Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- has stated that it wasn't until 2007 and 2008 that they were aware that there was potential manipulation.
Of that Libor rates and you know what that's redundant -- thought -- pour pineapple we've got someone has said that it's been going on get this for decades and he.
Personally witnessed it Douglas -- is a former Morgan Stanley trader and independent mathematical scientists and so.
You say that -- not only saw this decades ago but that you brought it up.
What was the reaction.
Third the reduction was that they phone -- naive if you -- and and because this was trusts the way things were standard we don't.
So okay two different experiences -- told our producers that led you to believe that the rate -- was actually going on for our again a much much longer time can you give us a little more detail.
About what those particular experience is in business -- -- it the most serious one was.
There was that took a -- and went.
More serious one was there was a time when I want all the British commercial banks were suddenly.
And I'm usually very -- in the market -- and they were all essentially betting that interest rates -- vote to be lowered and then roughly an hour later.
Interest rates were lower.
-- the only way they would be -- in the market like that is if they had some information that would.
Compel them to make very large bets like.
It's when the interest rates were -- what that means is they must've had advance information.
That the Bank of England was going to lower interest rates.
-- in other words the Bank of England was colluding with British banks.
There were true increase of profits of British banks.
With an environment like this it's you would you would naturally expect.
To -- corruption from the Bank of England to supporting things like thought.
But Douglas I mean -- -- do you feel though that if looking back now and of course hindsight is everything but do you -- looking back now.
They may be that was just the way that business was done at that time that that was just kind of been mirrored -- that the banks.
Whether as Morgan Stanley are Barkley is or anybody else in particular -- business out of the UK do you find that that's what they just.
Felt was the it was something you do what religious -- somebody a -- -- or whatever I mean yes.
Exactly and -- in this case it was okay for for banks to collude.
With the Bank of England -- was okay for banks to collude with each other.
Him in manipulating Libor rates -- it was done in 1991.
And there was there was absolutely normal part of the culture.
What do you make of -- Barclays coming out really first and sort of being a whistle blower and all of that.
Right I think that Barclays is actually acting with but for most integrity of all the banks.
And -- I do not understand what book going for example -- -- see your -- is why was he fired.
These these things don't really seem to make sense because the other banks have clearly been during the same thing or worse -- the only thing Berkeley students they admitted to a first.
Most amendment -- is -- a little bit at the Barkley is ending its -- -- listed come out there were the first ones to come out and admit that this was happening but again of the day hoot who should be responsible.
For those who usually ultimately punished for what happened with the Libor rate.
But I think the people responsible or the people who created this environment and that is the Bank of England for -- UK treasury the -- financial services authority or its its predecessors.
They're the ones who who condone this in some -- in some cases even supported it too because -- now -- critical to come.
Probably it's more trustworthy now because they know what's under such strong -- -- -- -- excellent point Douglas -- thank you.
Filter by section