What Say ye?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1b2d25aa-cb66-11e1-911e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz20MFv1Mbl

Not sure which mortgages are based on LIBOR versus anything else, but in general any consumer loans based on LIBOR that were instead based on the 3-month T-bill or Fed Repo rate would have their rates be much more volitile week to week. In the current slack economy, this would mean LOWER rates but over the long term slightly higher. Perhaps. But really the alternatives are not that much different 90% of the time, just more volatile. In really bad times like now, they would be lower, in other times higher. But on average same-ish.

Others can chime in.

do mortgages based on LIBOR have cause?

I am sure people will sue, but since banks kept LIBOR articially LOW for the last few years, does not seem like that would be very helpful.

On the other hand, companies and cities and smaller banks and funds etc that were paying LIBOR + on interest rates swap deals...yes, they have ALREADY started suing.

Cities and banks may sue, but it would be impossible to determine what damages were caused. They can make a general argument that they paid "more" than they were supposed to, but it is difficult, almost impossible, to determine how much "more" is, especially when LIBOR rates essentially has followed every other rates downward as the Fed cut interest rates and instituted Operation Twist. Also, SIFMA rates could also be viewed as being manipulated as the universe of debt used to create that rate has fallen over the past few years.

> U.S. states look to enter Libor manipulation case

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/11/us-banking-libor-states-idUSBRE86A1H420120711

I meant "were paid" LIBOR +. Not "paying". But you get what I mean. And the article above explains I am sure.

There is a potential case for borrowers based on swaping libor adjustable rates for fixed ones. The cost to swap might have been inflated because of the low rates. More facts need to come to light first...should be interesting.

Rates are still likely to stay low.

Consigliere - while there may be wrongdoing, it is close to impossible to say a counterparty "overpayed" because you can't quantify it. If an entity decides to use the LIBOR rate, they have to be aware that the rate is set by a survey, and a bank might have a rosier view of its own operations than what others think. In Barclays, there was a clear trail of wrongdoing, but the question still remains whether the entire LIBOR rate index was lower than it otherwise may have been had a single bank not underestimated its borrowing rate. It surely looks like a different rate setting methodology should be in place (like surveying other banks), but I am not sure how anyone can prove how they were specifically damaged and how you go about that. The index is essentially the contract.

Wall Street has been against a Tobin Tax, yet the amount that the banks have pilched as a result of libor manipulation is probably in the same ballpark.

> they have to be aware that the rate is set by a survey, and a bank might have a rosier view of its own operations than what others think. In Barclays, there was a clear trail of wrongdoing, but the question still remains whether the entire LIBOR rate index was lower than it otherwise may have been had a single bank not underestimated its borrowing rate.

jaky, the lawsuits will not be against one bank. It will most likely be against all members of the BBA.

[Libor scandal may cost banks $14 bln in settlements: analysts]

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/12/libor-scandal-estimates-idINL2E8ICFBA20120712

I think they might be underestimating that figure of 14B but we shall see

consider what an 1/8 or a 1/4 of a point means when the contracts are in millions, billions or trillions. Wall Street has proven time and time again that it prefers opacity over transparency when it comes to swaps. Libor is all about swaps.

@jaky

I hear what your saying but if one side has an advantage (which they cheated to get), someone has damage, someone over paid and someone was wronged. When facts come to light, things will change.

All I know is there were trillions of dollars pinned to those rates, using those rates and swapped with those...there are people who are care and will want to know more.

i think the money market fund guys should be up & arms by now .. I know Schwab had a lawsuit file before the whole shananigan came to light recently.

@str33easier - take a look at the definition of LIBOR below:
http://www.bbalibor.com/bbalibor-explained/the-basics
It would be wrongheaded to sue the BBA since they have not committed any fraud. It's like suing the bar association for the wrongdoing of one of its lawyers. In creating the index, a holder would have to prove that the BBA knew that it was publishing a fraudulent rate. It seems to me that you would have to prove that all of the banks or the association knew of the fraud. I just don't know how you do that.

I think this may have a big effect on mortgages, student loans, credit cards or anything pinned to LIBOR in the future. They may just change the index or base the index on something else.

