The LIBOR Scandal Is a Sham Engineered by Central Banking Elites

Hey, We Told You So! ... Bank of England Head Demands Immediate and Far-Reaching Bank Reforms
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 – by Staff Report

Bank of England head says banks must change culture ... Sir Mervyn King: "Something went very wrong with the UK banking industry and we need to put it right." Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King has called for a change in the banking culture, saying that customers have received "shoddy" treatment. He added that bank leaders had "let down" the many honest and hard working people in the financial sector. Sir Mervyn's comments come on the day banks were found to have mis-sold financial products to small businesses.

As the power elite continues to push legislative processes in Britain and the US toward neo-Pecora hearings, you won't likely read much of this kind of analysis. The idea is to point fingers at the private sector and demand more regulation.

In fact, actors like King are considerably indisposed to larger inquiries that might focus on central banking misdeeds. It is noteworthy that King has gone out of his way to maintain that a "[broad-based] inquiry was not necessary, as the wrongdoing was plain" – according to the Beeb.

"We don't need any inquiry to know what we should be doing. There must be many people who work in banking today who know that they are honest, hard-working and feel they have been let down by some of their colleagues and indeed their leaders."

How else does King wish to shape the process? "He has called for the government to implement the recommendations of the Vickers Commission on banking, which said that more risky investment banking should be separated from day-to-day banking needs of individuals and small businesses."

Again with this Glass-Steagall remedy! What nonsense. We are supposed to believe that the market itself has failed so grievously that only regulatory authority and legislation can protect consumers from abuses?

http://www.thedailybell.com/4092/Hey-We-Told-You-So-Bank-of-...

Not sure whats going on at the moment, But you can be sure that there is more to the story than what the media says.

I think your on the money, One big bait and Switch to try and take the heat of the Central Banks and the criminal cartel they run.

I have been watching and waiting before sharing info on the "scandal" because I had my suspicions that these smaller fish were being used somehow. You have solidified for me the thoughts I was having that I couldn't quite pull together, what had me worried. Thank you for your insight.

but the fact is, that there were unlawful acts committed by hundreds of individuals that affected hundreds of billions of dollars of financial transactions.

The regulators had to have known...long ago and they did nothing.

The FED and the head of the treasury...Geithner, had to have known and he did nothing.

Not one single one of these vermin will face criminal charges.

here wants to talk about this. Just one more observation; It is no small feat that the latest interest-rate-fixing LIBOR scandal is being heralded as the most egregious in a generation or, as Robert Scheer put it in the Nation, “the crime of the century.” So is it a scheme by the elite or is it the crime of the century?

I just found this, posted 5 hours ago:

What has emerged from the Barclay's Bank inquiry is evidence that banks may have, in fact, been deliberately manipulating Libor rates for years. The evidence so far is that one arm of a bank responding to the Libor poll would change their number based on what another arm of the same bank wanted -- and that other arm could consist of the bank's traders who make their money on whether the rate goes up or down. This means that millions of consumers, investors and businesses have been paying the wrong interest rate. Or rather, they haven't been paying an interest rate that is set according to some legitimate benchmark. Instead they are paying a rate based on a gentlemen's agreement at financial institutions, a method that practically incentivizes those banks to game the system to maximize their profits.

And remember, the British Bankers Association, the group that is responsible for setting the rate, is not a government agency. It is just a trade group of big banks -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank and others -- whose decisions on such a crucial number are not based on honest accounting or rules or regulatory oversight, but on a gentlemen's agreement of honesty.

We don't know just how deep this scandal goes. But the fact is that if a fundamental component of our financial system has been or is being manipulated, we have the right to know about it. Banks are not above the law and they should not be allowed to operate in secrecy, especially when they have a history of taxpayer bailout and when we are forced to rely on them to provide capital for economic growth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/the-libor-...

And this, posted 2 hours ago:

Just how bad is the Libor scandal? That may partly depend on papers expected to be released by the New York Fed.

Some bankers argue the scandal is overblown because the system for setting the London interbank offered rate was always flawed. Sixteen banks submit estimates of the price at which they believe they can borrow. Libor is the average, excluding the four highest and four lowest. In the crisis, there were so few transactions that some submissions were questions of judgment. As a banker quips, it became the London interbank nonoffered rate.

But U.S. and U.K. investigations clearly rejected any idea that this absolved Barclays BARC.LN -1.41% . The U.K. bank was fined $450 million partly because it falsified Libor submissions even as it complained to regulators that rivals were low-balling theirs. Given some banks were submitting lower rates than Barclays even though they had lost market access, investigators must decide in those cases where judgment ends and deliberate falsehood begins.

