View more on these topics

Internal FSA review finds failings over Libor

The FSA’s internal audit into its handling of the Libor-rigging scandal has found it should have been more “inquiring and challenging” towards banks and must change its culture and processes in response.

FSA large 480

The report looked at whether the regulator could have spotted problems earlier during the period from January 2007 to May 2009.

This period focuses on the so-called lowballing of rates when banks over-stated their financial strength during the crisis. Barclays claims there were 13 instances of communication between the bank and regulator over lowballing, prompting the review.

The audit found “many” communications that indicated Libor disclocation but accepted the FSA was focussed on market dysfunction in the wake of the financial crash.

It searched 17 million records, reviewed 97,000 documents in detail, and interviewed 20 FSA employees or ex-employees. The report identified 26 documents providing a direct reference to lowballing or a reference that could, in the internal audit’s judgement, have been interpreted as such.

The two clearest indications relating to a specific firm were the telephone calls from Barclays in March and April 2008, which were included in the FSA’s final notice on Barclays published on 27 June 2012.

The report makes six key recommendations to implement including improved information management, escalation of information, record-keeping, monitoring of non-regulated activity, clear responsibility for Libor regulation under the new regime and improved culture at the regulator.

In the past year, the FSA has fined Barclays, UBS and the Royal Bank of Scotland over Libor-rigging.

FSA chairman Lord Turner says: “There are important lessons to be learnt about effective handling of information. These are identified in the report and will be taken forward by both the FCA and PRA management.

“A particularly important lesson is the need to have staff focused on conduct issues even when the world rightly assumes that the biggest immediate concerns are prudential; and vice versa. The new ‘twin peaks’ model of regulation will deliver this.”

Turner says the scandal raises questions about how best to supervise firms, suggesting a greater focus on whistleblowers, accountability of senior management and intense self-reporting of suspicious activity.

Libor submission and administration will be regulated activities from 1 April and the FSA, together with the new Libor administrator, will agree appropriate market monitoring and oversight.


MPC ‘discussed negative interest rates’

The Bank of England’s deputy governor Paul Tucker last week revealed that the Monetary Policy Committee has discussed the idea of negative interest rates. Tucker was quizzed by MPs at a Treasury select committee on the minutes of the last MPC meeting. The minutes specifically listed a range of possible monetary instruments and alluded to […]

Guide cover resized

Guide: Johnson Fleming’s managed auto-enrolment service for SMEs

Johnson Fleming has launched its new managed auto-enrolment service, designed to support SME businesses of up to 250 employees. The managed auto-enrolment service is not just about providing businesses with a software system for them to manage themselves, but more about outsourcing the administration of the project and scheme to Johnson Fleming’s auto-enrolment staff.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
  • Post a comment
  • ADD 6th March 2013 at 9:46 am

    So they were too busy. If only the rest of us could use that get out clause.

  • John Constable 5th March 2013 at 5:32 pm

    Regarding LIBOR, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, do not trust and then verify.

    That is, assume that the relevant financial institutions will NOT behave in an honourable manner i.e. a complete inversion of the case when the ‘gentlemen’ bankers set up LIBOR in the late 1960’s, and insist that all transactions are streamed via a blackbox in each institution, to the FCA – where an algorithm will calculate LIBOR.

    No doubt the financial institutions, under such a mechanism, would still try to game the system by feeding in some ‘duff data’ but hopefully, the audit side would pick this up.

  • Steve Ward 5th March 2013 at 3:15 pm

    So will they FINE them selves accordingly? Thought not!