> @str33easier - take a look at the definition of LIBOR below:
http://www.bbalibor.com/bbalibor-explained/the-basics
It would be wrongheaded to sue the BBA since they have not committed any fraud.

jaky, I said "all members of the BBA" I didn't say to sue the BBA. Members of the BBA are the ones setting the "BBA" LIBOR fix every day.

"They may just change the index or base the index on something else."

I think its likely that the the Fed repo rate or 3-month UST bill rate will be the new benchmark. They are market based.

@str33easier - the members of the BBA do not set the LIBOR fix. It is a survey of many banks with the high and lows thrown out. If there was collusion among all of the banks to make the rate look a specific way, that would make sense, but there is no evidence of that quite yet. Further, while swaps may be affected, banks hold both LIBOR-based fixed payor and fixed receiver swaps. Banks also lend on a LIBOR basis. They are very large hedging companies and do not hold on to one-way positions. Lowering the LIBOR rate would lower the interest received on loans, meaning credit card holder, mortgage holders, etc.. who have LIBOR based instruments would actually benefit. Even looking at municipalities with fixed payor swaps that hedge their underlying variable bonds, there is essentially no damage because the payments offset.

The essential problem is proving what they submitted versus what they "should of" submitted. I am sure they can get sued, but I am not sure how such a lawsuit moves forward with no proof of actual damages, just perceived damages. Trying to determine how high a rate a bank "should of" submitted is difficult, if not, impossible. As noted in the WSJ article below, this discussion/disagreement has yet to be resolved.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577524144196458040.html

> I think its likely that the the Fed repo rate or 3-month UST bill rate will be the new benchmark. They are market based.

Repo rate MAYBE but 3M Ts, no. Anything toward the front-end of the curve isn't "market based."

> @str33easier - the members of the BBA do not set the LIBOR fix.

Look at the panels for USD, Pound, and Euro fix, for the sake of this argument,

http://www.bbalibor.com/news-releases/bba-libor-panels7

Which of the members in the three panels that are UK banks DO NOT BELONG to the BBA ? Yeah, thought so. You can say NOT ONLY BBA banks set the LIBOR fix, that's an accurate statement but to say members of the BBA do not set the LIBOR fix is definitely wrong.

"Anything toward the front-end of the curve isn't "market based.""

WTF are talking about? The rate flucates millisecond-by millisecond as T-bills are traded. By the market.

My point is, it is a survey. There is no guarantee where you rank in the survey to be included in the average. Just like you don't say that the average income of the NYC population is set by the people who take the averages.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say anything towards the front-end of the curve isn't "market-based".

What jaky said. T-bills are traded by the millions daily. By traders. In the market.

> WTF are talking about? The rate flucates millisecond-by millisecond as T-bills are traded. By the market

Yeah WTF is right. Get a clue. OK genius! Who controls the Fed Funds Rate ? And again genius, how does the FFR affect the short-end of the curve ? Look at Fig 1

http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/2006/0608.html

Now again, WTF genius, you want to bet that the correlation is closer to 1 or -1 or even 0 ? Yeah, thought so.

So, WTF ARE YOU talking about ?

> What jaky said. T-bills are traded by the millions daily. By traders. In the market.

Wha jaky said ? You have NO IDEA what jaky said jason :) If you do, you would have pointed out how clueless his response was ... sheeeshush.

> On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say anything towards the front-end of the curve isn't "market-based".

Now I know why you have no idea what I said. That's fine. Like UNfinanceguy who was trying to school me on economics and finance while making it abundantly clear he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

jason, in case you can't find the relevant section in the link, here it's

[Indeed, there is a very high correlation between the funds rate and other short-term interest rates. For example, as shown in Figure 1, the correlation between the overnight federal funds rate and a six-month Treasury bill rate is 0.99 (the highest correlation coefficient possible is 1.00)]

http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/2006/0608.html

read'em and weep WTF! :) So, again, WTF ARE YOU talking about ? BTW, just in case you don't "get" what CORRELATION means ? It means the 6-month T-Bill, ergo, the 3M Ts, ergo, short-end of the curve, FOLLOWS the FFR! And in case you still don't get the argument, who controls the FFR ? And in case you still don't get it .. FFR IS NOT SET by the market :) ... ergo my original statement "Anything toward the front-end of the curve isn't "market based."" .. get a clue dude before you waste EVERYONE's time ?

