2 ms·
I didn't mean to imply that at all. What I meant is that when the whole thing blew up in 2012, they clearly thought they could use the crisis and the understan
by fauigerzigerk 8y ago
I didn't mean to imply that at all.
What I meant is that when the whole thing blew up in 2012, they clearly thought they could use the crisis and the understandable attempts by themselves and the BoE to avoid a bank run to deflect all criticism of their Libor rigging more generally.
That's what I think the purpose of Bob Diamond's accusations against the BoE was. An attempt to confuse the two issues. The Guardian article doesn't make the distinction clear at all.
- cm2187 8y agoHum. I am pretty sure the investigation started with the lowballing (as many investors were complaining about it) and that in the process of that investigation they uncovered the swap desk collusion (which had an impact in fractions of basis point and which wasn't really on anyone's radar). So I'd argue the contrary. Barclays had rather a good hand on the lowballing, having reported the issue to every regulator, and in the end by lowballing themselves in a way that wouldn't affect the resulting index (by remaining one of the top contributions that get excluded by the Libor calculations). The swap trading collusion is what made their position morally indefensible when the BoE joined the two in a single report.
- fauigerzigerk 8y agoI don't understand how this is the contrary of what I'm saying. I agree that they had a pretty good hand on the lowballing issue. That's what I said all along. Everybody understands why they did that, and most would believe that it was at least tolerated by the BoE. So they tried to keep the focus on that issue and use it to sweep the rather more shady collusion business under the rug, at least as far as the wider public and perhaps parliament is concerned. All I'm trying to do here is to make it clear that there are two entirely seperate issues with wholly different motives.