FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Failing Financial Regulators

Guardians can be such insipid creatures. Their skills often lie in excusing their indiscretions and ignorance rather than performing their true functions – guarding against set improprieties and wrongs.  With the Barclays crisis over the Libor rate, financial regulators are being pushed into a lime light they would rather avoid.  London and Washington are proving to be the sites of intense activity, with an interest being taken to pursue 10 big banking names including Citigroup, UBS, JP Morgan.  Where there is a smoking bank in violation, others are bound to be present. Financial conduct is, after all, a case of imitation and flattery – and the rule breakers are rewarded first.

On Monday, Congress requested information about the role of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Times, Jul 9) as the improprieties concerning the manipulation of interest rates have come to light.  The oversight panel of the House of Financial Services Committee, an occasionally inert body, has suddenly sprung into action, seeking the transcripts of various phone calls between 2007 and 2008 that took place between central bank officials and Barclays’ executives.

What is rather damning about this kafuffle is that Barclays itself may have raised concerns with American and British authorities over the way Libor was set, but was not told, according to Representative Randy Nuegebauer, to desist in the practice (NYT, Jul 9). It is remarkable that the practice of lowballing – the underreporting of Libor submissions to conceal the financial decay that was setting in – seemed to make no impression on the regulators at all.

Neugebauer himself is doing the utmost best to take the high ground, a ground conspicuously absent in the sense of corporate morality.  ‘The role of the government is to ensure that our capital markets are run with the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency.’

Enter, then, the defense that the guardians were at fault.  When theft is approved by the police, the thieves can hardly be held to account.  That’s the argument in a nutshell – at least as, that being developed by Barclays.  The BBC’s Robert Preston summed it up: ‘A central question, which MPs are likely to probe, is why Barclays’ managers came to believe, after the conversation between [former CEO] Mr. Diamond and [Bank of England’s] Mr. Tucker, that the Bank of England had sanctioned them to lie about what they were paying to borrow when providing data to the committees that set the Libor rate.’

Those devilishly cheeky banksters have a point.  In recent times, the regulators have shown time and time again that they are asleep at the wheel and even, in some cases, sitting alongside the very financial institutions they should be watching.   While it was reported that scores of federal regulators (the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency) had perched themselves inside JPMorgan Chase’s Manhattan headquarters, none played a role in disclosing the multibillion dollar trading loss in May (NYT, May 25).

These embedded and evidently impressionable beings believed what was fed them – morsels of promise that JPMorgan was avoiding speculative pursuits.  This might well have been down to the chief executive Jamie Dimon, who is said to have charmed the pants off them.  ‘To me’, claimed professor of finance at Boston University Mark Williams, ‘it suggests that he is too close to his investors.’  (Dimon, to further prove the case, is on the board of the New York Fed, bedding down.)  The investment arm of the bank, in short, was given full swing – with the regulators’ blessings.

Where to then, with the guardians? Commissions will be formed documenting their laxity.  Recommendations will be handed down suggesting improvements.  But nothing will be done, because the financial sector for years has had an unwritten agreement between speculators and regulators – the world of money should be fluid, anarchic and ultimately, unaccountable.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

COMING SOON: 
The CounterPunch Online Auction

Featuring paintings, photographs, curios, oddities and objets d’art, donated by Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Tom Tomorrow, Margot Kidder, Tao Ruspoli, elin Slavic o’hara, Anthony Papa, Shephard Fairey, Rob Urie, Paul Craig Roberts and many others!!

 

 

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail