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.

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.

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.

FX Bank Settlements — More Misconduct than the Fix

Another day, another FX settlement. What’s new? Well, actually a lot. The recent settlements, when you dig into them, provide a whole new array of material. First we will explore the background, and then we’ll get you to the new…

The latest settlements between FX banks and regulators were filed on May 20. Five banks agreed to pay approximately $5.6 billion in fines to US and UK regulators relating to the rigging of FX rates, including several fix benchmark rates. JPMorgan, Citi, Barclays and RBS plead guilty to criminal charges for having “entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to fix, stabilize, maintain, increase or decrease the price of, and rig bids and offers … in the foreign currency exchange spot market.” UBS avoided a guilty plea, and was only fined for breaking a prior non-prosecution agreement relating to LIBOR misconduct, as a reward for being the first to inform regulators of these FX activities.

A Bloomberg news story in June 2013 provided the initial public information that there was a potential problem with FX benchmark fixes, particularly the WM Reuters London Fix. Since then numerous news stories and the November 2014 settlements with the CFTC, OCC, FCA (UK regulator) and FINMA (Swiss regulator) have described the communications between bankers at several major banks, conniving to rig FX benchmark rates -- including their use of group chats to share information on the fix trades that they would need to execute. These traders would communicate each other’s currency positions and customer orders for the upcoming fix and then determine the means to trade off of this information so that the banks could make profits at the expense of their customers. Some of the settlements provide examples of chat room conversations in which traders from multiple banks collude to manipulate the fix.

This collusion at the London Fix is the focus of news reports and the regulators’ settlements with banks for good reason: fix trading constitutes a major portion of daily FX spot trading; fix rates are used world-wide to price many widely-held assets including mutual and pension funds; collusion is illegal and easily shown to have occurred based upon chat room communications; and the names of the chatrooms (e.g., the Cartel, the Mafia), and the lingo used within, make for entertaining media.

NEW REVELATIONS
New areas of misbehavior are revealed in the new set of settlements and pleas. There is much less awareness of these than the fix-specific misconduct, so we’d like to underscore some of this behavior.
This time around, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) gets in on the act as well, tagging Barclays with a Consent Order. The NY DFS sheds light on some areas that are not covered in other plea agreements or settlements. For example, it stipulates that “Barclays conspired with other banks in order to coordinate trading … coordinate bid/ask spreads charged.”i
The DFS also highlights Barclays’ “misleading sales practices”ii, as well as the fact that “The misconduct described in this Order was not confined to a small group of individuals; it involved more than a dozen employees, who acted with the knowledge and oversight of some senior desk managers, and spanned geographically across numerous countries.”iii Moreover, the DoJ and DFS agreements include broader time ranges of misconduct than some of the earlier settlements, such as the CFTC’s.iv
So…what other wrongdoings were these FX trading engaged in?

MANIPULATION of SPOT MARKET to PROFIT from CLIENT ORDERS
Clients leave orders with their FX banks to execute FX spot trades, in order to manage their risks from future spot moves.
Banks have admitted to manipulating FX rates when near the order levels, in order to increase the banks’ profit at the customer’s expense. For example, banks admitted to “accepting limit orders from customers and then informing those customers that their orders could not be filled … when in fact the defendant was able to fill the order but decided not to do so because the defendant expected it would be more profitable not to do so….”v
Likewise, NY DFS notes that Barclays told “clients that their orders had been only partially filled, when in fact the FX Sales employees were holding back a portion of the fill as the market moved in Barclays’ favor….”vi

PROVIDING QUOTES with DEALER MARKUP to CLIENTS EXPECTING to HEAR “DIRECT TRADER QUOTES”
On large trades, some clients insist on hearing quotes not from their salesperson (who might add a spread to a trader quote), but directly from the bank trader over a phone line. Clients would expect these to be market-based -- and not shaded in one direction based upon the direction of the client’s intended trade. However, bank traders shaded the quotes either based upon hand signals from the salesperson indicating the direction and the size of the markup to include, or based upon earlier agreements made between the two bank employees.
On this count, banks admitted to “including sales markup, through the use of live hand signals or undisclosed prior internal arrangements or communications, to prices given to customers that communicated with sales staff on open phone lines….” vii

DISCLOSURE of CUSTOMER IDENTITIES and TRADE ACTIVITY to OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS
Banks provided this information to other banks and even other customers, on both large fix and non-fix trades. According to the plea agreements, the banks disclosed “non-public information regarding the identity and trading activity of the defendant’s customers to other banks or other market participants….”viii

