Jump to content

Talk:Libor scandal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Alleged is inappropriate

Using the word "alleged" is inappropriate. Barclays has "admitted and accepted responsibility" for both attempting and in some cases succeeding in manipulation. This is part of a binding agreement with the United States Department of Justice. [1]. Superm401 - Talk 05:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeline edits

I've added a couple of edits that were reverted, so I thought it would be best to address them separately here on the talk page. My first edit dealt with the time frame of the rate fixing. The reports I have seen show a time frame of 2007 and 2008 (i.e., the time of the financial collapse.) Without these years some reader may think that this is still going on or more recent. Here are some references to support this time period: [2], [3], [4], and [5]. I can see this event occurring a year or two more either before or after, and I am fine with making that change. Looking forward to some discussion. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 72Dino, I appreciate your post. It seems to me that until someone with some sort of authority on the scandal mentions a time frame it would be best for us to leave our WP article without one...though I look forward to other's opinions as well. Gandydancer (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The time frame is definitely longer than 2007 to 2008. The wikipedia article itself has a quote from a trader requesting a specific rate fix in 2006. For Barclays, the time period was at least from 2005 to 2009 according to the settlement[6]. As far as we know, rate manipulation might be still going on. Guest2625 (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Impact on consumers

The other edit I made was to remove the word 'negative' from effects in the lede. While there were certainly effects, borrowers actually had a positive effect because rates were lower than they should have been due to the manipulation. Rates were shown as lower to ease the interest rate risk of the banks. Here are some references to show that the effect was positive: [7], [8], and [9]. On the other hand, savers received rates lower than they should have. With some impact being positive and some being negative, I think we should just indicate there were effects without the adjective. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use the word 'negative'. Although, some consumers might have benefited from the manipulation of the rates, the net effect of the fraud on consumers and the market was negative. If the manipulating banks were making profits, by definition the markets and consumers as a whole were making loses. Manipulation is generally always considered a bad thing for free markets. Guest2625 (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Fraud is definitely bad overall. In this case, the winners were the manipulating banks (obviously) and consumers that borrowed for mortgages, etc. that were charged lower loan rates than they should have. The losers were consumers that save because of lower deposit rates and smaller financial institutions. I just wanted to point out this manipulation did not have "significant negative effects on" ALL consumers. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It is the wording used by the Department of Justice: “LIBOR and EURIBOR are critically important benchmark interest rates,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Because mortgages, student loans, financial derivatives, and other financial products rely on LIBOR and EURIBOR as reference rates, the manipulation of submissions used to calculate those rates can have significant negative effects on consumers and financial markets worldwide. Gandydancer (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of quoteboxes

There are currently four quoteboxes in this article. Per WP:LONGQUOTE (esp. third bullet), you may want to revisit having all those. 72Dino (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't care for them either. Perhaps one, maybe two...though I don't see a good reason for any of them. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The most recently added large one on the left should be removed and its contents summarised and sourced. The other ones are ok for now as they break up large areas of text and there are no photos. Also when editors are adding references they should pay attention to full citations and not just a bare url. I completed the references early in the week and there are already another 4 bare urls. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the above poster. The big quotebox should be removed and integrated into the text. The smaller ones are fine and provide layout structure. Guest2625 (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I agree with removing only the large one. Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the lede

The lede really doesn't do the job in this article. It spends a lot of time talking about what LIBOR is, and doesn't tell the simple fact that the world's largest banks are alleged to have submitted fraudulent numbers interest rate numbers in order to make money on trades and overstate their own financial health. If I didn't know anything about the scandal, it would take me diving deep into the article itself to see what actually happened. I'd love to hear suggestions here, and unless there are major objections I will add information to the lede to reflect what is alleged to have happened. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As above, added a line to the lede to give greater clarity. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Footboxes

Tried to add to "Corporate scandals" and "2007–2012 global financial crisis" boxes. Please discuss. Wakari07 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

News items

I was in the middle of sorting these out but have to reboot and switch computers:

Paum89 (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This one was out this morning, then retracted, and now it's out again: Liam Vaughan and Sanat Vallikappen (October 28, 2012) "UBS, RBS Traders Suspended as Rates Probe Goes Beyond Libor" Reuters Paum89 (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

UBS

UBS looks likely to settle for $1 billion - [10] EdwardLane (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK looks like it's now a finalised amount at $1.5bn according to the Financial Times

That looks to be broken down into $1.2bn to the US Department of Justice and Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a record £160m to the FSA. and SFr59m to Finma, the Swiss regulator.

The FSA statement looks like a good source for references, particularly for some colourful language from broker's and trader's emails. EdwardLane (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding unsupported LIBOR rumor

In the wake of the Sandy Hook School shootings, several alternative media and blog comment writers came up with variations on "The father of Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza, "Peter Lanza", was the tax director for General Electric, a corporation that paid -0- taxes on 14.2 billion dollars in profits last year, and He[sic] was scheduled to testify in the ongoing global LIBOR scandal. The father of Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes is Robert Holmes, the lead scientist for the credit score company FICO, and He[sic] too was to testify before the US Sentate[sic] in the ongoing LIBOR scandal. That's right, BOTH men were to testify before the US Sentate[sic] in the ongoing LIBOR scandal. Coincidence?" [11] [12] I saw several variants on that in comments on various news media and it seeped into one news story that I have seen so far. I read several media sites who attempted to verify the statement and found that Mr. Lanza is not connected with the LIBOR scandal nor scheduled to testify at any upcoming U.S. Senate hearings on LIBOR.[13] Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if the other information in the rumor is true? Did General Electric pay zero taxes on 14.2 billion dollars in profits in 2011? Is Robert Holmes of FICO scheduled to testify before the US Senate in connection with the LIBOR scandal?108.205.30.247 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

financial-advisors.findthebes­­t.com/l/381613/Nancy-Lanza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainamofni (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

>> Global Market Overhaul Floated by Anti-Rigging German Regulator(Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).

Capitalization?

Why are the references to the LIBOR in this, and in the article on the Libor itself, rendered in mixed case? LIBOR is definitely an acronym. I guess (after some searching) that I'm just echoing the concerns raised by User:AlanM1 on the Talk:Libor#Capitalization page.

For whatever it's worth, I'd prefer to see us change this to LIBOR throughout Wikipedia to be consistent and more pedantic. Certainly we'd maintain a redirect page from the appropriate Libor pages. JimD (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a request to move LIBOR to Libor in 2011 at Talk:Libor#Requested_move. The decision to move LIBOR to Libor was done because "Libor" is the most common form of writing Libor. See the following generic libor search of google news. Guest2625 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
(moved section to end per Talk page norms) That move was from London interbank offered rate to Libor, and the discussion had only a few contributors. Had JimD and I contributed, it would have been hard to see Libor as the consensus. I'm RM'ing again at Talk:Libor#Requested moves. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  move proposed at Talk:Libor § Requested moves —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libor_scandal/Archive_1&oldid=1136905872"