rage-driven ignorance-fuelled style in any way "emotionally satisfying".