Canadian FX Civil Suit Follows US Settlement Track

Three banks settled a civil suit in Canada relating to the FX benchmarking scandal. UBS, BNP Paribas and Bank of America settled for a total of about 16 million Canadian dollars. In addition, as in the US case, the banks that settled early are hoping to be let off with relatively low payments in exchange for offering to provide information that will help in the investigation of other banks named in the suit. The settlements do appear on the low side relative to the first three settling banks in the US case (about 5% of those settlements) and the Canadian suit amount of $1 billion Canadian dollars. While we can expect remaining banks to pay higher settlements than these, of course they will be well below those in the US, which has a much larger FX market.

Currency Rigging Civil Lawsuit - Full Speed Ahead!

While a judge's ruling this week was reported in much of the press as having limited the scope of the civil lawsuit against the remaining non-settling banks, the major portion was retained and the judge said that the "complaint sufficiently pleads both the existence of a conspiracy to fix benchmark rates and bid/ask spreads, and the non-settling defendants’ participation in that conspiracy". So the case proceeds against the remaining banks on US FX transactions, not limited to benchmark fixes, but FX prices in general. Only certain non-US transactions and transactions before December 1, 2007 were dismissed.

The case against the remaining banks (Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, RBC Capital Markets, Société Générale and Standard Chartered Bank) will proceed under antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act. Settlements for individual banks that have settled or are awaiting approval for settlement, have ranged between approximately $100 - $400 million. Snark warning - A collective sigh of "we should have settled" was heard from the remaining banks after the ruling.

State Street Bank Settles FX Custody Trading Suits

In 2009 a whistle blower filed a suit on behalf of CalPERS and CalSTRS, alleging hidden markups in the FX rates given to custody clients when they used the "standing instructions" custody method of FX trading. State Street has settled this suit, DOJ, SEC and DOL investigations, as well as a private client lawsuit relating to FX matters, totaling $530 million. In effect this wipes the slate clean for State Street relating to FX pricing matters.

The suits alleged that markups were hidden from clients, while certain custody clients were told by State Street that rates were based on interbank market rates. In the settlements State Street acknowledges that markups were taken.

While these issues are quite different than the more general FX benchmark manipulation and other related charges settled by numerous banks, Bank of New York and State Street, two major custody players, were hit with charges related to "standing instructions" pricing. These trades tend to be numerous, small "nuisance" trades that, however, could be quite profitable to the banks with large markups in price. Since the original suit was filed, custody banks have become more transparent, and now typically provide known fixed spreads to their clients on such trades.

DOJ Charges HSBC Traders with FX Front Running

In the DOJ's first charges against individuals in the FX market investigations of the last three years, HSBC's head of FX trading and a former colleague were charged with using inside information from a large forthcoming client trade to make an $8 million profit for the bank (and we assume thereby increasing their bonuses).

While many charges have been made and settled with the banks, here individuals are being charged, perhaps in response to claims that just as in the financial crisis, fines are levied but no individuals are held responsible. Earlier this week the Fed barred a UBS trader from the currency markets for life, due to participation in the FX currency benchmark rigging scandal. There may be a few more charges to come both in the US and Europe, for regulators to show that more than financial penalties against the banks will be levied in this and any future financial scandals.

State Street Bank to Settle FX Overcharges Lawsuit and Investigations

The Wall Street Journal reported that State Street is finalizing a settlement with the DOJ, SEC and Labor Department (due to ERISA clients), as well as lawsuits filed on behalf of investors including CalPERS and CalSTRS pension funds. The dollar amount is expected to exceed $500 million (BNY Mellon settled a similar suit last year for over $700 million). The suit involves standing instruction trades - custody FX trades executed automatically based upon an agreement with the customer. The lawsuit charges that while the bank promised to execute these trades at market prices, there were undisclosed markups in the rates provided to clients.

These charges were different and preceded the FX benchmark manipulation charges and lawsuits, to which State Street was not a part. Here the State Street charges were that the bank contractually agreed to provide market prices but instead provided clients with worse rates. The charges only relate to standing instruction trades, typically used for "smaller" FX trades by the custody clients of banks.

