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.

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 As of July 1, 2016 these rates will not be published until 4:00 PM, thus seemingly reducing their usefulness as a basis for trading or for that matter, for rate-rigging by any parties interested in such behavior.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.

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.

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.

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.

6 Month Delay for FX Benchmark Fix Lawsuit

Reuters reported the stay in the case involving the antitrust class action against a dozen FX banks. As we reported in February, the DOJ requested a stay due to grand jury investigations ongoing in criminal cases being brought by the DOJ. The plaintiffs have gone along with the stay, however they have been granted exceptions that should allow them to continue to make their case during this period. These exceptions allow them to use discovery to access trade data (perhaps the most important item in order to estimate damages) and some ability to depose witnesses (although the limitations are unknown).

A hearing is scheduled in the case for March 26.

DOJ Trying to Delay FX Benchmark Fix Case

The court handling the FX benchmark antitrust case released a letter last week from the Department of Justice asking for a limited stay in the discovery phase of this case citing a grand jury investigation that is currently under way. After an initial six month stay the DOJ would then decide if a longer stay is required. The court gave both sides in the case until Friday to respond to the DOJ's request.

One would expect the plaintiffs view to be along the justice delayed is justice denied theme. The banks' position may not be as clear. Although delaying a case with a foreseen bad outcome may generally be preferable, they would also need to weigh how a quicker trial here might affect the DOJ's case, which apparently is against several bank employees involved with the fix. Different banks may have different views. An additional layer of complexity is due to additional reported probes by the DOJ into the FX practices of certain banks, including in FX structured products, and the affect on these from a delay.

Until discovery of bank documents and depositions of bank employees occurs, a more clear picture of the potential size of damages to the banks cannot be determined.

FX Manipulation Lawsuit Tsunami at Banks' Doorstep

First, about three weeks ago, JPMorgan settled an FX manipulation lawsuit for a reported $100 million. Now, Reuters reports that a judge allowed the investor plaintiffs' case to go forward to trial over the banks' objections. These included that there was a lack of evidence and that a prior LIBOR case alleging antitrust abuses was thrown out of court.

These two events alone should bring forth a barrage of suits as success seems more probable. In addition, now that this trial can go forward, the banks' position looks to be hurt by two factors.

First, depositions can now be taken, which may provide additional evidence of wrongdoing (several of the banks have already been fined by regulators following employee interviews). Second, a problem in suing to date has been attempting to prove wrongdoing and antitrust behavior. There is a lack of data on trades executed by banks on specific dates in specific currencies. Trade data released by banks during the discovery process may make the plaintiffs' calculation of any damages much easier, rather than relying upon models of what may have been manipulation based solely upon price movements.

While lawsuits from investors (money managers, pensions funds, etc.)and corporations are to be expected, many other groups impacted by currency rates can be expected as well. As an example,a few weeks ago we reported on British farmers that may have been affected by the conversion of subsidies from euro to British pounds.

JPMorgan Settles FX Benchmark Manipulation Lawsuit

Reuters reports that JPMorgan settled an antitrust lawsuit which accused 12 banks of rigging the FX markets' benchmark rates. No other bank has commented or settled as of yet, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Two other lawsuits remain.

This follows the fines imposed by certain regulators on several banks late last year on the same matter. Once regulators found wrongdoing, even if only poor oversight of traders, it becomes more difficult for the banks to defend themselves. The lawsuit depended on whether the banks' behavior was uncompetitive in nature. Regulator findings regarding collusive behavior among bank traders on chat room and other electronic media may have increased the pressure on banks for settlements.

It appears reasonable to expect some of the other banks to settle in the near future. Additionally, all of the US and international regulators have not yet weighed in, and criminal charges may be coming as well, although any such charges may be limited to individual bank traders rather than the banks themselves.

Estimate of Regulator Fines on Banks for FX Fix Misconduct - $41 Billion

Bloomberg reported that Citibank analysts' estimate of fines relating to the FX fix could total over $40 billion between US, UK and European regulators, spread among money center banks.  The analysis excludes fine reductions or waivers for those banks cooperating with investigations.  As many banks are cooperating (some required to do so by their agreements with regulators in the LIBOR scandal) this might substantially reduce the actual fines.

As most banks have been reserving for these investigations, which started in the middle of last year, there may not be a big hit to the earnings of the banks as a whole from the eventual fines.  As to reputational hits, the fact that so many banks will be included may, in effect,  protect all of them.

Outline of FX Fix Reforms is Clearer

The recommendations of the Financial Stability Board last week regarding changes to the WM Reuters fix will be presented at the G20 meeting in November.  These include extending the fix window (they support a move from from 1 minute to 5, but want the WM Reuters company to set the period), making prices transparent and appropriate for the risk borne (meaning that banks should be paid for fix trades, unlike past practice) and codes of conduct and internal guidelines should be more explicit.

