babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Libor Scandal, Barclays, Royal Bank of Canada and NDP

jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

In an episode titled Barclay's Banking Scandal, CBC's The Current interviews a British Labour MP about the Libor Scandal, in which Barclay's (and other banks) rigged the Libor rate, the international interest rate charged for borrowing between banks. Since this involves $800 trillion in loans rigging this rate has cost consumers and taxpayers trillions. The Labour MP notes that 50% of British Conservative funding comes from British banks while, after 18 years out of power, Blair and Labour were willing to have regulators look the other way while this corruption continued. The British Conservatives have cut funding for financial regulator by 35% since returning to power. Blair is now earning $3 million on the board of J P Morgan and is also on the board of a British bank.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2012/07/04/barclays-banking-scandal/

The Royal Bank of Canada is one of 16 banks involved in setting the Libor rate and their is suspicion that it could be involved in fixing the rate. The NDP needs to demand an inquiry into Canadian banks activity and a Royal Commission if it turns out that the Royal Bank (or other Canadian institutions) were involved in this. It also needs to push for campaign reform to remove corporate (and especially financial institutions - the biggest contributors) funding of parties. They also need to announce that they will ban the movement of people between regulators and the organizations they regulate, especially banks, as this results in a strong conflict of interest that has too often contributed to the failure of regulation.



Comments

jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

I believe financial reform and electoral reform similar to that descibed above is essential to the future of democracy. As the governor of Montana said when the US Supreme Court overturned Montana's 100 year law limiting corporate electoral spending, this means there wil be two parties in his state: the Corporate party and the Corporate Light party. To gain power and introduce even the mildest of reforms, any party will have do nothing that seriously annoys the corporate sector, and especially the richest of its sectors -banking. The proof of this lies in the Blairites in Britain and here.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Mark Carney: Bank of Canada

http://rabble.ca/comment/1340092


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

"....Since this involves $800 trillion in loans rigging" Is that a typo???

 

ETA: It took the USA 60 years to reach their accumulated national debt of $14 trillion - that $800 trillion number (above) is clearly a missprint.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

The Biggest Financial Scam in World History

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31763

"Matt Taibbi explains that this is 'the mega scandal of all mega scandals' because Libor is the 'sun at the center of the financial universe' and manipulating Libor means that 'the whole earth is built on quicksand'..."


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

$800 trillion is the right number according to the Wall Street Journal. Most of this comes in the form of derivatives.  This huge market is essentially a casino in which banks daily make bets with money borrowed from other banks in a mutual wink-wink I'll scratch your back-you scratch mine loan system that allows larger and larger bets in order that traders and their managers earn multi-million dollar bonuses. At the same time they put the world economy at risk when these bets go hugely wrong, as happened in 2008. Today the bets and risks are even larger. Since money, mainly supplied by the financial sector, has become the fuel of the advertising campaigns for elections, many of the politicians around the world, including Blair, Obama and virtually all right-wing ones, toady to these interests. Unless public financing of elections occurs, we will be at risk of losing our democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivatives_market

 

"The derivatives market is the financial market for derivativesfinancial instruments like futures contracts or options, which are derived from other forms of assets. ...

Global:

US: Figures below are from SECOND QUARTER, 2008 [5]

  • Total derivatives (notional amount): $182.2 trillion (SECOND QUARTER, 2008)
    • Interest rate contracts: $145.0 trillion (80%)
    • Foreign exchange contracts: $18.2 trillion(10%)"

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/big-banks-criminally-conspire-to-rig-800-trillion-dollar-market.html

 

According to the CIA’s World Factbook, the global economy – as measured by the world’s gross domestic product – is less than $80 trillion. In contrast, over $800 trillion dollars worth of investments are pegged to the Libor rate.   In other words, a market more than 10 times the size of the entire real world economy is effected by Libor. ... Interest rate derivatives comprise the lion’s share of all derivatives, and could blow up and take down the entire financialsystem. The largest interest rate derivatives sellers include Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Goldman and JP Morgan … many of which are being exposed for manipulating Libor ... on virtually a daily basis since 2005.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-01/big-banks-have-criminally-conspired-2005-rig-800-trillion-dollar-market

The U.K. bankers and regulators charged with reviewing Libor in the wake of regulatory probes are resisting calls to overhaul the rate because structural changes risk invalidating trillions of dollars of contracts. The group, established by the British Bankers’ Association in March after probes into allegations that traders rigged the London interbank offered rate … won’t propose structural changes such as basing the rate on actual trades or taking away oversight of the benchmark from the BBA, the people said. Libor is determined by a daily poll that asks banks to estimate how much it would cost them to borrow from each other for different timeframes and in different currencies. Because banks’ submissions aren’t based on real trades, academics and lawyers say they are open to manipulation by traders. At least a dozen firms are being probed by regulators worldwide for colluding to rig the rate,

 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Libor's Ugly Canadian...Here's Jerry!

Jerry del Missier: A Sudden Halt to a Stellar Career

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/jerry-del-missier-a-su...

"When members of a Queen's University advisory board headed to London in February for a series of meetings, Jerry del Missier made sure they got a visit to the House of Lords. The arrangement wasn't too surprising, given his long association with Queen's and his job as Chief Operating Officer at Barclay's Bank PLC...

he and Mr Diamond have become lightening rods for British politicians and the public furious about allegations of excessive compensation and reports the bank manipulated a key interest rate to boost profits and hide losses. Barclay's has alleged Mr del Missier misconstrued information he received from Mr Diamond which led to manipulations in the Libor (London interbank offered rate), a key interest rate that is set by roughly 20 banks.

**Mr del Missier is on a committee, co-led by former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge, that seeks out the next potential troublespots in the global financial system. The committee is part of the IIF, a group of major banks and financial institutes from across the globe.** "

He still is and not a word from the NDP or anyone else about it either.

 


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

The financial sector not only supports their own when they are caught but make them out as heroes resigning to save the corporation (see below) rather than as criminals risking the destruction of the global economy. Of course they are willing to pay fines taken from the bank's deposits - it's not their money and if the bank brings down the economy, the taxpayer will pay. Recently former President Clinton, as well as some other Democrats and virtually all Republicans, defended Wall Street against Obama's tepid proposals for reform. The banksters who engage in these practices need to go jail for more than 20 years - not be lauded as great people.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/jerry-del-missier-a-su...

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan chief executive officer Jim Leech ... approves of Mr. del Missier’s decision to step down from Barclays. “In the face of this type of controversy, which is the quasi-political, it is the right thing to do – if you’re potentially the lightening rod – to step aside so that the institution can get back to business as usual quickly,” he said.


ventureforth
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2011

jerrym wrote:

The NDP needs to demand an inquiry into Canadian banks activity and a Royal Commission if it turns out that the Royal Bank (or other Canadian institutions) were involved in this. It also needs to push for campaign reform to remove corporate (and especially financial institutions - the biggest contributors) funding of parties. They also need to announce that they will ban the movement of people between regulators and the organizations they regulate, especially banks, as this results in a strong conflict of interest that has too often contributed to the failure of regulation.

Federally, corporations have been banned from making election contributions since January 1, 2007:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec9055...

Also, while I would agree that regulators moving to institutions that they regulate can be a conflict, I am not aware that such movement is widespread in Canada (unlike the US) and would be interested in any Canadian examples where such a move has led to a failure of regulation in Canada.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Thanks for the $800 trillion explanation, jerrym! God, that's a lot of money.


