Live data from Hacker News

EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

reuters.com

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#41

Again as usual people were stealing lots of money (not just the banks), and they aren't even named, and they won't go to prison. These ,,charges'' are part of the cost of doing ,,business''

Traders went to prison for the Libor scandal; why would you think no-one will go to prison for this?

‘I was framed by UBS’: Tom Hayes’ letters from prison

Incarcerated former trader blames himself for trusting colleagues and superiors, laments his inability to push his side of the scandal in the press during the trial

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/i-was-framed-by-ubs-tom-ha...

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#42
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how you could even get that idea. Upholding the law is significantly more important than saving some company, even if it's a large bank. If you're going to throw law and order out of the window over saving some shitty banks, then you already have a bigger problem than disagreeable numbers on balance sheets.

It isn't about saving the company, or its share holders. It's about saving all the savings of other depositors, about preventing a run on that, and other banks, about trying to maintain the banking system. Banking laws are meant to maintain stability. If they get in the way of that, they should at least be re examined.

"Re-examining" and changing laws is different from not punishing criminals and law-breaking corporations.

You can change the law later as much as you like.

The point is upholding it in the first place and not adding subjective measures like "but it's not a good law!" into the equation when you determine guilt and fines.

Even if you immediately repeal or change the law, you still have to punish those that broke it.

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#43
post #10

To play devils advocate. Around that time you had periods where banks didn't know if their competitors were going to be around next month, there were also periods where they didn't know if several major European nations were going to be defaulting on their debts. In that kind of situation do the normal rules apply? I don't doubt during the banking crisis several 'dodgy' deals were done between the central banks, poli…

I think you have to complete the thought. What kind of scenario are you proposing. The accusation is that banks were manipulating an index to make their position more profitable at the expense of the client. I don't see how the potential collapse of some third party (a nation) changes this. Surely you're not saying, hey Bank A ripped of Customer C but that's only because we didn't know if Greece was going under. You…

There isn't a lot of detail in the Reuters article.

Your comment: "The accusation is that banks were manipulating an index to make their position more profitable at the expense of the client" Isn't mentioned in the article, do you have a better source?

Given that lack of detail, there is potentially a reasonable explanation.

I'm only suggesting this in extremis, your quote above wouldn't pass that test by a long way. 2008 might.

Eg if regulators asked banks to hold off selling Greek bonds for 48hrs to avoid trashing the price, while they sorted out a rescue deal. Trying to avoid at the same time, a domino effect on Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal.....

As I wrote in a different comment. The regulations are supposed to bring stability to the market. If the regulations stop doing that, they should be revisited.

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#44
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't about saving the company, or its share holders. It's about saving all the savings of other depositors, about preventing a run on that, and other banks, about trying to maintain the banking system. Banking laws are meant to maintain stability. If they get in the way of that, they should at least be re examined.

"Re-examining" and changing laws is different from not punishing criminals and law-breaking corporations. You can change the law later as much as you like. The point is upholding it in the first place and not adding subjective measures like "but it's not a good law!" into the equation when you determine guilt and fines. Even if you immediately repeal or change the law, you still have to punish those that broke it.

Were the last people to illegally practice homosexuality in your country punished? It is societies choice to decide whether to enforce a law.

I meant 're-examine' very broadly. And the 2 examples I've given so far in this thread have both involved the authorities.

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in finance (although on the buy side), my gut feeling is that it's the usual suspects: big investment banks. The people manning the prop desks in these institutions get to know each other eventually as the landscape is fairly small and they all work for/with each other eventually. This means that cliques along the lines of "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" form naturally. It's almost impossible t…

> The people manning the prop desks in these institutions The Volcker Rule (part of Dodd-Frank) prohibits prop trading at banks (with few exceptions). The big banks have been actively discouraging it as well, changing comp structures to avoid rewarding prop trading. > trading happens directly between traders and never crosses exchange boundaries All these trades still need to be cleared, no? There's a structure to ma…

> The Volcker Rule (part of Dodd-Frank) prohibits prop trading at banks (with few exceptions).

Ok, replace prop trading with a fund trading OTC products that the bank runs.

> All these trades still need to be cleared, no? There's a structure to markets that you're papering over here.