Banks Settle Interest Rate Manipulation Lawsuit

Seven banks have settled a class action lawsuit brought in the US regarding the ISDAfix. The ISDAfix is a benchmark rate used in daily pricing of trillions of US dollars in derivatives, including interest rate swaps, futures and exchange traded options. The seven are JP Morgan, RBS, Deutsche, Credit Suisse, Barclay's, Citi and BOA.

The lead law firm, Scott + Scott, is the same as in the FX benchmark manipulation class action suit. The charges are similar to the FX suit and to the LIBOR charges as well. The charges included placing numerous orders at the close ("banging the close"), collusion leading to to submission of identical orders and placing off-market rates. Eight other banks remain in the suit. If this follows the trajectory of the FX suit, banks that settle later will tend to pay larger settlements.

What Does the New Treasury Currency Watch List Mean?

A recent US law requires the Treasury to publish an annual list of countries that may be manipulating their currency. This first list does not name any country as a manipulator but mentions China, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as countries that exceed one or two of the three criteria for being named as such -

1) an annual bilateral trade surplus with the US exceeding $20 billion
2) a current account surplus exceeding 3% of GDP
3) FX market interventions exceeding 2% of GDP in a given year

Prior Treasury reports on currency manipulation were based upon fuzzy guidelines and the intention of the new rules is to hold Treasury to using specific financial/economic data with the intent of more frequent designations of manipulation (the most recent Treasury designation was of China in 1994).

Will these new rules lead to more currency manipulation designations? Our answer is probably not. While the first two metrics are fairly clear the third is not always. FX market interventions are not necessarily publicized (even if highly suspected). As well, in a time of quantitative easing (QE), it is far from clear if selling one's currency and buying others is the only way to intervene in currency markets. It is often suspected that at least part of the reasons for QE, even if unmentioned publicly, is to weaken the local currency. As such, rules focusing on direct interventions may miss, or cause the increased use of, indirect currency interventions.

EU Parliament Passes New Benchmark Rules

This week the EU Parliament addressed the benchmark rate rigging scandals that have plagued financial markets for the past several years, including LIBOR, FX, gold and oil. The goal is to “clean up the benchmark-setting process, improve transparency and prevent conflicts of interest.”

While not yet implemented, new rules will affect benchmarks while breaking them into three categories based upon the size of the instruments and/or contracts influenced (over Euro 500 billion, over 50 billion or below 50 billion). Administrators of benchmark rates will need to create structures to prevent conflicts of interest, will be subject to controls, will have to be authorized or registered, and will need to publish their methodology and procedures for calculating each benchmark. As well, quality standards will have to be put in place for the data used to set benchmarks.

UK Fraud Agency Drops FX Rigging Investigation

The Serious Fraud Office, a British government fraud agency that investigates and prosecutes complex frauds, has announced that it is dropping the FX fix manipulation investigation. While several government agencies around the world investigated and settled with banks for over $10 billion in fines (with many banks pleading guilty to felony charges), the SFO announced that it is dropping its investigation (while continuing to liase with the US Justice dept in its investigation of FX fix manipulation). It said that there was insufficient evidence to realistically gain a conviction.

The lion share of FX trading occurs in the UK. We will have to wait and see the effect of this matter on the law suits that reportedly are being considered for filing in the UK, as well as on further regulatory investigations in the US and elsewhere.

ECB to Inhibit Trading Utilizing Daily EUR Reference Rates

The ECB publishes reference rates on 30 currencies at 2:30 PM each day, based upon spot rates at 2:15 PM. The ECB wants these to be used for reference or informational purposes only, not for trading. The ECB has not said whether or not it suspects rigging of these daily rates, as existed in the WM Reuters daily fixings. As of July 1, 2016 these rates will not be published until 4:00 PM, thus seemingly reducing their usefulness as a basis for trading or for that matter, for rate-rigging by any parties interested in such behavior. The ECB said this change is a reaction to recommendations by regulators reforming global FX benchmarks.

