Showing posts with label CFTC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CFTC. Show all posts

7/25/2012

N.Y. Fed quiet on Barclays’ admission of rigging Libor

In 2010, London-based Barclays paid a $298 million settlement to the U.S. government for violating sanctions on dealing with Iran, Cuba and other countries. Barclays was listed as the most complained-about bank in the last six months of 2011, according to the Financial Services Authority. In February 2012 it was caught in a tax avoidance scheme and forced to pay back $785 million to the British government.

Πηγή: OpEdNews
By Jia Lynn Yang and Danielle Douglas (Washington Post)
July 24 2012

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has said that he sounded the alarm four years ago to regulators about problems with the benchmark interest rate known as Libor.

But Geithner, who was then head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, did not communicate in key meetings with top regulators that British bank Barclays had admitted to Fed staffers that it was rigging Libor, according to people familiar with the matter.

Instead, regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Justice Department worked largely without the Fed’s help to build a case against Barclays. That work has culminated in a massive scandal rocking the banking industry on both sides of the Atlantic.

As Geithner prepares to testify Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill, he returns to a familiar position as a lightning rod for critics on the left and the right who find fault in his work as a banking regulator before he joined the White House and as a bailout architect under President Obama.

He will face a key question from House and Senate members this week: Did he and others at the New York Fed, the country’s most powerful banking regulator, act urgently enough to stop fraud at Barclays and potentially other banks?

Geithner has said the New York Fed did everything in its power.

“We moved quite quickly to try to get the British to address it and make sure that we brought it to the attention of the full complement of U.S. regulatory agencies so that they could take a careful look at it, which they did,” Geithner said Monday night on Charlie Rose’s interview show. “And to their credit, they’ve done a pretty strong enforcement action right now, but there’s more work to do on this.”

Focus on Libor

Documents released by the New York Fed show that the agency chose to focus on structural problems with Libor rather than help to bring corrupt actions at Barclays and other banks to light.

“At no stage did he [Geithner] or anyone else at the New York Fed raise any concerns with the Bank that they had seen any wrongdoing,” Bank of England governor Mervyn King said in testimony before a British parliamentary committee last week.

Geithner was aware there were problems with how Libor was calculated because it relied on self-reporting by the world’s biggest banks. But it’s unclear from the documents whether he knew about numerous phone calls in which Barclays employees admitted to New York Fed staff members that the bank was manipulating Libor.

In a phone call from April 2008, a Barclays employee made such an admission to New York Fed staff member Fabiola Ravazzolo: “So, we know that we’re not posting um, an honest Libor.” Then in October again, in three separate phone calls, Barclays executives told Fed employees that Libor was “unrealistic” and “absolute rubbish.”

Throughout the spring and summer of 2008, in the midst of increasing turmoil in the financial world, the Fed studied what was wrong with Libor.

Two weeks after the April phone call, Geithner held a meeting called “Fixing LIBOR” with senior New York Fed staff members. A few weeks later, in a meeting with U.S. Treasury officials, New York Fed staffers, including Ravazzolo, presented slides saying there are “questions regarding Libor’s accuracy and relevance.”

Then, on June 1, Geithner e-mailed recommendations to King, the British central banker, on how to improve the process for setting the rate.

The New York Fed also says that it raised the Libor issue in a meeting around this time with the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, which consisted of top officials from Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the CFTC.

But two people with knowledge of the matter said senior officials and investigators never heard an appeal from the New York Fed to investigate possible wrongdoing over Libor. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely about the ongoing investigation.

Geithner, through a spokesman, referred questions to the New York Fed, which declined to comment. The New York Fed, in response to requests from lawmakers, is set to release more documents.

The Fed seemed unsure in the summer of 2008 whether it could prove that Libor was rigged. In a presentation June 5 given to staff members to other regulatory agencies, New York Fed employees said: “These claims are difficult to evaluate.”

Bailout paybacks

Still, the Fed proceeded to use Libor as a benchmark to determine how much insurance giant American International Group would pay back the government during its bailout. The measure also was used in the fall of 2008 to set the interest rate for the emergency lending program called the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF.

“That number [Libor] determined how the taxpayer would be compensated,” said Neil Barofsky, who was the chief watchdog of the financial system’s $700 billion bailout. “That’s putting the Federal Reserve’s imprimatur on a rate it has suspicion to think was fraudulent. The Federal Reserve’s use of that and Treasury's use of that in the bailout sends a powerful message to the market: ‘Hey don’t worry about this, we’re endorsing it.’ ”

He added that the Fed’s response can be measured by the fact that no one has reformed Libor.

