Jump to content

Talk:Libor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening heading

[edit]

See BBA website: 1. http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=225&a=1416 2. http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=225&a=1413

59.180.108.22 06:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true - but is a matter of semantics. In all deal there must be two parties, buy / sell lend / borrow, etc. The basis for calculation of the rate is as you say borrowing because it is created from the rates at which banks "could borrow funds". There will be another bank on the other side of that deal, so it can be thought of as a lending rate.

In its everyday retail usage, it is a widely used lending rate, because loans are calculated as BBA LIBOR plus a certain amount, that amount reflecting the risk inherent in the loan.

Joe kinincha 08:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a matter of semantics. This became obvious after the accusations of data manipulation in '08. The problem occurred because of the way LIBOR is defined, i.e. "what is the rate you think you can borrow at". Banks in trouble allegedly did not want to show the high rates at which they were borrowing. So the rates shown were allegedly lower than the true rates. Would this have been the case if BBA requested for lending rates from participating banks?

Mail-In-Twos (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with asking for lending rates is that banks lend at many different rates depending on a range of factors, for example, how risky is the the person / company that they are lending to? what period is the loan for? what does the person / company want the money for? It would be very difficult to define exactly what a bank should submit as its lending rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe kinincha (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure how much help this is to improving the article, but I gather that libor is assessed at various values over various time periods, so yes it's an interesting idea to ask each bank what rates they might lend to every other bank for each of those, when calculating the libor, any discrepancy between the values that gave and the values the rate at which each bank claims it can borrow money at (libor value) would (I think) show up any fraudulent/illadvised estimates. I'm not an expert, just taken an interest in this since Barclays recent admission. EdwardLane (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non compounded

[edit]

Because I'm not really a financial person, I couldn't figure out where in the article to put the fact that LIBOR rates are not compounded. This seems to be an important fact, because most interest rates (i think) are compounded. Perhaps the article should quote the following from the BBA LIBOR faq: "BBA LIBOR is not a compounded rate but is calculated on the basis of actual days in funding period/360. Therefore the formula is as follows: interest due = principal x (libor rate/100) x (actual no of days in interest period/360). Please note that for GBP) the calculation basis is 365 days." --Storkk 10:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsecured loan vs repo

[edit]

It may be helpful to add that LIBOR is the prevailing rate for an unsecured loan, and so it runs higher than the repo rate, which is the rate for a secured loan using the highest quality collateral. Finnancier (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIBOR... a British rate

[edit]

Why is Libor allowed as a bench mark in US when the US Fed and Treasury have no control over it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.175.149 (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom to contract? Superm401 - Talk 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the US authorities do not have any direct control over the US Dollar LIBOR rate, but this is not connected with the fact that the rates are calculated in London. The UK authorities (FSA, Treasury and Bank of England) do not "control" the rates either.

The reason is that whilst central authorities can set target rates and control monetary policy, they cannot control all factors. LIBOR is a real world rate, central bank rates are not. For example, you cannot get a mortgage whose interest rate is the same as the Fed base rate.

This is because all real world lending has to factor in many variables. When calculating the rate at which to lend money it is necessary to incorporate variable such as the possibility that the lender might discover they need the cash themselves, and an estimation of the chance that the borrower might go bust or disappear with the money, thus leaving the lender out of pocket. This is the case whether it is an individual deciding to make a loan or a global bank.

Financial authorities and central banks can affect LIBOR rates, as the major factor in setting a LIBOR rate is the base rate in the currency concerned. This is demonstrable, as if a central bank unexpectedly cuts or increases the base rate, LIBOR rates will fall or jump an equivalent amount (assuming all other factors are equal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe kinincha (talk • contribs) 10:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euribor - is the statement correct

[edit]

For the Euro, however, the usual reference rates are not the Euribor rates compiled by the European Banking Federation, from a larger bank panel. A Euro LIBOR does exist, but mainly for continuity purposes in swap contracts dating back to pre-EMU times.