TRADE PLATFORM PROVIDED ALTERED RATES to CERTAIN CUSTOMERS
The settlements were unclear on the relationship between the platforms and the bank, but platform rates provided to certain customers were systematically favorable to the bank versus the unaltered rates. RBS engaged in “intentionally altering the rates provided to certain of its customers transacting FX over a trading platform disclosed to the United States in order to generate rates that were systematically more favorable to the defendant and less favorable to customers….”ix

TRADING AHEAD of a CORPORATE TRANSACTION
We find a new anecdote of RBS trying to move the currency rate ahead of a corporate transaction so as to favor the bank at the client’s expense. This is commonly known as front running.
From the plea agreement: “… in connection with the FX component of a single corporate transaction, trading ahead of a client transaction so as to artificially affect the price of a currency pair and generate revenue for the defendant, and to affect or attempt to affect FX rates, and in addition misrepresenting market conditions and trading to the client….”x

MANIPULATION of EMERGING MARKETS CURRENCY PRICING
“Barclays FX traders exchanged information about customer orders with FX traders at other banks…”xi For example, “a Barclays FX trader explicitly discussed with a JP Morgan trader coordinating the prices offered for USD/South African Rand to a particular customer, stating, … ‘if you win this we should coordinate you can show a real low one and will still mark it little lower haha.’”xii

CONCLUSION
These regulatory investigations have uncovered several different means used by traders to increase bank profits to the detriment of their customers, including by “providing false and misleading information to customers and markets.”xiii
As opposed to the FX market convention of adding a spread on each trade to generate bank profit (controllable by customer scrutiny of the rates), these investigations opened the window to the various layers of deceptive practices prevalent in the FX market, and the abuse of client confidentiality and trust. While the FX market has begun adjusting to the misconduct around the 4pm WM/R London fix, it is not yet clear whether clients have yet begun reacting to the newly highlighted misbehavior.
One additional feature of these settlements is the demand by regulators for additional compliance scrutiny of FX trading which will hopefully limit potential future misconduct. At FinancialPests we expect these settlements to lead the FX market toward our goal of Promoting Ethics Simplicity and Transparency.


i NY DFS Consent Order, In the Matter of: Barclays Bank PLC, p.1
ii NY DFS Consent Order, In the Matter of: Barclays Bank PLC, p.2
iii NY DFS Consent Order, In the Matter of: Barclays Bank PLC, p.6 ¶14
iv FCA “Relevant Period”: 1/1/2008 – 10/15/2013; CFTC “Relevant Period”: 2009 – 2012; FINMA “Period under Investigation”: 1/1/2008 – 9/30/2013; OCC “Relevant Period”: 2008 – 2013; Fed “Review Period”: 2008 – 2013; DoJ: 1/1/2008 and 1/1/2009 – 5/20/2015
v See for example: Plea Agreement USA vs JPMorgan Chase & Co. p.17 ¶13
vi NY DFS Consent Order, In the Matter of: Barclays Bank PLC, p.16 ¶ 56
vii See for example: Plea Agreement USA vs Citicorp p.16 ¶13
viii See for example: Plea Agreement USA vs Barclays PLC p.18 ¶16
ix Plea Agreement USA vs The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC p.17 ¶13
x Plea Agreement USA vs The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC p.17 ¶13
xi NY DFS Consent Order, In the Matter of: Barclays Bank PLC, p.11¶33
xii NY DFS Consent Order, In the Matter of: Barclays Bank PLC, p.11 ¶34
xiii NY DFS Consent Order, In the Matter of: Barclays Bank PLC, p.2

Fine for the FX Banks (Pun Intended)

The 5 banks (RBS, Barclays, JPMorgan, Citi and UBS) were fined about $5.7 billion and all but UBS plead guilty to criminal charges (UBS gets off because they were the first to provide information on the scandal to regulators). Although having the banks plead guilty to criminal charges makes the regulators appear to be tough (more than just fines), the truth is that much of that is just appearances, as the SEC has already provided the banks with waivers. These waivers will allow the banks to continue in lines of business for which a felony conviction would typically bar them, such as operating as a fiduciary, including managing client assets. With so many banks pleading guilty simultaneously, the sting to any individual bank is lessened. And as the negotiations continued, the banks added to their reserves for these fines so that there will not be large one-time hits to earnings.

Of course the fines are a lot of money, but overall we have little reason to expect much negative impact to these banks from either the fines or the criminal charges. Our hope is that after these many scandals the banks, saddled with additional regulations and compliance costs, and hopefully having learned a lesson, will concentrate on their ethics. As it relates to the London Fix which was the start of all this, most banks are now earning their profits by charging customers either a fee or a bid offer spread, a much more transparent and ethical model than collusion, and hopefully a hint of a new direction.

