DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effect of the Libor Scandal on Bank Returns

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effect of the Libor Scandal on Bank Returns UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA FACULTY OF ECONOMICS MASTER’S THESIS THE EFFECT OF THE LIBOR SCANDAL ON BANK RETURNS Ljubljana, October 2017 LUKA VIDONI AUTHORSHIP STATEMENT The undersigned Luka Vidoni, a student at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics, (hereinafter: FELU), author of this written final work of studies with the title The Effect of the Libor Scandal on Bank Returns, prepared under supervision of prof., dr. Aljoša Valentinčič DECLARE 1. this written final work of studies to be based on the results of my own research; 2. the printed form of this written final work of studies to be identical to its electronic form; 3. the text of this written final work of studies to be language-edited and technically in adherence with the FELU’s Technical Guidelines for Written Works, which means that I cited and / or quoted works and opinions of other authors in this written final work of studies in accordance with the FELU’s Technical Guidelines for Written Works; 4. to be aware of the fact that plagiarism (in written or graphical form) is a criminal offence and can be prosecuted in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Republic of Slovenia; 5. to be aware of the consequences a proven plagiarism charge based on the this written final work could have for my status at the FELU in accordance with the relevant FELU Rules; 6. to have obtained all the necessary permits to use the data and works of other authors which are (in written or graphical form) referred to in this written final work of studies and to have clearly marked them; 7. to have acted in accordance with ethical principles during the preparation of this written final work of studies and to have, where necessary, obtained permission of the Ethics Committee; 8. my consent to use the electronic form of this written final work of studies for the detection of content similarity with other written works, using similarity detection software that is connected with the FELU Study Information System; 9. to transfer to the University of Ljubljana free of charge, non-exclusively, geographically and time-wise unlimited the right of saving this written final work of studies in the electronic form, the right of its reproduction, as well as the right of making this written final work of studies available to the public on the World Wide Web via the Repository of the University of Ljubljana; 10. my consent to publication of my personal data that are included in this written final work of studies and in this declaration, when this written final work of studies is published. Ljubljana, 23.10.2017 . Author’s signature: Luka Vidoni . TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1 LIBOR, LIBOR SCANDAL AND THE BANKS ..................................................... 2 1.1 The London Interbank Offered Rate ....................................................................... 2 1.2 Overview of banks involved into Libor scandal ..................................................... 5 1.2.1 Barclays ........................................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Citigroup .......................................................................................................... 6 1.2.3 Credit Suisse .................................................................................................... 6 1.2.4 Deutsche Bank ................................................................................................. 7 1.2.5 JPMorgan & Chase .......................................................................................... 7 1.2.6 Lloyd’s ............................................................................................................. 8 1.2.7 RBS .................................................................................................................. 8 1.2.8 Société Générale .............................................................................................. 8 1.2.9 UBS ............................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Libor scandal overview ......................................................................................... 10 2 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Models of estimation............................................................................................. 19 2.1.1 Capital asset pricing model............................................................................ 20 2.1.2 Fama–French three-factor model................................................................... 21 2.1.3 Carhart four-factor model .............................................................................. 23 2.1.4 Alternative versions of Fama-French and Carhart models for the UK .......... 25 2.1.5 Fama–French five-factor model .................................................................... 27 2.2 Event study and differences in differences ........................................................... 29 2.3 Application of valuation models in the empirical analysis ................................... 30 2.3.1 The CAPM-based approach .......................................................................... 31 2.3.2 The Fama–French-based approach ................................................................ 32 2.4 Robustness checks ................................................................................................ 34 3 EMPIRICAL RESULTS ........................................................................................... 35 3.1 Data and descriptive statistics ............................................................................... 35 3.1.1 Sample description ........................................................................................ 35 3.1.2 Databases ....................................................................................................... 36 3.1.3 Data collection and preparation process ........................................................ 37 3.1.4 Descriptive statistics ...................................................................................... 38 3.2 Results from the CAPM approach ........................................................................ 39 3.3 Results from the Fama–French approach ............................................................. 