str33teasier - are you in finance, because you make absolutely no sense. The Fed Funds is an overnight borrowing rate. Since the market accepts the Feds view on the Fed Funds rate, that means all market participants accept that that is the market rate. You should read a an econ book, particularly the section on market expectations. The Federal Reserve is part of the market; they set a target rate. If you actually look at the Fed Funds rate that is TRADED, it is not always 25 bps. The Fed intervenes when it diverges away from what they think it should be. To argue that the Federal Reserve is not a market participant is stupid. How do you think the Fed actually get the Fed Funds rate down to 25 bps, by just willing it? They have what is called the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE that drives the rate downwards by printing more dollars. And yes, the FF rate is correlated with the 3 month - that's because they are near one another. A normal yield curve is upward sloping so it stands to reason that an overnight rate will be similar to the 3 month rate. If it wasn't, it would violate the no-arbitrage consistently and there would be profits to be made on the front end of the curve. So if you are saying correlation - which means the directional moves are similar - of course they are. Now to argue that Fed is not a market participant is just stupid. I guess the long-end of the curve isn't a market rate either because of Operation Twist? Every market participant accepts that Fed is a part of the market, otherwise they would be worthless. They are a critical link between where rates are and the state of the economy.

Also - the Fed does not set the FF rate. They set a FF TARGET. Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate
Here is the relevant piece for you: "The Federal Reserve uses open market operations to influence the supply of money in the U.S. economy[3] to make the federal funds effective rate follow the federal funds target rate."
The effective federal funds rate is NOT the same as the target rate. The FF effective rate is what is traded in the market. The FOMC buys and sells as a market participant to get the rate to where the Fed thinks it should be. There is also a lag, so just because the Fed targets a specific rate doesn't mean that is the market rate at that time. There is a lag between the target and the effective rate. Again, read:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/federalreserve/monetary/affect.html

Pay particular attention to the sentence that says:
"The fed funds rate, short for the federal funds rate, is the interest rate at which banks lend excess reserves to one another overnight. It is set by the market, but as you probably know, the Fed sets a target for the fed funds rate, and takes measures keep the rate on target"

http://www.thestreet.com/story/851469/1/why-treasury-bill-yields-are-lower-than-the-fed-funds-rate.html

> The Federal Reserve is part of the market; they set a target rate. If you actually look at the Fed Funds rate that is TRADED, it is not always 25 bps. The Fed intervenes when it diverges away from what they think it should be. To argue that the Federal Reserve is not a market participant is stupid. How do you think the Fed actually get the Fed Funds rate down to 25 bps, by just willing it? They have what is called the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE that drives the rate downwards by printing more dollars.

Thank you for making my point. If there is a "free market", i.e., market-based, why does the Fed need to "set" the Fed Funds ? It would be freely "traded" and "set by the market." No ? :) As you so succinctly pointed out in your response, and thank you, "They have what is called the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE that drives the rate downwards" Reread what you just said. If it's "market-based", there is no need to "drive the rate downwards" or "upwards", the market would set it through trading :) Alas, the Fed controls the short-end and how is that "market based ?" when a BIG participant controls the market by "driving it downwards", as you put it.

But, thank you for the textbook answer which "diverges", to use one of your fancy word, from reality. My point still stands, short-end of the yield curve is not "market-based." If there is no Fed Funds, different story :) BTW, no need to tell me about SOMA or POMO or Reverse Repos :)

allright jaky, if you must nitpick,

> Also - the Fed does not set the FF rate. They set a FF TARGET.

The target and effective rate, have you seen them during the day, differs in 10ths of bps. Do I need to explain what bps is for you ? That's right jaky, 10ths of bps. In other words, the difference is miniscule. Yes, during the day, there is a difference between the target & the effective but it's almost irrelevant.

Target Fed Fund = 25bps
Effective = 18bps today and fluctuates

7bps difference, get a clue dude!

> Pay particular attention to the sentence that says:
> "The fed funds rate, short for the federal funds rate, is the interest rate at which banks lend excess reserves to one another overnight. It is set by the market, but as you probably know, the Fed sets a target for the fed funds rate, and takes measures keep the rate on target"

K, so tell me what's the difference, in reality, of 7bps or 2bps or 1bps ? That's the textbook definition because I assume you have no idea how it works in REAL life. So 1 cent difference makes a heck of lot of difference that there is an effective and target Fed Fund ? Dude, you are so pendantic, did you go through school memorizing everything ? No wonder you have a hard time grasping reality.

http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINBRE86C0VG20120713?irpc=932

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/570744c8-c915-11e1-a768-00144feabdc0.html

Why are all these WS pros telling the FT and Reuters that the t bill rate is an alternative? You need to
Set them straight. You putz.

yeah, you have no idea what you are talking about.