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

There are serious loopholes in the election contributions law as noted in the following (I've bolded some key major issues): 

http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/actmoney.htm

While the new law limits the influence of money in politics, the following loopholes still exist that allow for secret, unlimited donations:

  • donation limits and disclosure requirements are needed for “volunteer labour” donated to parties and candidates during nomination race, election and party leadership campaigns, to close this existing secret donations loophole that allows corporations, unions and other organizations to give employees paid time off to work on campaigns; 
  • loans to parties, riding associations, nomination race candidates, election candidates and party leadership candidates from corporations, unions and all other types of organizations (including political parties and riding associations lending to candidates) must be banned (as donations have been), or at least strictly limited, and loans from individuals must be limited (as donations have been) so that loans cannot be used to influence the government or politicians;
  • disclosure of the identity of each individual donor's employer must be required (as in the U.S.) and disclosure of each donor's direct organizational affiliations must also be required (to help ensure that corporations, unions and other organizations are not funnelling donations through their employees or board members);
  • secret, unlimited donations of money, property and services to candidates in nomination race and political party leadership campaigns must be banned (NOTE: Bill C-2 (the FAA) bans secret donations to election candidates, but not to nomination race nor to party leadership candidates);
  • secret donations are still effectively allowed because the federal Conservatives are not complying with the UN Convention Against Corruption nor other international standards that require the monitoring of the bank accounts of all public officials who have decision-making power (for details, go to: Democracy Watch's December 9, 2008 news release);
  • riding associations and political parties are still allowed to have a secret trust fund and take secret, unlimited donations to the fund (as long as they don't use the donations for campaigns);
  • the penalty for taking a secret donation of money, property or services, or having a secret trust fund, must be increased to $100,000 and a jail term (NOTE : the FAA establishes ridiculously low penalties of $500 to $2,000);
  • given that federal election dates are now fixed every 4 years, spending by candidates, riding associations and political parties must be limited for at least 6 months before each election day;
  • tdonations by political parties to riding associations and candidates must be limited to decrease the possibility of party headquarters influencing the selection of candidates by riding associations, and to make associations and candidates more independent from party headquarters;
  • establish public funding that matches the donations made to any nomination race, election, and party leadership candidate who raises a specific minimum amount of money that shows they have voter support; 
  • spending limits must be established for political party leadership campaigns to ensure a level playing field for all candidates (spending by nomination race candidates, election candidates, and political parties is already limited during campaigns).

 

There are therefore ways to get around this law. Secret donation penalties are way too low, and the Mulroney Airbus scandal shows how secret payments to a leadership candidate can payoff big time illustrate how these flaws can create problems that this law does not fix. 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

'Clockwork Libor' - Ep. 310 Max Keiser Report (and vid)

http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-310-keiser-financial

"Bankers doing the 'ultra-violent' on the global financial system..."

 


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

 

Quote:

While I would agree that regulators moving to institutions that they regulate can be a conflict, I am not aware that such movement is widespread in Canada (unlike the US) and would be interested in any Canadian examples where such a move has led to a failure of regulation in Canada.

Mark Carney is a former Goldman Sachs employee, who as the articles below note, helps the corporation in the pursuit of its interests. Having one's employees in key regulatory and government roles can help the firm achieve one's goals either through a direct conflict of interest or simply because of the group think of being part of similar thinking group. With the austerity program in Europe devastating the economy, as government regulators and even politicians from the financial sector have advised, we can see how this can be disastorous for a national economy. Are you willing to bet Carney never rules in favoour of the financial sector instead of Canada when he already was involved in a such a situation in Russia for Goldman Sachs (see below). 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney


 



jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

Here is a map showing how extensive Goldman Sachs influence is in Europe. This is just one financial institution of many that has strong influence in Europe, US and Canada through former employees.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-pr...

 

 


ventureforth
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2011

jerrym wrote:
While I would agree that regulators moving to institutions that they regulate can be a conflict, I am not aware that such movement is widespread in Canada (unlike the US) and would be interested in any Canadian examples where such a move has led to a failure of regulation in Canada.

Are you willing to bet Carney never rules in favoour of the financial sector instead of Canada when he already was involved in a such a situation in Russia for Goldman Sachs (see below). 

 

You had wanted to have the NDP restrict movements from the regulators to the financial industry as such movement had contributed to past regulatory failures - your quotes seem to be focused on the flip side (ie hiring regulators from the financial industry).  As noted, I'm interested in examples going the way you mentioned - from the regulators to the financial industry which contributed to past regulatory failures in Canada.