41 3.3.1 Estimating impact of the fine on each bank .................................................. 43 3.4 Robustness checks ................................................................................................ 51 i CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 54 REFERENCE LIST ........................................................................................................... 55 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Panel composition of international banks involved in Libor submissions ............... 4 Table 2: Penalties for Euro denominated interest rates ........................................................ 17 Table 3: Penalties for Japanese Yen denominated interest rates .......................................... 18 Table 4: Sample banks by country ....................................................................................... 36 Table 5: Descriptive statistics .............................................................................................. 39 Table 6: CAPM based regression results with a five day event window ............................. 41 Table 7: Fama–French based regression results with a five day event window .................. 42 Table 8: Impact of fines on banks returns within a five day window .................................. 43 Table 9: CAPM based regression results with a three day event window ........................... 51 Table 10: Fama–French based regression results with a three day event window .............. 52 Table 11: Impact of fines on banks returns within a three day window .............................. 52 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Reaction of Barclays’ returns to a fine and their prediction ................................. 45 Figure 2: Reaction of Citigroup's returns to a fine and their prediction ............................... 46 Figure 3: Reaction of JP Morgan Chase & Co's returns to a fine and their prediction ........ 46 Figure 4: Reaction of UBS's returns to a news about the involvement in Libor fixing ....... 47 Figure 5: Reaction of Credit Suisse Group's returns to a fine and their prediction.............. 48 Figure 6: Reaction of Royal Bank of Scotland Group's returns to a fine and their prediction ............................................................................................................. 48 Figure 7: Reaction of Lloyds Banking Group's returns to a fine and their prediction ......... 49 Figure 8: Reaction of Deutsche Bank's returns to a fine and their prediction ...................... 50 Figure 9: Reaction of Société Générale's returns to a fine and their prediction ................... 50 ii INTRODUCTION The London Interbank Offered Rate (hereinafter: Libor) is a reference interest rate at which banks are borrowing and lending money to each other. The most important banks in the world submit every workday a hypothetical expected borrowing rate at which they could obtain additional funds. The submission is private and until the Libor scandal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assigning Responsibilities in the Libor Scandal
    1233 The Differential Management of Financial Illegalisms: Assigning Responsibilities in the Libor Scandal Thomas Angeletti How, in a context of growing critiques of financialization, can law contribute to protecting the legitimacy of finance? This paper argues that the assign- ment of responsibilities between individuals and organizations plays a deci- sive role, using the recent Libor scandal as an empirical illustration. To do so, the paper offers a Foucauldian framework, the differential management of financial illegalisms, dedicated to the study of illegalities in financial capi- talism. The comparison of the legal treatment of two manipulations of Libor, this key benchmark in financial markets, reveals how mid-level traders have been the object of criminal prosecution, while law undervalued the role of top managers and organizations. To capture how differential management is performed in practice, I analyze precisely how the conflict-resolution devices (criminal trial vs. settlement) and the social categorizations prevailing in the two manipulations of Libor favor different forms of responsibility, individual or organizational. I conclude by exploring the implications of law’s relation- ship to financial legitimacy. For more than a decade now, the financialization of capitalism (Krippner 2011; Van der Zwan 2014) has been the locus of many critiques. Financialization has been studied sufficiently to under- stand how much finance has invaded our daily lives (Martin 2002), without measuring necessarily fully its ramifications. The clear causality between the rise of wages in the financial sector and the rise in income inequality in the United Kingdom (Bell and Van Reenen 2013), the United States (Volscho and Kelly 2012), and France (Godechot 2012) has put the financial sector on the spot.
    [Show full text]
  • A LIBOR Scandal Primer What Does the Acronym
    A LIBOR Scandal Primer What does the acronym, “LIBOR,” stand for? The “London Inter-bank Offered Rate.” What does LIBOR represent? LIBOR is promoted as representing the average interest rate that large banks can borrow from one another. LIBOR is not the interest rate on any single loan. Rather it is an index intended to reflect average interbank interest rates as determined by a defined procedure. LIBOR is not a single interest rate, but is approximately 150 interest rates. • There is a separate set of interest rates for each major currency. LIBOR rates, representing the cost of acquiring funds for a time period, are unique for each currency because relative currency values differ over time. For example, the value in euros of one US dollar changes continuously. The difference in euro LIBOR rates and US dollar rates brings borrowings in the two currencies into equilibrium. • Within each set of LIBOR rates for a given currency, there are different rates for different durations (the term of a fixed period of interest rate). For instance, one day LIBOR represents a loan with an interest rate which is reset (or is repaid) every day. Three-month LIBOR represents a loan with an interest rate that is reset (or is repaid) every three months, and so on. Why is the cost of inter-bank borrowing important to banks? When banks lend money to individuals, companies or governments, the fundamental cost of lending the money is the cost of acquiring the funds to lend. On the margin, the cost of acquiring funds is the interest rate needed to procure funds from another bank.