>"Alas, the Fed controls the short-end and how is that "market based ?" when a BIG participant controls the market by "driving it downwards", as you put it."

Have heard of the "London Whale"? The JP Trader that had such a large trading position, his trading moved the market? Just because a market has a large market mover, doesn't mean the market is not a "free market." I hope you know what a monopoly is. Monopolies exist in free markets and they set the price of goods sold in the market. You should go educate yourself a little more. Communism, which is not a free market, means the are price controls from a centralized authority. I hope you recognize the difference.

Next, you should get your terminology right. The effective and the target do not differ by a 10ths of a basis point. I assume you mean to say 10ths of a percentage point. You don't need to explain anything to me; get your terms correct before you start talking. Money is made in trading in basis points; it's called arbitrage. You think high frequency traders and arb funds make money by exploiting very large differences in prices? The difference between 7bps, 2bps and 1 bps is important when you deal in billions of dollars.
So, to tell you that 7bps makes a difference in reality, I'll sell 100MM from one AAA issuer at 18bps and sell it to another AAA issuer for 25bps and make my 7bps spread ($70,000 annualized) risk-free; still no difference to you? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so I think its best to not respond to your lack of understanding of the financial markets.

> Have heard of the "London Whale"? The JP Trader that had such a large trading position, his trading moved the market? Just because a market has a large market mover, doesn't mean the market is not a "free market." I hope you know what a monopoly is. Monopolies exist in free markets and they set the price of goods sold in the market. You should go educate yourself a little more. Communism, which is not a free market, means the are price controls from a centralized authority. I hope you recognize the difference.

Get A CLUE! You're comparing the "London whale" to the Fed. Are you serious ? Are you kidding me ? You know the Fed has a balance sheet of $2.5T right ? The "London Whale" was sh*tting in his pants w/a nominal P/L of about $5B ... GET A CLUE before you starting spouting crap that makes you sound even more stupid. Comparing the Fed to the "London Whale" .. are you serious ?

> The effective and the target do not differ by a 10ths of a basis point. I assume you mean to say 10ths of a percentage point.

Sheeshush .. read .. I said "10ths of bps" that's "10ths of basis points" .. not "A BASIS POINT" .. What is a percentage point made of ? basis points ... nitpicking ... I love it when people just nitpick b/c they have little else to go ...

> So, to tell you that 7bps makes a difference in reality, I'll sell 100MM from one AAA issuer at 18bps and sell it to another AAA issuer for 25bps and make my 7bps spread ($70,000 annualized) risk-free; still no difference to you? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so I think its best to not respond to your lack of understanding of the financial markets.

Hahahaha, nice example except in reality, unless you're the only desk holding most of the inventory and your buyers are completely clueless as to the real spread .. pipe dream example .. you can sell "AAA", let's call it bonds or converts or what have you, for a 7bps spread ? ... hahahahaha .... yeah, your buyer is completely cluessless which makes for your example completely useless.

> I think its best to not respond to your lack of understanding of the financial markets.

Likewise for me .. it's a complete waste of time.

You are impossible to talk to. Look at your prior post. "when a BIG participant controls the market by "driving it downwards", as you put it." I didn't know your definition of "BIG" had to be really "BIG". There are market movers in every market. It depends on the amount of money you have to move the market. If Warren Buffett buys a stocks, he moves the price because he changes market expectations. The existence of a LARGE player does not negate the fact that it is a FREE market. We are talking about the EFFECT of a large player. That's why dark pools were invented, so quant funds wouldn't frontrun trades and make a risk-free arb play. If your argument is that there exist a market mover (called the Fed) and therefore that market can not be "free", you are wrong. Again, you fail to respond to whether you believe a monopoly could exist in a free market, but you selectively choose the statements you want to respond to.