On the conflict you point out in this post (hiring from the industry), who are the candidates to be the head of the regulators of the Banks. I thought the present Superintendent of Financial Institutions was well regarded - should she be replaced and by whom?


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Libor Bank Scandal Deepens  - by Matt Taibbi

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/12267-brit...

"Barclays releases damning email implicates  British government..."


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

ventureforth wrote:

On the conflict you point out in this post (hiring from the industry), who are the candidates to be the head of the regulators of the Banks. 

You seem to assume that such people must come from the financial industry or related economic fields and since we have not had problems of the same severity as the US and Europe we can safely leave things as they are, even though there are signs the real estate bubble is about to burst in Vancouver and Toronto, the same kind of problem that initiated the US turndown. I do not have a list of names but I do not think it is wise to not have all or nearly all cabinet ministers and regulators from a similar mindset (until recently) - something that has contributed to Europe's growing austerity problems. 

Roosevelt resisted advice on picking the usual candidates for financial cabinet and regulatory positions during the Great Depression because he distrusted turning over these jobs to people with the same mindset as those who helped bring aboout the problem. 

For example, he appointed Henry Morgenthau Secretary of the Treasury. Morgenthau "became interested in agriculture and bought a farm in Dutchess co., N.Y., where he became an intimate of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1922, Morgenthau purchased the American Agriculturalist, a leading Eastern farm journal. After Roosevelt's election (1928) as governor of New York, he appointed Morgenthau chairman of the state agricultural advisory committee and later made him state conservation commissioner. ... As secretary of the treasury in Roosevelt's cabinet (1934–45), he was responsible for financing the programs of the New Deal and the enormous military expenditures of World War II. Over $370 billion was spent during the period, three times more money than was spent by the 50 previous secretaries of the treasury." This helped lead to the American WWIi boom as well as the postwar boom. Hardly a conventional pick for the job. 

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Morgenthau,+Henry,+Jr.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Fallout From Libor Scandal Likely to Hit Canada's Financial Industry

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/07/.05/fallout-from-libor-scandal...

"...This is a stunning amount of money,' said Dimitri Lascaris, a lawyer at Siskinds in London, Ont, who specializes in Class-action lawsuits. Given the dollars involved there's no question that some Canadian investors lost money as a result of the manipulations, Mr Lascaris said. Already at least one major Canadian bank has been caught up in a US legal battle. In one of the biggest Libor class actions so far, the mayor and city council of Baltimore is suing Royal Bank of Canada along with 20 other big institutions over alleged losses from holding securities based on Libor..."

It's early days yet, this is just beginning...


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

NDPP wrote:

Libor Bank Scandal Deepens  - by Matt Taibbi

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/12267-brit...

"Barclays releases damning email implicates  British government..."

I heard Matt Taibbi on Sam Seder's "The Majority Report", www.majority.fm. I am a subscriber to Seder's podcast. It is very good. He restricts access to the second half of his podcast but will make allowances to give access to people who are unemployed; he is the only one doing this, though I think Mike Malloy would if he could afford it, not that I am saying Seder can, but that is who he is. You guys should check it out (no, I am not a Sam Seder advertiser; I just know good content when I hear it).

After listening to Taibbi, who is a fegquent Seder guest, I realized how serious this is. This is just incredible, and shows how much governance and banking are  inter linked. It is disgraceful. But, I doubt anyone will suffer for this except "we chickens". Has Mulcair commented on this yet?


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Taibbi is excellent. There has been nothing from the NDP. The pols are working on their tans at their cotttages and will keep their heads down on this one is my guess. Besides they never interfere in the affairs of these banksters and money masters of the universe unless it is to advance their interests..


ventureforth
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2011

jerrym wrote:

ventureforth wrote:

On the conflict you point out in this post (hiring from the industry), who are the candidates to be the head of the regulators of the Banks. 