    [Show full text]
  • The LIBOR Scandal What We Know, What We Don’T, and What to Expect 8/2/2012
    REPUBLICAN STAFF BRIEF The LIBOR Scandal What We Know, What We Don’t, and What to Expect 8/2/2012 Key Points LIBOR is important because it is referenced by nearly $800 trillion in global financial instruments, including corporate debt, mortgages, student loans, interest rate swaps, and other derivatives. Although Barclays is the only bank to have been singled out for manipulating LIBOR so far, more than a dozen other large domestic and foreign banks are being investigated by regulators. The net effect of Barclays’ manipulations of LIBOR is yet unclear—the bank’s counterparties likely benefitted in some instances and likely suffered harm in others, while individual consumers might have benefitted on the whole. Years of litigation will determine the full extent of the damages. Were Glass-Steagall still law, none of its provisions would have applied in this case. Rather than enact new laws or implement new regulations, the federal government should efficiently and effectively enforce the existing antitrust and securities laws that already made Barclays’ and its employees’ actions illegal. Combining proper enforcement of existing laws with smart reforms to internal and external LIBOR reporting processes will prevent further manipulation of this important benchmark interest rate. Introduction On June 27, 2012, representatives of the British bank Barclays agreed to On June 27, 2012, pay a $453 million fine to U.S. and U.K. regulators to settle allegations representatives of the that Barclays manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). British bank Barclays LIBOR is a set of indices that represent the prevailing interest rates in agreed to pay a $453 London money markets.
    [Show full text]
  • The Good Banker1
    The Good Banker1 Patrick Bolton Columbia University, ECGI, CEPR and NBER Second Draft: November 4, 2013 ABSTRACT What is a good banker? What is the economic value added of banks? The economics literature on financial intermediation focuses on the role of banks as deposit-taking institutions and as delegated monitors of borrowers. But this description barely begins to represent what banks do in a modern economy. Besides commercial lending, large banks are engaged in a number of other activities ranging from cash management, trade credit, swaps and derivatives trading and underwriting of securities. In recent decades banks have increasingly relied on fee income generated from their activities other than lending. The financial crisis, and the concerns about “too-big-to-fail” banks it has exposed, has led to a re-evaluation of bankers’ speculative practices and of the economic benefits of banks’ non-lending activities. Do trading activities undermine sound banking principles and core lending functions? Do they provide economic benefits, or are they simply an undesirable side-product of deregulation? The main argument of this article is that trading activities are an integral and desirable part of modern banking. These activities enhance banks’ traditional lending role, and regulatory attempts to separate lending and non- lending activities are mostly counterproductive. The main cause of bankers’ reckless behavior is rather to be found in out of hand compensation practices, which exacerbate bankers’ pursuit of short-run profit opportunities at the expense of financial stability and their clients’ interests. 1 I am grateful to Edward Glaeser, Jeffrey Gordon, Ailsa Röell, Charles Sabel, Tano Santos and Glen Weyl for helpful conversations and comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Rebuilding Bank Governance After the Financial Crisis: Best Practices Thomson Reuters CONTENTS
    REBUILDING BANK GOVERNANCE AFTER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: BEST PRACTICES THOMSON REUTERS CONTENTS WHY BANKS ARE DIFFERENT . 3 ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING RISK . 4 FOCUSING ON THE RIGHT DATA REMAINS A CORE CHALLENGE . 5 FINDING THE RIGHT PEOPle – EXPERIENCE IS KEY, BUT NOT THE ONLY ANSWER . 5 A SPOTLIGHT ON EXECUTIVE PAY . 6 CONCLUSION . 7 2 REBUILDING BANK GOVERNANCE AFTER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: BEST PRACTICES OCTOBER 2012 Demands on bank directors have rarely been There is also a wider array of risks bank higher . Following the financial crisis of 2008, managements and boards must assess in board members in the U .s . and Europe contrast to other industries . These include have confronted dozens of new rules from a credit; market; liquidity; operational; legal and multitude of regulators, while striving to regain reputational risks . At any time, one of these the confidence of customers and shareholders . risks has the potential to jeopardize the bank’s Amidst this newfound scrutiny, bank boards business—making it critical for board members are increasingly being held accountable, with to have timely access to information . regulators as well as private plaintiffs pursuing The regulatory scrutiny to which banks are claims when performance falters . In the first subject, as well as the rising risk of litigation, nine months of 2012, the FDIC authorized suits makes it particularly important for banks to against 274 defendants—although many of be able to point to an effective governance these will ultimately be settled . structure . For example, banks should give The scrutiny shows no sign of abating . Just in careful thought to what percentage of directors the last few months, there has been the Libor are ‘inside’ directors versus independent rate-setting scandal that led to the resignation directors; what the appropriate board of Barclays chief executive, and the unexpected committees are to establish and of course, who trading loss of more than $5 .8 billion at is best equipped to run those committees .