While fully agreeing with all of the above, we see the two remaining major recommendation as problematic.  First is the recommendation that "banks establish ... separate processes for handling such orders".  Handling fix trades separately from other fx trades will be costly, probably causing some smaller players to eliminate their participation in the fix.  An article from FX Week (subscription or free trial) refers to banks considering the possibility of creating sealed trading rooms, away from other fx traders and order flow.   While it is unclear how seriously this is being looked at, such a possibility appears a bit absurd to us, as enforcing more explicit codes of conduct and internal guidelines as already suggested, should improve the outcome without the costs or need for quarantined traders.

The other problematic recommendation of the FSB is "the development of industry-led initiatives to create independent netting and execution facilities for transacting fix orders". While a longer term recommendation, this continues on the path of much higher cost and uncertain outcome.  Just to mention one issue, commonsense dictates that the largest incentive for manipulating rates is when there is a large discrepancy between buy and sell orders for a currency pair.  At such times, the only way to clear these separate trades is to trade with the rest of the market, the same traders that this recommendation is trying to avoid.

All in all, we approve of the recommendations as promoting that which Financial PESTs stands for - ethics, simplicity and transparency, albeit with the two exceptions discussed which require additional scrutiny before any implementation.

Settlements Approaching on FX Benchmark Rate Investigations

Reports are becoming more frequent that a settlement is in the works between the UK Financial Conduct Authority and money center banks regarding the FX benchmark pricing scandal.  These discussions are supposed to involve a total fine of about $3 billion (at the low end of expectations) and importantly, only charge the banks with maintaining insufficient compliance procedures to catch individual traders.  It is the traders who would be seen as the true purveyors of misconduct.

UBS today reported that it is in talks with an unnamed regulator that could result in material fines for not having sufficient controls to prevent misconduct of their employees.

There is a belief that the regulators of many countries are working multilaterly, even if not exactly together.  If they all pursue a line of reasoning as discussed above, this would indicate a much lighter hit for the banks.  The fines may be less than assumed, and importantly, the banks may not have to plead guilty to criminal behavior.  With settlement talks ongoing, some are now expecting settlements before year end.

Regulators/Prosecutors Moving Forward in UK and US FX Benchmark Investigations

Reuters sources  indicate that in the UK there is a push being made by the banks to come to a joint settlement with the FCA regarding the benchmark FX investigation.  A joint settlement reduces the reputational risk for each bank and would allow for the FCA to wrap up the investigation more quickly than pursuing each bank individually.  Indications are that such a settlement, if it occurs, could come as early as year end.

In the US there is a report that the DOJ has informants still working on the fx desks at several US banks. The DOJ is looking to charge individuals with crimes as an additional deterrent to the fines on the banks.  Perhaps it may also avoid a repeat of the criticism of the regulators following the LIBOR investigation that fines alone are merely a cost of doing business for the banks.

Report CFTC Finds Criminal Behavior in ISDAFIX Investigation

As we reported last week, the first lawsuit was filed in the ISDAFIX controversy.  This week Bloomberg states that the CFTC, which is limited to bringing civil cases, reported evidence of criminal behavior to the DOJ. The DOJ can then determine whether to pursue a criminal investigation.  Bloomberg bases the article on a person familiar with this matter.

The report alleges that ICAP, a broker with a central role in setting ISDAFIX through January 2014, accepted large numbers of trades from banks at the close, attempting to influence the fix.  This "banging the close" is similarly charged in FX benchmark cases.  In addition to these actual trades, banks also submitted rate quotes as part of the process of setting ISDAFIX.  The lawsuit last week alleged that identical quotes were submitted by multiple banks on most days, down to the thousandth of a basis point.

The ISDAFIX cases may have a better chance of reaching antitrust status, unlike the LIBOR case, due to the actual trades involved and the lack of reasons other than profit for banks entering into these ISDAFIX trades.

Comments Published Regarding FSB's FX Benchmark Recommendations

The Financial Stability Board had issued general recommendations for changing foreign currency benchmark fixes, open to comments through August 12.  This week the FSB released the comments from 36 interested players, including asset managers, banks and others.  A page with the links to these comments is included here.

Two areas that may be considered controversial seemed to have a lot of support.  The first concerns paying the banks for taking fix orders and charging a bid/offer spread or specified fee (discussed in a prior post here).  Comments included the logic of paying for this service to reduce the incentive for banks to look for ways to make profits in ways that hurt their customers.  Comments acknowledged that any such charge will not eliminate this possibility, and thus the need for a better process / monitoring the market makers will remain.

The second involves widening the period of the fix.  The current WM Reuters fix window is one minute for major currencies.  While there was much support for this, there seemed to be concern that the period not be widened to much, perhaps beyond a half hour, as this could add difficulty to managing trading risk and could add volatility from exogenous factors such as market news impacting the fix rates.

The FSB is scheduled to issue final recommendations in early November.

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.