Libor is critical because it is used worldwide to set the rates for trillions of dollars’ worth of mortgages, student loans, auto loans and many other financial contracts. It was an especially important metric during the financial crisis because it was a key indicator for the health of the banking industry.

Congressional pressure


Congress is ratcheting up pressure on the New York Fed over its handling of the manipulation of Libor.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.) on Monday sent a letter to the New York Fed requesting all of its communications from August 2007 until July 2012 with staff at the 16 banks involved in setting Libor, British regulators and U.S. regulators.

The documents already released by the Fed failed to show what actions were taken after Barclays’ admission, he said.

“We know the New York Fed eventually briefed Treasury, but what was the follow up? Did anyone ask if folks were still manipulating the rate?” said Neugebauer, who serves on the House Financial Services Committee, which is questioning Geithner on Wednesday.

A group of Senate Democrats earlier this month sent a letter to Justice saying that “regulators who were involved should be held to account for any failures to stop wrongdoing that they knew, or should have known about.”

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) said nothing was done by the New York Fed to inform Congress, an oversight he considers negligent.

“You can make the argument that Libor was permitted to run its course so as not to add to the questions that were being raised about the health of international banking,” he said.





10/31/2011

Wall Street reform law bogged down

Republicans are blocking the nomination of Richard Cordray


Πηγή: Politico
By JOSH BOAK
Oct 30 2011

President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill into law 15 months ago, saying he was anxious to put new rules of the road in place for Wall Street.

But federal agencies have blown about 77 percent of the rule-making deadlines for the massive overhaul, according to a recent progress report by the law firm Davis Polk — meaning key parts of the bill are far from implementation.

Some Democratic officials see a Republican plot afoot to run out the clock, in hopes that a GOP-controlled Senate and White House can overturn the reforms. But one top Treasury official said the missed deadlines are less of a concern to the administration than the possibility that a rushed process would result in poor regulations.

“We want quality and speed, but we’re not going to sacrifice quality for speed,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin told POLITICO. “We want to make sure that we do these rules in a thorough way.”

In some cases, Wolin said, politics are slowing down the process. Senate Republicans are blocking the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless changes in governance are made to the agency. GOP lawmakers also have introduced bills to repeal all or part of the 848-page Dodd-Frank law.

“There are certainly some who’ve sought to delay or roll back provisions of Dodd-Frank or slow things down,” Wolin said. “We don’t think that’s helpful. What’s important now is we go about the business of putting in place a stronger financial system that will better protect our country.”

Republicans push back against the charge, saying that regulators are simply unable to write regulations from the law in a timely or effective way.

Obama has tried to spark more movement on the reforms by taking his case directly to the public in speeches and news conferences.

“What we’ve seen over the last year,” he said at a news conference this month, “is not only did the financial sector — with the Republican Party in Congress — fight us every inch of the way, but now, you’ve got these same folks suggesting that we should roll back all those reforms and go back to the way it was before the crisis.”

But a strategy that largely depends on standing behind a podium and shaming his opponents is unlikely to save the reforms from being killed or delayed, said Arthur Levitt, who was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the Clinton administration.

“A president that wants something as complex as this to take place has to devote an incredible amount of his resources and political capital to getting it done,” he said. “Left to the legislators and regulators, it will sink and rot in the miasma of dialogue and debate.”

In putting together the rules, regulators are sorting through thousands of comment letters and answering questions at congressional hearings and meetings with executives and lobbyists from the financial services industry. The sheer volume of activity makes it hard to act quickly or decisively, lending credence to worries that Republicans are obstructing progress.

“They hate it; they’re afraid to take it head on, so they’re trying to slow it down in hopes they take over the White House,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), one of the architects of the 2010 law.

Bart Chilton, who as a member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is among the regulators approving the new rules, said getting input from investment firms is critical, but some have less than helpful intentions.

“There are some people who all they want to do is run the clock out,” said Chilton, one of three Democratic commissioners. “Their goal isn’t thoughtful regulation, it’s no regulation.”

Republican staffers said there is no grand strategy for holding up regulations, emphasizing that their goal is to dismantle the law.

“If that is one of the side consequences, that’s not a terrible thing from our perspective,” a GOP Senate aide said. “We would rather most of these not happen in the first place. … Some people might be looking at it with 2012 in mind, but I don’t think that’s the primary thing.”

Much of the blame for the delay, Republicans said, rests squarely with federal agencies that lack the ability to meet the schedule set up by the law.

“The bad thing is that the deadlines are not reasonable or realistic,” said a Republican congressional aide. “The delay is from the regulators. We’re not controlling them.”