I don't actually know anything about the subject, but from the context, it seems to me that the "not" in the first sentence should possibly be "now"? Hopefully, someone with actual knowledge can either correct it or correct me. --76.240.228.76 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there is a problem with this statement. The word "not" simply should not be there. Joe kinincha (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart of 5 indicators, including LIBOR -- good external link

[edit]

I'm not a finance person either, so please forgive if this is a silly question: Since many loans that banks earn interest on are LIBOR based, and since it seems that little actual interbank borrowing is going on these days, wouldn't banks earnings be positively affected by higher rather than lower estimates of their theoretical borrowing cost? When I read the Wall Street Journal article suggesting that there is downward bias due to banks embarrassment over their financial condition, I thought that profit would surely be a stronger motivation that saving face.

deleted speculative final paragraph in the article

[edit]

I have deleted this paragraph. It is pure speculation, quotes no sources, and is demonstrably inaccurate. The accuracy of LIBOR during the credit crunch has been investigated by independent bodies such as the IMF and BIS (direct references to their studies are included in the article).

If anyone wishes to debate the issues raised in the paragraph - specifically i) could a bank submit fraudulent LIBOR rates into the fixing process, and what would happen if it did and ii) why a bank might wish to deliberately submit artificially high or low rates, I am happy to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe kinincha (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is an additional error regarding the credit crunch. The entry reads, "On Thursday, 29 May 2008 the Wall Street Journal released a controversial study suggesting that banks may have understated borrowing costs they reported for LIBOR during the 2008 credit crunch." I believe that most perceive the credit crunch of 2008 to have begun in the weeks preceding the Lehman bankruptcy, around September 15, 2008. Olsonco (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Day count....fixed?

[edit]

In the section on Interest Rate Swaps: "The day count convention for LIBOR rates in interest rate swaps is Actual/360, except for the GBP currency for which it is Actual/365 (fixed)[1]."

Why is there the word "(fixed)" attached to the end? If this is supposed to refer to the fixed leg of an interest rate swap, then it is misleading: readers may then assume the fixed legs of swaps in other currencies are also the same as that of libor in that currency, which is incorrect. If it is not referring to that, then I scratch my head, and suggest it be deleted anyway.

210.254.108.146 (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libor for inflation swaps ??

[edit]

I read in the article that

"The LIBOR is widely used as a reference rate for financial instruments such as [...] inflation swaps"

?? Inflation swaps quoted on the market are indexed to inflation (HICP, etc.) not to interest rates like Libor...I think that inflation swaps should be deleted, but first let me know if there are inflation swaps like this...

MicioGeremia (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interred?

[edit]

In Section 2 (Scope) we have: "LIBOR is an estimate and not interred in the legally binding contracts of an LLC." Interred means buried in the ground. This seems like a wrong usage, but I'm not qualified to say what the correct word is - defined or specified, maybe? --Heron (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean but I don't know either - perhaps (as an alternate possibly meaning) it was a typo from 'inferred' T and F are adjacent on the keyboard? EdwardLane (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Libor. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Interbank Offered Rate → London interbank offered rate – Relisted. LIBOR or Libor? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly most commonly referred to as Libor, but in reviewing The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times it appears that it is usually spelled Libor rather than LIBOR, even though it is an acronym. 72Dino (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

LIBO Rate vs. LIBOR

[edit]

Is there a difference between "LIBO Rate" and "LIBOR"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIBO_rate_(reserve_adjusted) vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.129.1 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A trader with inside information could make tens of millions of dollars illegally on a single transaction

[edit]

The LIBOR fixing is published on every business day. Until the rate is published the market can use the previous day's published rate to price deals. If one of the parties to the trade had advance knowledge of the fixing this would only give rise to a profit if it was greatly different from the previous days fixing. There is no evidence that a trader has ever made tens of millions of dollars illegally on a single transaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.69.97 (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article [1] quotes someone saying those involved could net “about a couple of million dollars” for each basis point (0.01%) that LIBOR was moved.--Thomas Darcy McGee (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory sentences

[edit]

Paragraph two says, "Libor rates are calculated... and published daily at 11am by the British Bankers' Association."

The section headed "Technical features" begins, "Libor is calculated and published by Thomson Reuters... generally around 11:45 AM."