Regulatory Investigations of the FX Markets are Progressing

Bloomberg reports that the U.K.'s FCA is trying to speed up settlement talks with the banks by keeping the settlement narrowly focused.  The FCA is hoping for a settlement before year end, much earlier than previous reports.  The SFO in the UK has recently begun a criminal investigation and the director said that charges could come next year.  It is reported that the DOJ's investigation could bring charges and impose fines as early as this year.

The WSJ also reports that a number of banks are negotiating with the UK's FCA that any settlement will be announced at the same time for all of the banks.  This is an attempt to avoid the LIBOR scenario where each bank settlement was announced separately, bringing considerable bad publicity to each.  Perhaps a cross bank settlement would spread such publicity around and also draw attention to the misconduct being more of a market-wide problem rather than any bank being a bad apple.

New York's bank regulator, the Department of Financial Services, is negotiating with Barclay's and Deutsche Bank to install monitors at the two banks to investigate whether trades manipulated FX currency benchmark rates.  This was reported by the Wall Street Journal , but both banks declined comment.

All in all it sounds as if the regulators are attempting to fast track the investigations.  Earlier this year the FCA had mentioned 2015 as a goal and BAFIN in Germany had mentioned completion in 2018, hopefully. Speed will be helpful for all involved - the banks, regulators, and oh yes, market participants.  The discussions on changes to benchmarks is ongoing publicly, but no solution is perfect - longer windows of trading which seems to be a favorite, mitigates but does not eliminate the possibility of misconduct and a benchmark that is more of an average rate for the day is not what all market participants are looking for.

DOJ probes bank sales practices in forex market

Bloomberg reports:

"Former employees interviewed by Bloomberg News said sales teams at Zurich-based UBS AG (UBSN) and London-based Barclays Plc (BARC) were aware of which companies were considered unsophisticated about currency trades and charged them more."

According to Bloomberg even investment banks like Goldman Sachs are now being caught up in these investigations.

A bank client would surely find these types of actions, if true, to be outrageous. But is it illegal for a bank to charge an unsophisticated corporate client more for the same service?  Banks do it to people.  For example, most unsophisticated consumers (and presumably ones most needing protection) are the ones most reliant on predatory bank products like payday loans or subprime mortgages. As Mitt Romney said, "corporations are people too, my friend," don't unsophisticated corporations have the right to be ripped off just like flesh and blood people?  

GARP: Barclays Fined $44 Million by U.K. FCA for Gold-Fix Failings

Here's a great article from GARP reporting on the $44mm fine Barclays received from the UK's FCA for alleged manipulation of gold prices.  What's next?   

British regulators charge 3 Barclays bankers in NYC for Libor manipulation

NYT Dealbook reports that regulators from the British Serious Fraud Office announced charges against 3 former Barclays bankers based in NYC as part of the ongoing Libor manipulation prosecutions. This brings to 12 the total number of defendants facing charges in Britain for the Libor scandal, even though British prosecutors say they have identified as many as 22 individuals involved. Dealbook reports that one of the newly charged defendants is "expected to argue that he did nothing wrong and that the Libor manipulation was going on before he joined the bank two years out of college."  Perhaps he is thinking of striking a plea deal? 

Bloomberg: Traders Join Exodus as Forex Probes Add Pressure on Costs

Bloomberg reports that more than 30 traders from 11 firms have been fired, suspended, taken leaves of absence or retired since October of last year when government probes of potential forex manipulation started picking up. The worst hit banks, according to Bloomberg, are UBS and Barclays. Supposedly some of the departures are due to personal reasons. Compared to the Libor scandal, the forex scandal has played out quite differently. Fires and suspensions are occurring before any settlements have been reached, thus leaving out a great amount of detail as to what these banks have uncovered that led to the departures. The media is not reporting any rumored settlements either, so it looks like we will have to wait a while longer. 

Barclays loses a LIBOR case at the 2nd Circuit

Reuters reports that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a SDNY court decision and allowed a shareholder suit against Barclays related to LIBOR manipulation to move forward. A copy of the decision can be seen here and the notice from plaintiff's counsel, Robbins Geller, can be accessed here. Will this case be appealed to SCOTUS? 

WSJ reports new LIBOR charges open new front in probe

The WSJ reports that British prosecutors have charged three former Barclays traders with LIBOR manipulation. What's more interesting in the article is the preference that UK based defendants and potential defendants have in being charged in the UK than the US due to harsher penalties in the US.  We've heard of forum selection but this takes it to a new level.  Anecdotally, is anyone keeping a tally of the number of individuals charged with respect to LIBOR compared to the housing crisis?