It has been our experience that these rates are used for trading, particularly by asset managers, although not to the degree to which WM Reuters rates are used. Any such traders after July 1 will have to either utilize other means to trade or wait much longer between when positions are provided and trade rates are known. This time is at a minimum an operational delay/complication, or worse, an additional operational risk.

FX Brokers Investigated by NYS AG for Spoofing

The New York State Attorney General is investigating FX brokers for spoofing on their electronic platforms. The investigation is looking into whether or not the brokers did this in FX options for emerging market (EM) currencies, to create the illusion of more trading and liquidity in order to increase customer demand for these instruments. FX options in EM currencies tend to be illiquid with a limited amount of trading.

Spoofing is the posting of orders to buy or sell with the intent of cancelling them without execution. While spoofing is frequently used as a means to lead a market in a particular direction, here it seems the concern is that brokers were trying to create the appearance of a more liquid, vibrant market in order to lure additional trades onto the brokers' FX EM options platforms. The AG is reported to have subpoenaed records from brokers including TFS-ICAP, Tullett Prebon, BGC Partners and GFI Group.

Dismissed Citi FX Trader Wins with "everyone else was doing it"

The former trader brought a lawsuit in front of a UK employment tribunal saying that he was unfairly terminated by Citi. He said that his conduct (sharing information in chat rooms with other FX traders, including sharing private info regarding client trades) was quite common at the time and that his managers were aware that he was on the chat rooms. In 2009 during an employment review he was told by his manager to join chat rooms to gather market information, but was not provided any guidelines on what he could post.

The tribunal found in his favor, although saying that he contributed to his dismissal. A hearing next year will determine the compensation that Citi is required to pay him.

This argument is not one that usually wins in a court ("officer, why did you stop me? Everyone else was speeding also). Although this verdict may help other former bank FX traders who are bringing suits, it does not impact anything else regarding the fixing scandals, such as guilt or fines and settlements with regulators.

Upcoming FX Settlements for Barclays and Deutsche

While FX misconduct investigations began regarding attempts to rig daily spot fixes, it has broadened to additional areas. Now the Financial Times reports that Barclays is near a settlement of over $100 million with the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) regarding the misuse of the last look feature on its FX trading platform, BARX. Last look gives a bank the ability to quickly back out of a trade if there is a significant spot move against them. Those trading on a last look platform would expect to see tighter spreads in exchange for the proper usage of the last look provision.

The FT also reports on several FX investigations into Deutsche. These include the NYSDFS looking into Deutsche's trading platform, Autobahn, a report that there is evidence the bank intentionally set up algorithms to rig the currency markets,and that NYDFS, the Justice Department and other federal agencies have evidence that the bank profited by front running client FX orders. The new CEO at Deutsche may be more willing to try to settle these FX, and other investigations of past misconduct, quickly so that they can concentrate on the changing banking environment.

Now a Crime In Venezuela - Publishing FX Rates

It would be funny if not true - similar to Argentina's fining consultants who tried to calculate the true rate of inflation a few years ago, the Venezuelan central bank is now suing a web site for publishing black market fx rates. To state the obvious, the problems in Venezuela are not related to people knowing the current black market rates but instead, the economic policies of the government. Of course, a lawsuit provides the illusion that it is otherwise.

Investigations of Electronic FX Trading Continue

Reuters reports that the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) investigation of several money center banks for FX rate manipulation on electronic trading platforms is continuing. They report that NYDFS has interviewed dozens of traders and executives at Barclay's, Deutche Bank and Credit Suisse among other banks (NYDFS has its strongest remit with foreign banks) over the past several months. Subpoenas have also been sent to BNP, Goldman Sachs and Societe Generale according to Reuters sources.

NYDFS has already been known to be investigating FX algorithms on these platforms at the banks to determine if there is an attempt by the banks to advantage themselves at their clients' expense during the time between a rate being posted and then being accepted by a client. The concern is that this period may be used to front run client orders or otherwise manipulate FX rates. Earlier bank settlements with regulators covered spot market trading, but NYDFS agreements particularly, did not cover electronic trading. The Department of justice is also investigating FX electronic trading.