You seem to assume that such people must come from the financial industry or related economic fields and since we have not had problems of the same severity as the US and Europe we can safely leave things as they are, even though there are signs the real estate bubble is about to burst in Vancouver and Toronto, the same kind of problem that initiated the US turndown. I do not have a list of names but I do not think it is wise to not have all or nearly all cabinet ministers and regulators from a similar mindset (until recently) - something that has contributed to Europe's growing austerity problems. 

Roosevelt resisted advice on picking the usual candidates for financial cabinet and regulatory positions during the Great Depression because he distrusted turning over these jobs to people with the same mindset as those who helped bring aboout the problem. 

For example, he appointed Henry Morgenthau Secretary of the Treasury. Morgenthau "became interested in agriculture and bought a farm in Dutchess co., N.Y., where he became an intimate of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1922, Morgenthau purchased the American Agriculturalist, a leading Eastern farm journal. After Roosevelt's election (1928) as governor of New York, he appointed Morgenthau chairman of the state agricultural advisory committee and later made him state conservation commissioner. ... As secretary of the treasury in Roosevelt's cabinet (1934–45), he was responsible for financing the programs of the New Deal and the enormous military expenditures of World War II. Over $370 billion was spent during the period, three times more money than was spent by the 50 previous secretaries of the treasury." This helped lead to the American WWIi boom as well as the postwar boom. Hardly a conventional pick for the job. 

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Morgenthau,+Henry,+Jr.

No, I do not assume that candidates to be bank regulators (ie OSFI) nned to come from the financial industry or related fields - you were of the mindset that the bank regulators needed to be replaced so I asked as to your candidates in mind asked abour the present Supertendent who is the senior bank regulator.

I have asked about the examples in Canada where regulators moved from the civil service to a financial institution which contributed (your words) to a past failure in Canada. I assume that there aren't any examples and you are referring tio the potential conflict rather than any situation which has happened. Fair enough - as noted, I agree that it is a conflict but was looking the examples you suggested that had happened rather than could happen.

How far down into the civil service should your proposed ban on regulators going from regulators to financial institutions go?


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Libor Interest Rate Scandal: Crime of the Century

http://commondreams.org/view/2012/07/06-3

"...Modern international bankers form a class of thieves the likes of which the world has never seen. Or, indeed, imagined. The modern day robber barons pillage with a destructive abandon totally unfettered by law or conscience and on a scale that is almost impossible to comprehend."

Canadian del Missier is central - why have no actions against him been initiated here? I have heard nothing of his removal or resignation from the various boards and committees he sits on here in Canada. And what about Carney? Should the NDP not remark the fact of his grotesque history with Goldman Sachs? Or is it intentional that banditti like these occupy the highest positions of trust and responsibility and no criticisms made?

PS: I expect Canada will react much like the US in this matter...

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/documents/Barclaysagreement.pdf

 


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

 

ventureforth wrote:

 

How far down into the civil service should your proposed ban on regulators going from regulators to financial institutions go?

That would require an internal analysis that is beyond me.

However, Canada has long had a history of poor regulation with regard to stock markets (the Vancouver Stock Exchange was considered to be a beehive of fraudsters (so much so that 60 Minutes did an expose) but little was ever done to clean it up). Pension fund fraud is rarely prosecuted ( due to his Conserative party connections Alan Eagleson was only prosecuted in Canada after more than a decade of revelations because he was being prosecuted in the US). Conrad Black was jailed in the US but not in Canada because "white collar crime is not considered as serious in Canda (compared to the US) because it is not violent" (http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/barry-wilson-reflects-on-the-earl-jones-scand...).  Earl Jones was able to defraud investors in Montreal of $50 million for twenty years starting in 1984 despite being neither a liceensed financial advisor or even a financial planner. 

Throughout Jones’ career he developed a vast network of professional and financial liaisons, which included lawyers and notaries, mortgage and insurance brokers, and banks. By his own admission, Jones was an unregistered financial advisor and relied on these business relationships to perpetrate his fraud. While the Crown Prosecutor and Sûreté du Québec investigators could not find sufficient evidence of criminal complicity, pending legal action in the Civil Courts has sought compensation for the victims in the far-reaching fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Jones_(investment_advisor)).