What would take the crisis to another level is if U.K. authorities were aware of this low-balling and failed to act. That is where the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can help. It says Barclays alerted it to issues with Libor, leading to the New York Fed sharing its concerns with the Bank of England in the spring of 2008.

The New York Fed hasn't said whether this analysis included allegations of misconduct. If it did, it would raise questions as to why U.K. banks continued low-balling Libor for months. The BOE denies knowing of any allegation of misconduct. Deputy governor Paul Tucker says the BOE believed Libor was "a malfunctioning market, not a dishonest one."

The New York Fed's disclosures may help clear up to what extent U.K. authorities were either complicit or incompetent.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230364400457752...

I'm still trying to figure it out and would appreciate any insights or comments anyone has...

Bloomberg is busy setting up QIBOR in Qatar, and the putative explanation is that there is too much corruption in London. Now we have an example of corruption! Convenient? Right on time ...

QIBOR is just like LIBOR and those involved will "set" the rate at which banks borrow after conversing with banks themselves. This is a US$ 90 trillion market and thus the movement of this facility from London to Qatar is no small event.

If one were interested in moving such a large market, charges of corruption would surely be helpful. And lo and behold, we are reading about them everywhere.

What is the big deal about financial corruption? It is simply a fact that the world's modern central banking is shot through with corruption. How could it be otherwise? It begins with central banks that fix the price of money and its volume and continues from there.

When a small group of people have the power to basically print as much money as they want – and do – then to act surprised that "corruption" permeates the entire system is somewhat, well ... manipulative in our view.

This LIBOR "scandal" has a manufactured smell to it in our humble opinion. For one thing, the headlines are screaming about Barclays as if the bank was manipulating rates UP (and maybe they did). But this Reuters story indicates that rates were being set artificially low – because of a fear that Barclay's would be seen as a gouger.

The U.S. CFTC said specific instructions to lower submissions came from "senior Barclays Treasury managers". They asked submitters to provide rates at a level where Barclays wouldn't be "sticking its head above the parapet."

We can see from this reporting, assuming it is accurate, that Barclays was setting rates to the advantage of borrowers. This is what central bankers do all the time – keep short interest rates at extremely low levels via their price-fixing authority.

While central bankers manipulate money all the time to try to "restimulate" economies that have been blown to bits by their previous manipulations, when Barclays does it in a somewhat timid fashion all hell breaks loose.

For Barclays, such matters suddenly constitute criminality. We would submit the criminal manipulations go a good deal higher and run all the way up to the power elite itself, which apparently controls about 150 central banks around the world.

Top central bankers can do basically whatever they want to – or so we can see in the modern day – but let Barclays try to offer information that would skew rates lower and you're suddenly talking about the depths of depravity.

It reminds us a little about the Murdochian phone-tapping saga going on in England today. The British Parliament has drawn up rules to obtain every single email and other kind of electronic communication in that long-suffering country but various News Corp. employees are being dragged through an endless investigation into phone tapping.

The public sector, or those who operate in the shadows behind the public sector, are immune to these sorts of criminal charges. This system worked especially well in the 20th century when people were less aware of those operating behind the "curtain."

But today, thanks to what we call the Internet Reformation, it is increasingly clear that the system is one two-track criminality. At the very top the laws do not apply. Elites are exempted based on "national security concerns" and worries about "economic contagion" that provides justifications for the most outrageous manipulations.

In this case, we would tend to believe that this perception of massive LIBOR criminality is at least somewhat manufactured. For one thing, LIBOR is the creation of banks that meet regularly to "set" (fix) lending rates. The process itself is criminal to begin with in the sense that it is a kind of open conspiracy.

As free-market types, we have no trouble with collusion generally, but these banks all partake of state privileges in one way or another. The larger banking process is chock-full of government privilege and exemptions. Most of the "money" banks use are now electronic digits in one way or another provided to them by designated central banks.

The second reason we are suspicious of the motivations surrounding this Barclays "affair" is that the powers-that-be are moving a good deal of financial activity to the Middle East. The elites are working hard to create an amalgam of Islamic and Western finance, and placing LIBOR in Qatar – as QIBOR – is just one more element of this larger plan, in our view. Bloomberg, as a corporation, is a designated instrument of this strategy.

Conclusion: There is plenty swirling in the background of all this. Criminality in this case, may surely be in the "eye of the beholder." And those who proclaim the most loudly to be "shocked" are perhaps the least surprised.

http://thedailybell.com/4036/Barclays-LIBOR-Corruption-a-Pho...