    [Show full text]
  • Debt Market Update: Q1 2015
    Debt Market Update Q1 2015 Edition 23 Corporate Finance KEY THEMES • Australian debt market issuance hiccups… • ASIC’s probe into BBSW setting practices coming to a head but corporate issuance abroad increases • Australian interest rates – more downward trending • Deal of the quarter – APA Group demonstrates and still significant yield curve inversion how to successfully issue off-shore with US$3.7 billion • The ECB launches its quantitative easing programme • Australians issuing off-shore – lots of success • More clarity in developing retail bond market disclosure but beware some finding pricing unresponsive obligations – a new potential source of liquidity In contrast volumes in the AMTN market remain largely unchanged with AUSTRALIAN DEBT MARKET issuance of $3.0 billion only 4 percent down on Q1 2014 and the rolling Q1 2015 saw a material drop in domestic syndicated loan volumes with 12-month average at $17.6 billion close to the previous quarter (see Figure 2). issuance of US$7.0 billion across 20 transactions, a 50 percent drop on Q1 2014 volumes and the fourth lowest quarter in the last 10 years. 12-month Figure 2: Rolling 12m A$ corporate bond market (A$b) rolling average volumes decreased to US$99 billion (see Figure 1). 25 Figure 1: Rolling 12m Australian syndicated loan volume (US$b) 20 125 250 15 100 200 10 75 150 5 50 100 No of deals 0 25 50 1 1 1Q08 3Q08 1Q09 3Q09 1Q10 3Q10 1Q1 3Q1 1Q12 3Q12 1Q13 3Q13 1Q14 3Q14 1Q15 0 0 1 1 1Q08 3Q08 1Q09 3Q09 1Q10 3Q10 1Q1 3Q1 1Q12 3Q12 1Q13 3Q13 1Q14 3Q14 1Q15 Source: Bloomberg, KPMG Analysis Rolling 12m Volume (LHS) Average Rolling 12m deal size (US$m) Compensating for the reduction in these two markets’ issuance by Source: Thomson Reuters Loan Connector, KPMG Analysis Australians off-shore was materially higher at over US$9.0 billion or more than 3x issuance in Q1 2014 and a near 50 percent increase quarter-by- Three infrastructure transactions dominated – ConnectEast’s $1,035 million quarter (see Figure 3).
    [Show full text]
  • Theres a New Sheriff in Town Global Regulatory Enforcement After LIBOR
    BANKING & PROJECT FINANCE ENFORCEMENT confidence in the integrity of the BBA Libor setting process and the accuracy of the There’s a new figures it produces’, journalists at Bloomberg and the WSJ were highlighting the issue. Regulators, notably the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) were sheriff in town to start investigating shortly thereafter. That investigation was to have something of a The Libor scandal fundamentally changed global long lead time, however, because it was not until 2012 that the reach and scale of the regulatory enforcement. Today, institutions are investigation were to become widely increasingly being deputised to police themselves publicised. On June 27 2012, Barclays received the raditionally, when a new sheriff rides were perceived to have been insufficiently then largest-ever fine imposed by the FSA of into town, the place is in a mess. aggressive in pursuing enforcement options £59.5 million ($87.7 million), as part of a T Society has broken down, lawlessness in the lead up to and during the financial settlement with US and UK regulators for abounds and right-thinking people avoid the crisis. In December 2008, the Madoff $453 million. Barclays also lost its chief streets. The saloon bars are full of rowdy, scandal would raise questions about whether executive, Bob Diamond. The Barclays fine intimidating gunslingers who go the Securities and Exchange Commission was soon eclipsed by the new largest-ever unchallenged – other than by fellow (SEC) had been overly light touch in its FSA fine meted out to UBS on December gunslingers. The town badly needs approach. In March 2009, Hector Sants, 19 2012, as part of a $1.5 billion settlement redemption (as does the sheriff, on then chief executive of the UK Financial with UK, US and Swiss regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • The Libor Scandal: a Need for Revised National and International Reforms and Regulations
    North East Journal of Legal Studies Volume 32 Fall 2014 Article 4 Fall 2014 The Libor Scandal: A Need For Revised National And International Reforms And Regulations Roy J. Girasa [email protected] Richard J. Kraus [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/nealsb Recommended Citation Girasa, Roy J. and Kraus, Richard J. (2014) "The Libor Scandal: A Need For Revised National And International Reforms And Regulations," North East Journal of Legal Studies: Vol. 32 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/nealsb/vol32/iss1/4 This item has been accepted for inclusion in DigitalCommons@Fairfield by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Fairfield. It is brought to you by DigitalCommons@Fairfield with permission from the rights- holder(s) and is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 89 / Vol 32 / North East Journal of Legal Studies THE LIBOR SCANDAL: A NEED FOR REVISED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL REFORMS AND REGULATIONS by Roy J. Girasa* Richard J. Kraus** INTRODUCTION Few individuals or even major investors are aware of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), a little-known activity that profoundly affects local and world finances. The total value of securities and loans affected by LIBOR is approximately $800 trillion dollars annually.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Lords' Interests
    REGISTER OF LORDS’ INTERESTS _________________ The following Members of the House of Lords have registered relevant interests under the code of conduct: ABERDARE, LORD Category 10: Non-financial interests (a) Director, F.C.M. Limited (recording rights) Category 10: Non-financial interests (c) Trustee, Berlioz Society Trustee, St John Cymru-Wales Trustee, National Library of Wales Category 10: Non-financial interests (e) Trustee, Stephen Dodgson Trust (promotes continued awareness/performance of works of composer Stephen Dodgson) Trustee, West Wycombe Charitable Trust ADAMS OF CRAIGIELEA, BARONESS Nil No registrable interests ADDINGTON, LORD Category 1: Directorships Chairman, Microlink PC (UK) Ltd (computing and software) Category 7: Overseas visits Visit to Dublin, 6-7 May 2015, to talk on UK Election at seminar organised by Goodbody and the British Irish Chamber of Commerce who paid for airfares, accommodation and hospitality Category 8: Gifts, benefits and hospitality Gift of two tickets and lunch at Challenge Cup Final as guest of the Rugby League, 30 August 2015 * Gift of tickets for England-Australia game during Rugby World Cup as guest of Rugby Football Union, 3 October 2015 Gift of one ticket to the semi-finals of the Rugby World Cup, 24-25 October 2015, given by Rugby World Cup 2015 and RFU Category 10: Non-financial interests (d) President (formerly Vice President), British Dyslexia Association Category 10: Non-financial interests (e) Vice President, UK Sports Association Vice President, Lakenham Hewitt Rugby Club ADEBOWALE,
    [Show full text]
  • I. the LIBOR Scandal A. Introduction the London Interbank Offered Rate
    2 REVIEW OF BANKING & FINANCIALLAW Vol. 32 I. The LIBOR Scandal A. Introduction The London InterBank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) is a leading financial benchmark, established in 1986, and used for an estimated $300 trillion worth of financial instruments.1 On June 27, 2012, Barclays Bank (“Barclays”) entered into a $360 million settlement with the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) after Barclays attempted to manipulate LIBOR between 2005 and 2009.2 Further, the United Kingdom’s (“UK”) Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) fined Barclays $92.5 million for its attempted LIBOR manipulation.3 Authorities have since expanded the investigation to include at least fifteen other banks.4 On July 2, 2012, the UK Treasury appointed Martin Wheatley (“Wheatley”), the managing director of the FSA, to review LIBOR and evaluate options for reform.5 On September 28, 2012, Wheatley released his findings in The Wheatley Review (the “Review”) and determined that, although “broken,” LIBOR can be reformed.6 This article outlines the current LIBOR framework, analyzes the Review’s recommended LIBOR reforms, and discusses LIBOR’s 1 Statement of Facts, U.S. Dept. of Justice and Barclays Bank PLC (June 26, 2012) [hereinafter DOJ and Barclays], available at http://www.justice.gov /iso/opa/resources/9312012710173426365941.pdf; Liam Vaughn, Secret Libor Committee Clings to Anonymity Following Scandal, BLOOMBERG (Aug. 21, 2012 8:53 AM), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-08- 20/secret-libor-committee-clings-to-anonymity-after-rigging-scandal.html. 2 Derivatives: Barclays to Pay U.S. Authorities $360M to Resolve Allegations in LIBOR Investigation, 99 Banking Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • G:\CDB\Opinions\Motion to Dismiss\Strougo V. Barclays
    Case 1:14-cv-05797-SAS Document 38 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDCSDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT ·------------------------------------------------------------)( ELECTRONICALLY FILED BARBARA STROUGO, Individually and on DOC#: Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, I DATE FI--LE_D_:~1~)~l~....., j+-L0_, 1 -·----' Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER -against- 14-cv-5797 (SAS) BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ROBERT DIAMOND, ANTONY JENKINS, CHRISTOPHER LUCAS, TUSHAR MORZARIA, and WILLIAM WHITE, Defendants. )( SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital Inc. (collectively, "Barclays"), and Robert Diamond, Antony Jenkins, Christopher Lucas, Tushar Morzaria, and William White (the "Individual Defendants" and, together with Barclays, "defendants"). The putative class consists of all persons and entities who purchased Barclays PLC's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between August 2, 2011 and June 25, 2014 and were allegedly damaged thereby. On June 25, 2014, the New York State Office of the Attorney General ("NYAG") brought a lawsuit against Barclays under New York's Martin Act, Case 1:14-cv-05797-SAS Document 38 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 45 alleging that Barclays concealed information about the operation of its “dark pool” — marketed as Barclays’ Liquidity Cross or LX — a private trading venue where investors can trade stocks with near anonymity. Borrowing heavily from the complaint in the NYAG action, plaintiffs allege that the success of LX was accomplished through false representations about its transparency and safeguards. Contrary to these representations, Barclays not only allowed aggressive high frequency traders (“HFTs”) in its dark pool, but it sought them out and gave them the information they needed to take advantage of other traders.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and the City
    Brexit and the City Saying No to the Princes of Europe: The City of London as a World Financial Centre following Brexit Or Passport to Pimlico: The City of London’s post-Brexit future depending on whether it is located inside or outside Pimlico or even possibly Latvia Professor David Blake* Cass Business School City University of London [email protected] March 2017 [v10] * I am most grateful to Kevin Dowd, Tim Congdon, Daniel Corrigan, Martin Howe QC, Laurence Jones, Edgar Miller and Patrick Minford for invaluable discussions and support during the preparation of this paper. Highlights On 23 June 2016, the British people voted to leave the EU. The prime minister’s Lancaster House speech on 17 January 2017 made it very clear that this meant also leaving the single market, the customs union and the European Economic Area, membership of which means accepting freedom of movement. This has powerful implications for the City: • It is unlikely that business with the EU27 will be conducted via passports in future. • Instead, and depending on the degree of co-operation from the EU27, the City should plan its future operations using either: o a dual regulatory regime, based on a third-party expanded equivalence model with guarantees about how equivalence will be granted and removed, or o the World Financial Centre model where the City ‘goes it alone’. • Transitional arrangements will also depend on the degree of co-operation from the EU27. It is in everybody’s interests that any transitional arrangements are kept as short term as possible, no longer than is needed to bridge the gap between the UK’s exit from the EU and the conclusion of any formal long-term trading agreement with the EU.
    [Show full text]