They do, and as I wrote in a bit that you didn't quote, it's largely irrelevant because it's not that difficult to hide collusion. Heck, the guys fixing LIBOR did it successfully even with all the controls you claim the banks put in place.

> You may think this, but traders at banks are subject to tons of surveillance.

Yes, there is tons of surveillance. There is (in my experience) fairly little actually effective surveillance. For once, surveillance is never an interesting task. I consider it the same as guard duty. 99% of the time, nothing happens. Humans are not good at catching unexpected outliers. So you automate a lot of the checks, but these either produce too many false positives and thus bury the true problems in the noise, or they can be circumvented.

As I wrote, I consider the root cause to be a problem of incentives and conflicts of interest. No amount of patching with egregious audit and or lawyering will fix this. I consider statements like "but look at all the checks we already do" theatrics.

Look I'm in the industry. I have to complete 5 different training and educational courses every month, spanning from market abuse, to insider trading to fraud. Nobody takes this crap seriously and it is broadly considered a complete and utter waste of time. We have to fulfill a bazillion reporting obligations, but all of it is just a thin veneer of compliance to tick checkboxes. Every year, some chums from KPMG/PwC/ come around, check that there are no obvious problems and rubberstamp everything. They find some token things which get reported and rectified so it looks like they actually do something.

I have friends who work in compliance/audit departments, and even those who want to do their work properly, run into problems because it's tricky to put heat on any group that is making money.

Most people I encounter in the industry are actually honest and hard working. Even though the checks are more or less easily circumvented, the majority of people choose not to do obviously illegal things. But to claim that the current setup is somehow successful at preventing shenanigans is dishonest.

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#46

Again as usual people were stealing lots of money (not just the banks), and they aren't even named, and they won't go to prison. These ,,charges'' are part of the cost of doing ,,business''

Well. A Warren administration might be less amenable to that kind of treatment of executives in the banking industry.

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#47
post #10

To play devils advocate. Around that time you had periods where banks didn't know if their competitors were going to be around next month, there were also periods where they didn't know if several major European nations were going to be defaulting on their debts. In that kind of situation do the normal rules apply? I don't doubt during the banking crisis several 'dodgy' deals were done between the central banks, poli…

> And if it stopped the entire global economy going tits up, I'm ok with that.

Why? Genuinely - why is the corrupt financial system we've propped up worth saving?

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#48
post #10

To play devils advocate. Around that time you had periods where banks didn't know if their competitors were going to be around next month, there were also periods where they didn't know if several major European nations were going to be defaulting on their debts. In that kind of situation do the normal rules apply? I don't doubt during the banking crisis several 'dodgy' deals were done between the central banks, poli…

> And if it stopped the entire global economy going tits up, I'm ok with that. Why? Genuinely - why is the corrupt financial system we've propped up worth saving?

Because we are inextricably wrapped up in the financial system? And getting rid of it would cause massive pain, real and metaphorical.

What replacement financial system do you envisage? I cant think of a revolutionary financial system that I'm confident, could be better. And if its evolutionary, why would you chuck out what we've got?

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in finance (although on the buy side), my gut feeling is that it's the usual suspects: big investment banks. The people manning the prop desks in these institutions get to know each other eventually as the landscape is fairly small and they all work for/with each other eventually. This means that cliques along the lines of "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" form naturally. It's almost impossible t…

> The people manning the prop desks in these institutions The Volcker Rule (part of Dodd-Frank) prohibits prop trading at banks (with few exceptions). The big banks have been actively discouraging it as well, changing comp structures to avoid rewarding prop trading. > trading happens directly between traders and never crosses exchange boundaries All these trades still need to be cleared, no? There's a structure to ma…

Volcker provides exemptions for trading in government bonds.

Re: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel

#50

Again as usual people were stealing lots of money (not just the banks), and they aren't even named, and they won't go to prison. These ,,charges'' are part of the cost of doing ,,business''

Traders went to prison for the Libor scandal; why would you think no-one will go to prison for this?

Too big to jail. I seen Elizabeth Holmes few weeks ago in California. having breakfast with some friends at very luxury spot. Laughting and enjoying her life. No worries at all.
Post reply on HN