This Libor defence is interestingApril 9, 2016 Tim WorstallFinance13 CommentsIt being that “everyone knew so doing it wasn’t acting dishonestly”. Hmm…. previousOh isn’t this fun?nextHow dare Bill Clinton shout over Black Lives Matter protesters? 13 thoughts on “This Libor defence is interesting” So Much For Subtlety April 9, 2016 at 9:29 am There comes a point where the law isn’t enforced and so it no longer exists. An interesting defence indeed. But the more interesting one would be the usual Left wing argument – this was a victimless crime, right? So no one should go to jail, no? Bloke in Germany April 9, 2016 at 10:09 am This looks like a type of salami slicing though, doesn’t it. So the victims were everyone who had invested money paying interest or people who were paying interest on loans. Gareth April 9, 2016 at 10:29 am Bloke in Germany said: So the victims … Anyone daft enough to tie lending to a metric they didn’t know how it was made up (and literally made up to boot*) should shoulder some of the blame. I think though it will be decided to be a massive case of miss-selling by the institutions that offered loans tied to LIBOR without explaining (or perhaps understanding) what it was. * As in, LIBOR submissions were a banks’ best guess at how much other banks would charge them for lending to them and not based on real loans. It was a false metric presumably because the LIBOR group wanted a neat and complete table of submissions in various currencies and over various terms, rather than submissions based on real lending that would have been patchy. Bloke in Germany April 9, 2016 at 11:20 am @Gareth, From what you just said, you are clearly a 0.001%-er and thus have the clout to negotiate terms and conditions with your bank. The rest of us have to take it or leave it. Perhaps if the odiously wealthy weren’t so dismissive of the concerns of the little people socialism would have less appeal – to the benefit of all of us. Alex April 9, 2016 at 11:23 am Since LIBOR was either pushed higher or lower, the only losers on average would be the writers of options, who would typically be traders, but if they all knew what was going on, what was the point? Gamecock April 9, 2016 at 12:04 pm Odiously wealthy? How Red of you, Mr. BiG. Gamecock April 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm The Golden Rationalization. Mr Ecks April 9, 2016 at 12:07 pm The banks have the same relationship to the state as Igor did to Baron Frankenstein in the movies. That is that Igor was an integral part of the Baron’s antics. The Aristo could not have done the deeds without someone to do the dirty work and mix with the lower orders. So Igor was part of the evil . But not the source of it. No Baron –No bolt-in-neck capers. Doubtless Igor–a nasty little man–was thieving from his boss from day one. Overcharging him on gold for night-watch/gravedigger bribes etc. Stealing small items of silver, the odd coin. And equally doubtless The Baron knew that. Igor was too useful to dispose of–at least until he outlived said usefulness. Thus with LIBOR. Should we then have a great song and dance about the minor crimes of Igor/LIBOR when the world seems dumb enough to wink thro’ the far greater offences against God and Man of Baron Victor Frankenstein? That is to say the colossal financial malfeasance of the world’s political and bureaucratic scum. The world’s scummy states have fucked world finances and bad times are coming as a result. Why go to town on petty thieving when capital (pun intended) crimes , chewed and digested appear before us that are such as to overturn the world before they are finally played out. BobRocket April 9, 2016 at 1:07 pm Mr Ecks has nailed it. It does seem to me that in his defence, the Baron is building a giant petard. Bloke in North Dorset April 9, 2016 at 1:53 pm Well it was the defence put forward by some MPs when the expenses scandal finally broke, so why not bankers? Bloke in Germany April 9, 2016 at 5:55 pm @Gamecock, As a very not-red person at all, it’s obvious to me that the owners of vast quantities of capital constantly tell us that capital must be taxed lightly and hence labour intensively, otherwise it’s crap for the economy. This might very well be true, but in the immortal words of Ms Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they. Jonathan Miller April 9, 2016 at 7:20 pm This is a standard defence to a charge involving dishonesty. The legal test for dishonesty is given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh …if everyone was doing it, then the defendant may not have realised that doing it was dishonest. Liberal Yank April 9, 2016 at 8:37 pm “Perhaps if the odiously wealthy weren’t so dismissive of the concerns of the little people socialism would have less appeal – to the benefit of all of us.” Well worded. The problem is how do you get a 1% that has higher socialist tendencies so the rest of us can move in the opposite direction and not get screwed? Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.