One financial industry executive said the law touches on so many parts of the economy that both sides have a fair point. Reasons for the delay can range from the intricacies of a regulation to partisan disputes to the roadblocks put up by investment firms to insufficient funding for regulators.

“There’s a whole mosaic of why the deadlines are being missed,” the executive said.

For example, the proposed Volcker rule introduced by agencies this month contributed to a sense of confusion. It came decked out with a 215-page preamble, 384 footnotes and requests for comment on 394 specific issues, the American Bankers Association said.

Named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, it limits banks to proprietary trading that isn’t on behalf of their clients. The dense proposal failed to clarify the difference between proprietary trading and legitimate trading by banks to hedge risk or keep markets liquid.

Ken Bentsen, executive vice president for public policy at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, fears that without sharp guidelines, the government could penalize banks for trading they believe was legal.

“What you think was allowed, you find out in the rearview mirror that it was not allowed,” he said.

Public Citizen, a watchdog group calling for greater Wall Street oversight, shared similar concerns about the vagueness of the proposal, but called it an “invitation for evasion” by banks.

According to the administration, the questions in the proposals show that agencies are being inclusive and responsive.

Republican lawmakers claim that regulators have not been exhaustive enough in assessing the potential economic impact of the rules.

After an investigation by inspectors general at the SEC and the CFTC, among other agencies, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) expressed concern in June “that there are no uniform cost-benefit requirements for our financial regulators that focus on economic growth, job creation or competitiveness.”

Former SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins said the fundamental problem lies with Dodd-Frank itself, which he said forces regulators to climb “unscalable mountains” and issue rulings that are certain to face challenges in court.

The newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council, he said, faces the nearly impossible task of monitoring and quarantining “too big to fail” institutions. Atkins is skeptical that new entities such as the council can provide the kinds of safeguards being promised by the administration.

“Dodd-Frank,” he said, “is infused with this philosophy that a cabal of people like the oversight council can peer into the future at where a bubble is growing and prick it.”


Republican staffers said there is no grand strategy for holding up regulations, emphasizing that their goal is to dismantle the law.

“If that is one of the side consequences, that’s not a terrible thing from our perspective,” a GOP Senate aide said. “We would rather most of these not happen in the first place. … Some people might be looking at it with 2012 in mind, but I don’t think that’s the primary thing.”

Much of the blame for the delay, Republicans said, rests squarely with federal agencies that lack the ability to meet the schedule set up by the law.

“The bad thing is that the deadlines are not reasonable or realistic,” said a Republican congressional aide. “The delay is from the regulators. We’re not controlling them.”

One financial industry executive said the law touches on so many parts of the economy that both sides have a fair point. Reasons for the delay can range from the intricacies of a regulation to partisan disputes to the roadblocks put up by investment firms to insufficient funding for regulators.

“There’s a whole mosaic of why the deadlines are being missed,” the executive said.

For example, the proposed Volcker rule introduced by agencies this month contributed to a sense of confusion. It came decked out with a 215-page preamble, 384 footnotes and requests for comment on 394 specific issues, the American Bankers Association said.

Named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, it limits banks to proprietary trading that isn’t on behalf of their clients. The dense proposal failed to clarify the difference between proprietary trading and legitimate trading by banks to hedge risk or keep markets liquid.

Ken Bentsen, executive vice president for public policy at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, fears that without sharp guidelines, the government could penalize banks for trading they believe was legal.

“What you think was allowed, you find out in the rearview mirror that it was not allowed,” he said.

Public Citizen, a watchdog group calling for greater Wall Street oversight, shared similar concerns about the vagueness of the proposal, but called it an “invitation for evasion” by banks.

According to the administration, the questions in the proposals show that agencies are being inclusive and responsive.

Republican lawmakers claim that regulators have not been exhaustive enough in assessing the potential economic impact of the rules.

After an investigation by inspectors general at the SEC and the CFTC, among other agencies, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) expressed concern in June “that there are no uniform cost-benefit requirements for our financial regulators that focus on economic growth, job creation or competitiveness.”

Former SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins said the fundamental problem lies with Dodd-Frank itself, which he said forces regulators to climb “unscalable mountains” and issue rulings that are certain to face challenges in court.

The newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council, he said, faces the nearly impossible task of monitoring and quarantining “too big to fail” institutions. Atkins is skeptical that new entities such as the council can provide the kinds of safeguards being promised by the administration.

“Dodd-Frank,” he said, “is infused with this philosophy that a cabal of people like the oversight council can peer into the future at where a bubble is growing and prick it.”