No information is available on how these investigations will play out against the various banks involved. The fact that they continue and appear to have widened from initial reports limited to Barclay's and Deutche, may indicate that regulators have found potential issues worthy of investigation, but do not provide clues as to the outcome.

FSB Updates FX Benchmark Progress

The Financial Stability Board (FSB), created in 2009 by the G20 to reform international financial regulation, includes as part of its mandate a role in standard setting and in promoting members’ implementation of international standards. In September 2014 it issued a report highlighting recommended solutions to prevent a repeat of the FX benchmark scandal. Today it released an update to look at progress made since that report.

The update is fairly positive ("having moved the market in a favourable direction"), highlighting improvements, but also mentioning areas where it believes that more work needs to be done.

The points made include:
1) There have been useful reforms in the methodology used in the WM Reuters (WMR) fix but that more can do done, and mentions certain central banks adjusting their fix methodologies as well. The FSB reiterates that all fixes need to be reviewed, not just the WMR fix.

2) "Recommendations suggested to increase transparency in pricing for fix transactions have seen good implementation among the largest market participants and for the most used benchmarks, but that elsewhere there is scope for further improvement".

3) "Steps to separate dealers’ fixings business from other activities are being taken by the larger participants and in the most active markets, but again there is room for further implementation in other areas of the FX market. For the execution of benchmark transactions, industry-led initiatives to promote greater use of independent netting and execution facilities are seeing welcome progress".

4) "Work is underway to improve market conduct practices, both within individual firms and through market-wide initiatives, including the global effort underway to develop a single code of conduct for the foreign exchange market through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Markets Committee working group on FX markets".

5) "While many index providers and end-users have increased their focus on the due diligence around FX benchmark use, there is scope for greater follow-through on this on the part of some market participants".

All in all, it appears that while some additional fix changes may be seen, for the most part fix reform will primarily involve broadening the changes already made to cover additional fixes and additional market participants. The probable exception will be the new international code of conduct being created by the BIS. This will replace the many different codes currently in force in markets around the world and will impact bank behavior.

FX Scandal Not Blowing Away

First of all, the rest of the world is looking at the US class action suit in which over $2 billion in settlements have already been made by 9 large banks, and lawyers and investors are planning additional suits in several countries. A $1 billion suit has just been filed in Canada relating to benchmark currency fixes.

Secondly, a Citi FX trader who had been dismissed in the UK relating to his sharing of client information with FX traders from other banks on chat rooms, is fighting his dismissal. He is claiming that it was a market practice at the time to share such information, especially regarding the trading of central banks. He mentions one M&A deal in which Citi front run the client's trade and made a profit of $35 million. He states that the very top Citi FX management actually had a hand in this deal.

There are other FX traders who were dismissed relating to similar charges who are also planning on disputing their firings.

FX Investigations Widen Beyond WM Fix

When Bloomberg's initial story hit the wires in June 2013, the allegations, later confirmed to be true, were primarily limited to banks manipulating the WM benchmark rates. Since then regulators in the US, UK and Switzerland have instituted over $10 billion in fines on major banks related to FX, and in many cases, banks have acknowledged criminal wrongdoing. These fines related primarily to collusion by the banks in attempting to manipulate the fix, on the back of transcripts of chat room conversations by bank FX traders that clearly showed their collusion and attempts to profit at the expense of market participants. (For other wrongdoings acknowledged in bank settlements earlier this year, please see our blog post from June 1, 2015, FX Bank Settlements — More Misconduct than the Fix)

These regulatory and criminal matters relating to the fix are at least partially behind us now (individual traders and local emerging market fixes remain under scrutiny), although a class action civil lawsuit in the US related to these same matters is ongoing, with 9 banks having settled so far. In addition, law firms around the world are reported to be attempting to institute civil lawsuits in other jurisdictions as well, particularly in the UK. There, in the largest FX market in the world, new laws as of October 1 will allow suits similar to class action suits in the US (and will allow non-UK residents to participate). With over $2 billion in settlements to date in the US (with 7 banks remaining in the suit), there may be several billion pounds of additional settlements in the UK. Regulators in Australia, South Africa, Brazil and South Korea (and possibly others) are investigating benchmark rate rigging as well.