And since you believe making a 7bp spread on instrument is impossible and worthless (even through you could replace the trade with a swap or whatever else you want), and getting away from the response of the original point - "K, so tell me what's the difference, in reality, of 7bps or 2bps or 1bps ?" - you answered your own question. Please respond to how quant funds with algorithmic trading platforms make money by exploiting small price differences and how it's any different here.

> The existence of a LARGE player does not negate the fact that it is a FREE market.

Sheeeshush .. it does negate the fact when that LARGE player is the Fed!!! None of the market that I know of, including the likes of DE Shaws, Renaissance, PIMCO, Bridge Water, Moore Cap or anyone of the LARGE hedgies you want to name has the firepower of 2.5T, that's TRILLION, in capital! Get a clue!!!

> And since you believe making a 7bp spread on instrument is impossible and worthless (even through you could replace the trade with a swap or whatever else you want), and getting away from the response of the original point - "K, so tell me what's the difference, in reality, of 7bps or 2bps or 1bps ?" - you answered your own question. Please respond to how quant funds with algorithmic trading platforms make money by exploiting small price differences and how it's any different here.

It's different here b/c the markets that the algos and HFTs go after are in equities where there are DARK POOLs to ambush the unsuspected. You know of a DARK POOL for 3M Ts ? Didn't think so! Get a clue!

I didn't answer my own question. Yes, in reality, I am talking about REALITY and the example you cited IS NOT REALITY.

> Dude where's my car? Dude

Exactly brooks2 .. unreal ... comparing the "London Whale" to the Fed. Get a clue dude ... "where's your car dude ?"

> > The existence of a LARGE player does not negate the fact that it is a FREE market.

Since you are so smart .. I guess you never heard of "Don't fight the Fed ?" Yeah, didn't think so. Yeah, "You are impossible to talk to."

> That's why dark pools were invented, so quant funds wouldn't frontrun trades and make a risk-free arb play.

What ? Algos and HFTs can survive this long b/c exchanges and dark pools allow them "special privileges" such as "quote stuffing", "specialty data" and "peak-thrus" on the order books.

Again, I repeat: What's amazing is the various regulators and central bankers, wall street analysts and economists have all mentioned the t-bill rate as an alternative. I guess you know more than the folks ad the Fed, Goldman, and PIMCO.

Why are all these experts so stupid and you so smart?

Most likely the regulators put some band-aids on libor bu pretty much keep it untouched. If there's an alternaive it will be some form of repo based futures contract. What will drive the change will not be regulators but market participants loosing faith. The big hurdle in creating an alternative is the huge volume of contracts already using Libor.

I agree the repo rate is the more likely replacement.

A rate based on T-bills can't replace libor. One is a AA risk the other AAA and a function of gov't borrowing. What makes libor work is that it represents or approximates for many market participants cost of funding. Nobdy funds based on T-bills except the government.

> I agree the repo rate is the more likely replacement.

jason, if you just top and read what I wrote originally, we would have saved everyone's time

> Repo rate MAYBE but 3M Ts, no. Anything toward the front-end of the curve isn't "market based."

then you and jaky just couldn't get off the idea that 3M Ts isn't "market based" despite how closely 3M Ts correlates to Fed Funds and then jaky got all wounded up b/c I said the Fed sets the Fed Funds instead of "The Fed sets the Fed Funds target" ... when anyone says the Fed sets the Fed Funds, the target Fed Fund is implied b/c that's the only thing the Fed can set, the target, but jaky had to nitpick that little detail to death. I give up!

Look RS may turn out right.

"Libor Alternative Trades Briskly in Debut"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933704577532852620838704.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

"Carney, who is also governor of the Bank of Canada...

...Carney mentioned the possibility of using repo rates and Overnight Index Swap rates, two ideas also floated by U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in Washington. Bernanke also singled out Treasury Bill rates as a potential benchmark...."

STFU moron. I think these guys know more than you about what would be an appropriate replacement. Yes, a repo index is more likely but the fucking heads of Central Banks say t-bills would work too.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/banking-libor-carney-idUKL2E8II8VK20120718

From a BMO research note on the topic from today:

"...Treasury Floating Rate Notes – The US Treasury is looking to launch floating rate notes in the future, and is currently searching for what short-term interest rate to benchmark them to. The Treasury sent out a questionnaire to the industry giving them a choice between three potential rates: Treasury Bills, Fed Funds, and GCF Repo. The questionnaires came back essentially a hung jury, split a third in favor of each rate..."