When John Manley was interviewed as Minister of Finance about the defrauding of elderly fragile seniors by scam artists he replied that they had to take responsibility for their own finances. A recent CBC news report detailed the low priority given to criminal fraud investigations because the government feels it has to use its limited resourcs to deal with violent crime. 

During the 1990s Savings and Loans crisis in the US a different approach was taken to financial criminal activity, but as time passed regulations and prosecution slackened considerably.


http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/04/26/why-so-few-ended-up-in-jail-after-the-financial-cr.aspx#.T_cAJI6QlQ0 

After the savings and loan crisis of the early '90s, 800 financial executives went to prison in the US. Not only have most bank execs avoided prosecution this time around, but many are still gainfully employed by the banks that ran the economy into the ground.

That few execs have been charged doesn't mean they're all innocent, of course.

High-level fraud cases are typically referred to the US Justice Department by industry regulators. The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, works in tandem with the Justice Department to reel in medical fraud. Same for the Department of Agriculture. And the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Bank regulators are different. Since 2000, the Office of Thrift Supervision has not referred a single case of fraud to the Justice Department, according to The New York Times. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has referred just three cases.

There could be many reasons for this. The two regulators, though, have a long history of coddling the banks they oversee. They have every incentive to do so: Regulators' existence depend on banks -- or "clients," as the OCC refers to them as -- since fees paid by banks fund their operations. In some cases, banks can shop around for the regulator with the lightest touch.

That's what Countrywide did in 2007. Then-CEO Angelo Mozilo was frustrated with the demands of the OCC. Regulators were getting in his hair. Easy solution: Countrywide changed charters to fall under the purview of a gentler regulator, the OTS. As Connie Bruck of The New Yorker pointed out, the OTS actually lobbied Countrywide to make the switch.

Not that the OCC was a regulatory pit bull itself. When West Virginia tried to sue Capital One  (NYSE: COF http://g.foolcdn.com/common/img/buttons/BtnAdd.gif); display: inline-block; height: 16px; vertical-align: middle; width: 16px; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;" title="Add COF to My Watchlist" href="http://my.fool.com/watchlist/add?ticker=COF&source=iwlsitbut0000010"> ) for credit card abuse in 2005, the company applied for a national charter with the OCC. By doing so, Capital One escaped West Virginia's jurisdiction, and the state lost authority to pursue its case. This wasn't an isolated incident. The OCC stopped Georgia when it attempted to enforce predatory lending laws. New York regulators were intervened while pursuing discriminatory lending investigations. The head of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission told former OCC head John Dugan, "You tied the hands of the states and then sat on your hands.

If regulators didn't make it hard enough, the FBI has seen a radical cut in the number of agents available to investigate financial crime. During the saving and loans crisis 1,000 FBI agents worked the financial crimes scene. Today, just 240 do. (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/04/26/why-so-few-ended-up-in-...)

 

With a Canadian government, regulatory agencies, and police forces that have rarely investigate white collar crime or those with connections to the elite, there is surprise that such criminal prosecutions tend to occur only after being revealed in the media. While the US is the same boat today, the savings and loans shows that there can be criminal prosecution of white collar criminals if the resources are provided and there is an attitude that this should be done. The current situation in Canada hardly reassures me.

The problems that Eisenhower warned us about with regard to the military-industrial complex in 1960 (by 1980 20% of retired generals enter the military industry - today its 80% of retired generals who know that their beds will be well featherd if they do right by the industry while still generals) now infect our financial control system.

You seem mighty determined to defend the Conservative record on their election contributions law and their appointments to regulatory positions. I don't plan on answering any more of your questions because I think you are simply trolling. 

 

 


ventureforth
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2011

jerrym wrote:

 

ventureforth wrote:

How far down into the civil service should your proposed ban on regulators going from regulators to financial institutions go?

 

You seem mighty determined to defend the Conservative record on their election contributions law and their appointments to regulatory positions. Are you trolling?

