Had a very interesting discussion today with a friend regarding the importance of a free press in providing transparency and accountability...
LIBOR/London Interbank Offered Rate by Wikipedia
Quote:
The Libor is the average interest rate that leading banks in London charge when lending to other banks. It is an acronym for London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR, /ˈlaɪbɔr/). Banks borrow money for one day, one month, two months, six months, one year, etc., and they pay interest to their lenders based on certain rates. The Libor figure is an average of these rates. Many financial institutions, mortgage lenders and credit card agencies track the rate, which is produced daily at 11 a.m. to fix their own interest rates which are typically higher than the Libor rate. As such, it is a benchmark for finance all around the world. [1]
Bank lending probe lights up dark financial corners, Dr Gillian Tett, February 9, 2012 6:08 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com
Quote:
Being a financial journalist often feels akin to chasing bars of soap in the bath. On occasion, we hear fascinating rumours, and peer into dark corners of finance, aware that something odd is going on. Yet, all too often the “story” quarry slips away for lack of evidence or of quotable sources – or because powerful financial public relations officials are waving libel laws in our face.
Interbank borrowing rates such as Libor are a case in point. Five long years ago, I first heard tales of strange happenings in the Libor, Tibor and Euribor world. So I duly wrote a column expressing general concerns about the accuracy of Libor, and my FT colleagues peered deeper into Libor, and then the wider swaps world (check out, for example, the 2010 piece co-written by Michael Mackenzie, himself a former broker, on the oddities of “page 19901”). But, wherever we looked, we faced obfuscation; catching anything tangible in that slippery, slimy pond seemed hard.
No longer. This week it has emerged that almost a dozen traders and brokers around the world have been fired, suspended, or put on leave, amid a multinational probe into alleged manipulation of Libor. In particular, there are allegations that financial players have colluded to influence these rates, which serve as a benchmark for some $350tn worth of financial products worldwide, either to trade directly, or influence how other securities are priced.
Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs, By GREG SMITH, Published: March 14, 2012, NYT
Quote:
TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
The Quiet Coup, By SIMON JOHNSON, ECONOMY, MAY 2009 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE
Quote:
The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.
What Makes Countries Corrupt, Richard Florida, NOV 10 2010, 2:51 PM ET , The Atlantic
Quote:
The United States and other advanced nations are stepping up their efforts to combat corruption in poorer, less developed nations by publicizing the corruption and by punishing their own companies when they engage in it. The U.S. Congress added a bipartisan amendment to pending financial reform legislation, requiring oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose every payment they make to foreign governments, according to a recent report in The Economist.
But can such efforts stem the tide? My own analysis suggests that before we can deal with systemic corruption we must first come to grips with the fact that it doesn't occur in a vacuum -- it is a symptom of deeply rooted economic and social maladies.
The map above shows how the nations of the world stack up on Transparency International's 2010 Corruption Perception Index or CPI, which tracks government bribes, kickbacks, embezzlement, and other forms of public corruption. Topping the list as the world's least corrupt nation is Denmark, followed by New Zealand, Singapore, Finland, Sweden, and Canada. The United States ranks 22nd. The BRIC nations--Brazil, Russia, India, and China--rank in the bottom third of the CPI, even though they are among the fastest-growing nations in the world. Countries like Angola, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq are at the very bottom.
SEC, at Wikipedia
Quote:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (frequently abbreviated SEC) is a federal agency[2] which holds primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry, the nation's stock and options exchanges, and other electronic securities markets in the United States. In addition to the 1934 Act that created it, the SEC enforces the Securities Act of 1933, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and other statutes. The SEC was created by section 4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (now codified as 15 U.S.C. § 78d and commonly referred to as the 1934 Act).
FSA, at Wikipedia
Quote:
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is a quasi-judicial body responsible for the regulation of the financial services industry in the United Kingdom. Its board is appointed by the Treasury and the organisation is structured as a company limited by guarantee and owned by the UK government.[1] Its main office is based in Canary Wharf, London, with another office in Edinburgh. When acting as the competent authority for listing of shares on a stock exchange, it is referred to as the UK Listing Authority (UKLA),[2] and maintains the Official list.