Boy these analysts and Treasury officials and the traders they poll sure need random posters on Streeteasty to set them straight!!! Not.

Idiot.

Lol. Well, According to someone here, he thinks a third of the industry is wrong.. I'll make sure to create an online petition and lobby for you to be the next Fed chairman and set them right st33t.
Thanks for the FACTS jason.

I work for a Wall Street firm, but don't profess to be an expert on this particular topic jaky. But I am required to read these sorts of stories and research reports every day. So when the actual experts say something is so, I assume it is so.

Hey Wall Street idiot and moron, just b/c you work on the Street doesn't make u smart

> The questionnaires came back essentially a hung jury, split a third in favor of each rate

It's a HUNG jury! If everyone was so gung ho about Ts as a replacement, they would have voted for it ...

In case you forgot what I said before, here it is "Repo rate MAYBE but 3M Ts, no."

And base on YOUR posting

"Carney mentioned the possibility of using repo rates and Overnight Index Swap rates, two ideas also floated by U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in Washington."

>

AR, are you being sarcastic?

> "...Bernanke also singled out Treasury Bill rates as a potential benchmark...."

He's the FED CHAIR ... hello ? anyone home ? what is he going to say ? "No, T-Bills are not a good potential benchmark! You guys should use the BuBill or Gilts" Goes to show .. just b/c you work on the street doesn't make you smart .. who's the F*Ktard now ? Too funny.

The market will decide! If it's 3M Ts, so be it. If it's repo or OIS .. so be it ..

jason, r u just looking for something to vent b/c this discussion is getting no where!

"City’s Unemployment Rate Reaches 10 Percent"

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/citys-unemployment-rate-reaches-10-percent/

how is price-fixing considered a scandal on wall street?

without price-fixing, insider information, and/or "cheating" (as the rest of us call it) wall street wouldn't exist. that IS the business. i wish they would stop harassing the bankers to pay these miniscule fines, it's embarrassing as all hell. like flinging rocks at a nuclear missile...

"libor scandal" won't do shit to mortgages because the price fixing will continue.

we only have one defense against these asshats and that is to let them do what they do best...let them cheat their own companies into the ground - but don't give them a bailout this time. just dangle the carrot in front of them and watch them fall right off...in the long run price fixing always backfires. rather than a fine, they should give extra bonuses from govt tax funds to the bankers who are "best" at doing this and watch them destroy themselves. at least that way this whole deleveraging process will be entertaining.

does ur greyed out status = unable to understand sarcasm?

"Idiot"

no argument there as i am posting on this board (even worse, responding to a ghost)

"If LIBOR didn't even exist, do you believe that your mortgage would be any cheaper?"

excellent rewording of the header of this thread, shakespeare...but see above, i am an "idiot" aka renter

"Did you receive the lowest grade in your college creative writing class" -> actually yes a C+

"or was ur teaching assistant a liberal partisan idiot who liked your leanings even if your logic was backward?" -> nope, he was a 5-digit conservative, u would have loved him

"All you are is a whiner. Oh, Wall Street did it, the bankers did it, Congress is responsible."

what, r u from alabama? does it make u nervous when people try to pin blame upon our beloved red, white, & blue? it's ok buddy, ur wonderful representatives, president, and banking system is not going anywhere. all will be ok. GS will still get nice bonuses this year. just relax & continue hunting.

deez here fancy internets is not for u

------------------------------
here come the lawsuits
-----------------------------------

Statistical analysis shows Libor rose consistently on the first day of each month between 2000 and 2009, the lawsuit claims. Between 2007 and 2009 Libor moved by as much as 7.5 basis points on certain reset days, it alleges. The plaintiffs’ calculation methods were not in the court documents.

Traders’ emails were published as part of the Barclays settlement. One, referenced in the Alabama complaint, shows a trader asking for a higher Libor rate because “We’re getting killed on our [three-month] resets.”

The class action, filed in New York, alleges that traders at 12 of the biggest banks in Europe and North America – including Barclays, Bank of America and UBS – were incentivised to manipulate the London interbank offered rate to a higher rate on certain dates on which adjustable mortgage interest rates were reset. This resulted in homeowners paying more between 2000 and 2009, according to the complaint.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6b912248-1496-11e2-8cf2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz29IXxHPY1