I am not defending the Conservative election laws - I pointed out that there were changes (actually started by the Liberals I believe and I don't agree with th withdrawal of election finnacing by Harper) - and I would agree with the additions you suggested. I did not state an opinion or support.

I do have friends who are civil servants and regulators (and I don't mean the Mark Carneys of the world who would have never have to work after leaving his regulatory position - I'm not defending his appointment which you seem to be implying) and you have made allegations as to the integrity of civil servants who work in these agencies. Bashing civil servants is popular these days and I don't agree. As to your allegation that I am supporting "Conservative appointees" - bullshit.

This government is constantly appointing unqualified people to important positions (Fisheries minister and Environment minister to name two). I have asked you who YOU would replace and to name the civil servants you stated (not implied) had left the government and had led to regulatory failures. I have asked you three time to name examples. If there are none, then the proposal should be that such movement may create conflicts - not that it has created problems in Canada. And I repeat my question - how far down in the civil service would you restrict future movement?

Earl Jones is a good example of the inepitude of the securities commissions to stop securities fraud and this has been a longstanding issue and goes far beyond just the federal government - securities commissions, self regulatory agencies and many police forces. No one could ever defend this inepitude and there are numerous websites to detail the many Canadian examples. And the recent CBC report you cite - well there have been many over the years. And as the record of the Harper Government - well that's even worse given the alleged focus on law and order.

By my reading, I agreed with almost every point you raised except I asked for an example of the problems raised by regulators leaving the civil service and then you allege that I am supporting the appointment of individusls by the Conservatives. Leaving is not the same as appointing ... which is the point I'm raising. And to be clear, I don't care if you restrict Mark Carney, fire him or banish him - I asked about the career civil servants which form the bulk of those employed in the rank and file of the regulatory bodies such as OSFI.


Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

ventureforth wrote:

Also, while I would agree that regulators moving to institutions that they regulate can be a conflict, I am not aware that such movement is widespread in Canada (unlike the US) and would be interested in any Canadian examples where such a move has led to a failure of regulation in Canada.

 

Of course it's widespread. It's actually a very difficult task to have regulatory organizations that are both competent and not captured by the regulated. The conundrum that faces all such organizations is that they need to involve people who know a lot about what they're regulating and for obvious reasons these people are often to be found working in the industry that's being regulated. Take the CRTC, for example. There's a good case to be made that it doesn't so much regulate the Canadian telecommunications industry as represents it. Just take a look at some of the people on the Commission. The blurb about Vice-Chairman Leonard Katz mentions: "Prior to assuming those responsibilities, he spent 17 years within the Rogers Group of Companies, where he held various positions in the regulatory, intercarrier services and business development fields of wireless and cable services. This experience led to the position of President, Rogers Business Solutions, which he occupied until 2001. From 1974 to 1985, he acted in increasingly senior capacities at Bell Canada, including as Assistant Director of Policy Development and Regulatory Affairs." The section on Elizabeth Duncan, Commissioner for the Atlantic Region reads in part: "She brings with her considerable experience in the cable television industry, most recently as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Access Communications Incorporated in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia." Same sort of thing for Commissioner Timothy Denton, who "[p]rior to his appointment to the Commission... was involved in the governance of the domain name industry through his work with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and as a director, from 2002 to 2004, of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. Between 1996 and 1998, he served as the first solicitor of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers" Keep reading through and you'll find that almost all of them have a prior connection to the telecommunications or broadcast industries. The deeply annoying thing is that it wouldn't actually make sense to replace them all with people whose sole experience of the industry is as a consumer.


ventureforth
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2011

Doug wrote:

ventureforth wrote:

Also, while I would agree that regulators moving to institutions that they regulate can be a conflict, I am not aware that such movement is widespread in Canada (unlike the US) and would be interested in any Canadian examples where such a move has led to a failure of regulation in Canada.

Of course it's widespread.

I was referring to regulators moving from the regulator to the industry. In the financial busiess in Canada, regulators are more likely to move to another regulator or to a law firm or accounting firm. In the US, there is far more movement to the financial industry. If you examined the background  of compliance staff in US firms almost all would have come from the a US regulator whereas in Canada, a fraction with that background.