These contradictory statements need some clarification. Adrian Robson (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The second statement is correct (as can be seen by looking at the details here. Interestingly enough, the first statement's source says nothing about the time, so I'm removing it. --C S (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libor Scandal

[edit]

Can someone set up a new page that just covers the emerging Libor Scandal. Likely to run to many pages over the next 2-3 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.156 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth considering. I'll set up a redirect to this page, so if someone more familiar with the subject then wants to write the article about it then by all means go for it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Redirect can be found at Libor scandal for those who are interested. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libor is dead. Long live to Euribor Libor is dead, and British banks will have to use the Euribor.--81.35.236.22 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should clearly include key information about this scandal, and that key information includes the Barclays resignations. It demonstrates the consequences of the manipulation. Thus, I have reverted this edit removing such info. I've also gone ahead and broken out Libor scandal as an actual article. Superm401 - Talk 15:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changes in governance at Barclays Bank really has nothing to do with an interest rate. If this current event is becoming very large (and it appears it might be), a separate article should probably be written. Otherwise, the Libor article will be full of information heavily weighted to this one event instead of the actual article subject. 72Dino (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And after re-reading the comment above, I see there is now an article called Libor scandal. However, having information in the Libor article lead section about this one event looks like WP:RECENTISM to me. 72Dino (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The only reason for the change in governance was significant fraud in the setting of these interest rate (and possibly Euribor). I have already broken out a separate article. That will allow some minor information to be removed form here, but the resignations of the two most senior positions at Barclays is not minor.
There may be a slight recentism bias, but not necessarily as big as you think. This has already had a big impact on Libor, and the scandal is only beginning. It may end up changing the actual process of the rate calculation. Superm401 - Talk 17:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "looks like WP:RECENTISM"; recentism is a good thing. It might be years before a historical perspective emerges. Right now, this looks like the most important thing that's ever happened to LIBOR - last week, nobody had heard of it!138.253.48.190 (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism is not a good thing for an encyclopedia. It is clearly not the most important thing that's happened to Libor, just the item that's made the newspapers the most (see also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, especially "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.") And a lot of people had heard of it before last week. 72Dino (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have found that a lot of people have heard of it before last week you certainly do not travel with the same crowd that most of us do. This is not "breaking news" per WP guidelines and that is obvious to anyone that has read all of the refs. And to go from being an accepted resource to come under a criminal investigation that already has found that the numbers were just made up is certainly a major event. Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I do think this is a major event (although not "the most important thing that's happened to Libor") and I think it should be addressed in this article. I do not, however, think the majority of the Libor article should be about this one event . . . that detail should be at the Libor scandal main article. And yeah, I probably travel with a different crowd than most. 72Dino (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reports from 2008 cited in 2012

[edit]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/12/investing/Libor-analysts/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

Do we have these covered as references back then in 2008 ? Should they not comprise a section in their own right ?

Will we EVER have a section on the software used by Barlclays ? (some of us here on en.WP worked on packages they used.) Ahem.

G. Robert Shiplett 11:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

6 more banks (and barclays again)

[edit]

HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan and UBS have all received subpoenas relating to Libor fixing from the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut according to this bbc article.

Capitalization

[edit]

I hate to mention it, but...

LIBOR is an acronym, and should be capitalized. It's capitalized by the BBA (its coordinator/reporter/publisher), except when they refer to their "bbalibor" stylized trademark, which includes services related to LIBOR and many other rates – i.e. it's not synonymous with LIBOR. Unfortunately, some otherwise fairly reliable sources (WSJ, etc.) choose to either use "Libor", or both, inconsistently.

Both Libor and Libor scandal use LIBOR and Libor inconsistently. Shouldn't we pick one or the other and stick with it (with the exception of quotes/cites, of course). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Requested move" section earlier for the discussion on capitalization. 72Dino (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Issues

[edit]

I would just like to mention that reference [21] doesnt work at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.78.46.222 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– LIBOR is clearly an acronym, and should be capitalized per standard English and Wikipedia practice. MOS:CAPS#Acronyms makes an exception for words that are treated as common nouns, like scuba and laser, but LIBOR isn't widely used enough for this, and would become libor according to this exception if it were – something I'm sure has no support. When it comes to matters of style, we routinely substitute our own style for that of sources, even in quotes, so even though WSJ and FT are self-inconsistent, even wrong in this case, I see no reason we should repeat their mistakes.