Banks fined by regulators and those settling the US class action have agreed to cooperate with regulators and the parties bringing the suit. Lawyers from the suit are reported to have said that evidence from the cooperation in the US points to bank manipulation of the bid-offer spread on currency trades through the rest of the day, not having to do with the fix. How this may have been done is not clear, but if true would dramatically increase the scope of bank wrongdoing. It would mean that the rates on many more trades are not entirely market driven and all such trades would have the bank gaining at client expense, while the benchmark manipulation had some clients gaining and some losing from each manipulated rate.

Until more information is released it is hard to know if there was additional rate-rigging in FX markets. Should it be shown to have occurred, a further move toward exchange-type trading should be expected, as well as further criminal prosecutions and civil suits. Bank traders and investors beware.

FX Manipulation Class Action Spreads to more Banks in US, Possibly Around the World

It is now reported by Reuters that four additional banks, HSBC, Barclays, BNP Paribas and Goldman Sachs, have agreed to settle the US FX benchmark manipulation class action suit. In addition to bank settlements announced previously, this brings total settlements over $2 billion. Individual bank settlement amounts have not yet been announced. These banks plus five banks that settled previously have all agreed to "substantial cooperation" against the remaining 7 bank defendants, including recently added defendants (Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, RBC Capital Markets, Société Générale and Standard Chartered were added August 1). Counsel referred to these settlements as "just the beginning" and mentioned that they are consulting on bringing additional cases against banks in larger Asian and European markets.

Citi says FX Fines 2,500 Times the Illicit Profits

Bloomberg reports that "Jamie Forese, head of the Citigroup Inc. unit that houses trading and investment banking, said fines the firm paid for rigging foreign-exchange markets dwarfed the amount generated by the illegal conduct. Revenue from the trades amounted to about $1 million, while Citigroup paid out $2.5 billion in fines and penalties, Forese estimated Wednesday at an investor conference in New York."

Among commentators, and regulators as well, there has been a question regarding whether the size of fines in recent settlements have been painful enough to cause banks to prevent further occurrences of misconduct. Some suggest yes, many no, but without knowing the profits generated by misconduct, it is a difficult question to answer.

If this represents Citi's answer to the discussion, we suggest that it is incomplete. While the article does not mention how the 1 million dollar gain was calculated, perhaps it was strictly based upon the specific trades uncovered in the investigations, such as the trades highlighted in the CFTC - Citi settlement. However, the settlement states that "From 2009 through 2012 (“Relevant Period”), Citibank, by and through certain of its
foreign exchange (“FX”) traders, at times sought to benefit its own trading positions or those of certain FX traders at other banks by attempting to manipulate and aiding and abetting certain traders at other banks in their attempts to manipulate certain FX benchmark rates." So the plea is to misconduct at the fixes for 4 years.

In the DOJ settlement Citi pleads to having "entered into and engaged in a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, maintain, increase or decrease the price of, and rig bids and offers for, the EUR/USD currency pair exchanged in the FX Spot Market by agreeing to eliminate competition in the purchase and sale of the EUR/USD currency pair in the United States and elsewhere. The defendant, through one of its EUR/USD traders, participated in the conspiracy from at least as early as December 2007 and continuing until at least January 2013." Here the plea is to manipulating the EUR/USD pair for a period of 5 years, but not limited to only the fixing of benchmark rates.

If 5 years of misconduct in EUR/USD (DOJ) or 4 years in various currencies at benchmark fixes (CFTC) only lead to a 1 million dollar gain, it would lead one to question how Citi made about $2 billion in revenue per year in FX during this period. Thus we question not only if the fine was truly 2,500 times the size of the misbehavior, but whether such misbehavior was limited to about one-hundredth of one percent of FX revenues ($1 million / $10 billion).