In addition, much of the movement is relatively middle level or junior level employees - investigators, examiners, counsel, CAs etc. Most would not have been in key policy roles within the regulatory agency.


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

So I edited jerrym's post at #12 and ventureforth's post at #14 to fix the jamble.

Remember to avoid unclosed quote tags and copy & pasting from rich sites like wikipedia. Try plain text paste instead.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

 

It's Not Libor Stupid, Central Banks are the Problem

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shahgilani/2012/07/06/its-not-libor-stupid-c...

"The Libor scandal is about to get a whole lot worse. And that's the good news...Why are central banks pouring money into banks, really? Why aren't governors printing money to pour into ailing economies but aiding and abetting central banks instead? It's because central banks are independent, supra-national bodies who have been ceded monitary power by governments almost everwhere to benefit bankers and banks the world over, who are their only constituents, and for all intents and purposes, effectively 'run' legislators and governments..."

Joseph Stiglitz: 'Jail the Bankers'

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/12297-focus-joseph-stigli...

"...Stiglitz's interest in the abuse of banks extends beyond the academic. He argues that breaking the economic and political power that has been amassed by the financial sector in recent decades, especially in the US and UK, is essential if we are to build a more just and prosperous society. The first step he says is sending some bankers to jail. 'That ought to change. That means legislation. Banks and others have engaged in rent seeking, creating inequality, ripping off other people, and none of them have gone to jail.

Next, politicians need to stop spending so much time listening to the financial lobby, which according to Stiglitz demonstrates its spectacular economic ignorance whenever it claims that curbs on banks' activities will damage the broader economy..."


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

The Democracy Now video below discusses how the Libor scandal worked. One key point is that all or nearly all of the banks involved (including RBC in Canada) had to be involved and not just the three who have so far admitted it since the rate for interbank loans was set by throwing out the top 4 and bottom 4 daily bids on the rate and taking the average of the remaining 8 banks. In order to rig such a system, virtually everbody must be involved. The video makes clear that the American and British regulators knew what was going on since at least 2008. It also discusses how HSBC was laundering money from organized crime. This discussion starts at 47:00 minutes of the video.

http://dncdn.dvlabs.com/ipod/dn2012-0719.mp4

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Mulroney's Finance Minister was a former Bay Street bond salesman. And Linda McQuaig wrote about former Central Bankers, like John Crow, having attended all the right power schools before landing such key jobs. We are supposed to believe central bankers operate at arm's length from government as well as the financial sector. And having led such Puritan lives and rubbed elbows with no one of power and influence at any time in their privileged lives, owe favours to no one in particular. It's not bloody likely.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

The Libor Scandal In Full Perspective

Paul Craig Roberts wrote:
As villainous as they might be, Barclays bank chief executive Bob Diamond, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs are not the main villains. The main villains are former Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs chairman Robert Rubin, who pushed Congress for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, and the sponsors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. Glass-Steagall was put in place in 1933 in order to prevent the kind of financial excesses that produced the current ongoing financial crisis.

President Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, presented the removal of all constraints on financial chicanery as "financial modernization." Taking restraints off of banks was part of the hubristic response to "the end of history." Capitalism had won the struggle with socialism and communism. Vindicated capitalism no longer needed its concessions to social welfare and regulation that capitalism used in order to compete with socialism.

They can't stop the financial fraud. Those in charge of the fraudulent system would prefer the collapse to come from outside, such as from a collapse in the value of the dollar that could be blamed on foreigners, because an outside cause gives them something to blame other than themselves. 

Khruschev was right - gangsters really have taken over Disneyland.

Michael Hudson, 2008 wrote:
Imagine how our world would look like if the economy had been turned over to Al Capone as head political capo and to Mafia financial manager Meyer Lansky as Treasury Secretary in the 1930s, with the pyramid schemer Carlo Ponzi heading the Federal Reserve and bank robber Willie Sutton as Attorney General.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments