Libor: what about the regulators?

More light needs to be shone on the FSA.

It’s hard to know who to point the finger at when it comes to the Barclays’ culture of deceit. While most are simply blaming the bankers, Ann Pettifor, for one, blames the economists. Others, meanwhile, are blaming the regulators. 

One should probably blame all three (not to mention politicians), but if an enquiry is to be pursued, more light certainly needs to be shone on the regulators. The Times yesterday implicates the Bank of England in the Libor scandal, suggesting they may have not only condoned the system of manipulation but actively encouraged it. From our experience this doesn’t appear to be at all far-fetched.

Looking into the role of the finance sector in commodity speculation, we became increasingly disturbed by the lax approach adopted by the FSA. When we dug deeper, we found that the FSA was lobbying the European Union on behalf of the City, to prevent effective regulation of speculation by Brussels. 

As the FSA is paid for by the City, almost entirely governed by the City or ex-City bankers, and with virtually no transparency, its weak approach to Barclays’ failings should come as no surprise. This is in stark contrast to US authorities, who imposed fines on Barclays almost 4 times greater than those levied by the FSA.

Barclays has been at the heart of commodity speculation activity AND at the heart of fighting off any regulation. A letter to the Commodities Futures Trading Commision in the US, urges a light touch approach.  However WDM research has exposed Barclays as the biggest UK bank involved in speculation in the commodity derivative markets, which has contributed to price spikes such as those in 2008 and 2011 which pushed millions into hunger and deeper poverty. While the bank claimed under pressure at its 2012 AGM that it only facilitated deals for third parties, the reality is a little more complex, with Barclays' risk-taking approach to dealing suggesting that it effectively speculates itself. They state of the Barclays Capital’s Commodities division that “Our Commodities Traders build ‘trading books’ specialising in goods from energy products to agricultural assets, all over the world.”  

As we gear up for a new regulatory model under the aegis of the Bank of England, we have to question about the direction. And we have to ask questions about the relationship between the regulators and Barclays in particular. Now that more evidence has come to light of the failings of the regulators, and their incestuous relationship with the banks they’re meant to oversee, nothing short of a complete overhaul of the banking and regulatory system will suffice.

The numbers:

Barclays

  • Fines imposed by the FSA: £59m
  • Fines imposed by US Authorities: £230m
  • Earnings from speculation on commodity derivatives: £189m/year
  • Statement from Bob Diamond at the Barclays AGM: “our traders are not involved in direct speculation.”

FSA

Board of Directors:

  • 26 of 36 members of the board linked to the Finance sector since 2000 before or after appointment
  • 9 continued to hold appointments in financial corporations while at the FSA
  • Board Directors linked to consumers or other stakeholder: 1

Meetings held with the finance sector about European Markets in Financial Instruments Directive

  • 87 per cent of all meetings held with industry bodies
  • Only 1 meeting held with a third party stakeholder

Deborah Doane is the director of the World Development Movement

FSA. Photograph, Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Will Euroscepticism prove an unbeatable advantage in the Conservative leadership race?

Conservative members who are eager for Brexit are still searching for a heavyweight champion - and they could yet inherit the earth.

Put your money on Liam Fox? The former Defence Secretary has been given a boost by the news that ConservativeHome’s rolling survey of party members preferences for the next Conservative leader. Jeremy Wilson at BusinessInsider and James Millar at the Sunday Post have both tipped Fox for the top job.

Are they right? The expectation among Conservative MPs is that there will be several candidates from the Tory right: Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and potentially Owen Paterson could all be candidates, while Boris Johnson, in the words of one: “rides both horses – is he the candidate of the left, of the right, or both?”

MPs will whittle down the field of candidates to a top two, who will then be voted on by the membership.  (As Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, notes in his interview with my colleague George Eaton, Conservative MPs could choose to offer a wider field if they so desired, but would be unlikely to surrender more power to party activists.)

The extreme likelihood is that that contest will be between two candidates: George Osborne and not-George Osborne.  “We know that the Chancellor has a bye to the final,” one minister observes, “But once you’re in the final – well, then it’s anyone’s game.”

Could “not-George Osborne” be Liam Fox? Well, the difficulty, as one MP observes, is we don’t really know what the Conservative leadership election is about:

“We don’t even know what the questions are to which the candidates will attempt to present themselves as the answer. Usually, that question would be: who can win us the election? But now that Labour have Corbyn, that question is taken care of.”

So what’s the question that MPs will be asking? We simply don’t know – and it may be that they come to a very different conclusion to their members, just as in 2001, when Ken Clarke won among MPs – before being defeated in a landslide by Conservative activists.

Much depends not only on the outcome of the European referendum, but also on its conduct. If the contest is particularly bruising, it may be that MPs are looking for a candidate who will “heal and settle”, in the words of one. That would disadvantage Fox, who will likely be a combative presence in the European referendum, and could benefit Boris Johnson, who, as one MP put it, “rides both horses” and will be less intimately linked with the referendum and its outcome than Osborne.

But equally, it could be that Euroscepticism proves to be a less powerful card than we currently expect. Ignoring the not inconsiderable organisational hurdles that have to be cleared to beat Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and potentially any or all of the “next generation” of Sajid Javid, Nicky Morgan or Stephen Crabb, we simply don’t know what the reaction of Conservative members to the In-Out referendum will be.

Firstly, there’s a non-trivial possibility that Leave could still win, despite its difficulties at centre-forward. The incentive to “reward” an Outer will be smaller. But if Britain votes to Remain – and if that vote is seen by Conservative members as the result of “dirty tricks” by the Conservative leadership – it could be that many members, far from sticking around for another three to four years to vote in the election, simply decide to leave. The last time that Cameron went against the dearest instincts of many of his party grassroots, the result was victory for the Prime Minister – and an activist base that, as the result of defections to Ukip and cancelled membership fees, is more socially liberal and more sympathetic to Cameron than it was before. Don’t forget that, for all the worry about “entryism” in the Labour leadership, it was “exitism” – of Labour members who supported David Miliband and liked the New Labour years  - that shifted that party towards Jeremy Corbyn.

It could be that if – as Brady predicts in this week’s New Statesman – the final two is an Inner and an Outer, the Eurosceptic candidate finds that the members who might have backed them are simply no longer around.

It comes back to the biggest known unknown in the race to succeed Cameron: Conservative members. For the first time in British political history, a Prime Minister will be chosen, not by MPs with an electoral mandate of their own or by voters at a general election but by an entirelyself-selecting group: party members. And we simply don't know enough about what they feel - yet. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.