(edit) Google nGrams and Scholar show 5:1 and 4:1 ratios favoring LIBOR (see comments below).

Note that LIBOR market model is already correct.

Also note that Libor is apparently a somewhat common Czech given name.

I also believe we should be consistent in our usage (as LIBOR) within these and other Wikipedia articles. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support. I've always seen it referred to as LIBOR, and a quick check of American financial websites backs this up (one example). However, checking the BBC & the London Stock Exchange show they use "Libor", and you can argue that this topic has a special tie to the UK, hence the "weak" part of the support. This is an international enough topic that I feel it's safe to use the "correct" capitalization over preferring the apparent title case British style, though. SnowFire (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

USD xIBOR

[edit]

WRT the 'fixed rates in USD section' there is no such thing anymore as USD HIBOR.

See https://www.tma.org.hk/en_market_more6.aspx

Haven't checked the others but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they don't exist anymore either. 203.168.227.129 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Libor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LIBOR began long before 1984

[edit]

I have added a sentence to the introduction of this article to correct the misleading impression that LIBOR first started in 1984. Any commercial bank lending officer working then with large multinational borrowers in New York, London or other major financial centers (such as I did) can remember well that LIBOR was a very often used interest rate base already in the 1970s and early 1980s. I find it frankly rather astonishing that not just Wikipedia, but basically the internet as a whole (or at least that part of it readily viewed by way of search engines), seems basically unaware of this extensive history. Drewkeeling (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Very interesting point there. And I can amplify it: I first knew of LIBOR as a secondary- (US High-) *school kid* in *1969/70* (studying for an Economics A. Level). That means LIBOR antedates petrodollars.

I visited the Wikipedia article because I had always vaguely wondered, for half a century, about whether the O stood for Offered or Overnight. (I should get out more, obv.)

The point is interesting - important - because it reframes the mid-80s BBA initiative, particularly in relation to the query raised above about borrowing vs. lending rate.

In hindsight, the practice of asking about *borrowing* rate - a potentially, and ultimately, horribly embarrassing question - built in a major systemic risk. But it was not simply an irresponsible piece of shonky systems engineering.

It was a very ordinary very British semi-systematisation of existing practice - prioritising continuity over concept.

I *think* it was Keynes tht said (approximately!) tht “in times of economic crisis the cry always goes up for “a practical man”. Unfortunately, so far one has always been available.” (Of course, LIBOR does not illustrate this remark exactly. LIBOR is a case where the practicality preceded the crisis.)

Anyone know if LIBOR also antedates the Eurodollar market?

- SquisherDa (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


SquisherDa: Thanks for the observations and comments. Checking the New York Times archive, the oldest reference to Eurodollars seems to be in a July 15, 1962 article, which explains what "Eurodollars" (in quotes!) means and how "a market in such dollars has developed." (Wikipedia's article on Eurodollars suggests that an organized market in offshore dollar deposits had emerged quite some years earlier than the term "Eurodollars" itself). It seems to me highly unlikely that LIBOR -in the current meaning of the term (e.g., an interbank rate for offshore deposits, especially Eurodollars)- could have preceded the market itself. That would be akin, I think, to having a listed credit card interest rate before credit cards were introduced!

Drewkeeling (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ICE Registered Trademarks

[edit]

This page contains registered trademarks of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. ("ICE") or its affiliates that are being used without an indication that they are trademarks. On behalf of ICE, we suggest the following be added as the last sentence of the lead section:

“The terms LIBOR®, ICE LIBOR®, Intercontinental Exchange®, and Intercontinental Exchange Benchmark Administration® are registered trademarks of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. or its affiliates.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.3.8 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa:, I've noticed that you chase down this sort of thing. Could you advise, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen this information included. Our Manual of Style recommends against including the ™ and ® symbols.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to visitor: Wikipedia does not include the kind of disclaimer you requested, it is an encyclopedia. No other trade-mark or copyright holder is (or ever has been) recorded in this way. If you insist on pursuing this complaint, please visit Wikipedia:Contact us. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed

[edit]

LIBOR is a borrowing rate, not a lending rate.

LIBOR is officially retired today. the language should be changed to the past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiMyNameIsUserName (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libor&oldid=1207353474"