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.

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

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.

From SCOTUS Blog: LIBOR Litigation

For those of you following the LIBOR litigation appeal in front of SCOTUS, here's an excellent write-up from the good folks at SCOTUS blog.   

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.

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.

One Estimate of FX Benchmark Fines for Banks - $35 Billion

Reuters discusses the research report issued this week by an independent research firm, Autonomous Research.  Led by a former minister in a Labor government and a former head of equity research at Merrill Lynch, the report attempts to determine the size of government fines around the world to be assessed upon money center banks for the FX benchmark rate manipulation scandal.

While they admit that they are speculating, they use the theory that repeated wrong-doing will attract much larger fines and thus use the total $6 billion in fines from LIBOR as a base.  Their assumption is that total fines among banks will be a minimum of $12B (but capped for individual banks at a level equal to annual profits) but could rise as high as $35B in total.  Individual bank fine estimates in the report are $8B for UBS, $4.4B for Deutsche and $4.3B for Citi.

While we find it difficult to comment on what the fines may ultimately total between all of the regulators involved, a number somewhat higher than twice LIBOR  may be more reasonable.  In addition, banks will most likely need to acknowledge wrongdoing, rather than being able to deny such as in the past.  Some of the reasons we tend toward lower estimates is that regulators will still be able to herald record fines and that the additional sources of fines and litigation costs screaming toward banks' balance sheets and earnings from other scandals (including mortgages, other market manipulations, US sanction/embargo evasion and numerous others) are already going to strain the ability of many banks to meet more stringent capital requirements going forward.  The answer will not be known most likely until sometime next year.

Something Funny Happened on the Way to Court

News about the alleged forex manipulation has sucked most of the media's attention and focus away from the Libor and ISDAfix scandals.  I just saw, however, this recent piece from Global Insurance Intelligence discussing the potential payouts on the ISDAfix scandals. The article suggests that the payouts for ISDAfix could dwarf the costs of Libor and forex but does not share any analysis as to how they got to that conclusion. I don't have a crystal ball telling me whether there will in fact be any payouts on ISDAfix and if so what they will be, but this is a welcome distraction of the steady drumbeat of news about forex traders at big banks being suspended or fired. 

Deutsche Reported to Set Aside $2.7 Billion in FX Legal Costs and Fines

Last week Deutsche announced that in total, it is facing 1,000 lawsuits with potential payouts above 100,000 euros. We reported here last week that Bafin, the German regulator, announced that the FX benchmark probe was "much, much bigger" than the LIBOR case.  Now Reuters reports that sources tell it that Deutsche is setting aside $2.7 billion to cover future FX fines and settlements.

Put these together and, while it is not certain what has been found so far in the internal and various regulatory investigations, Deutsche clearly believes that there will be substantial costs going forward of at least that amount.  Of course, this does not necessarily mean that Deutsche believes that they are guilty as they may feel that they are meeting accounting/legal requirements in recognizing these costs at this time.  However, throw in several FX traders that Deutsche has suspended during its internal investigation, and it is difficult not to lean towards the view that where there is smoke there is fire.

Legal Theories in LIBOR and FX Lawsuits

While this article in CapLaw discusses the history of the allegations, investigations and lawsuits in the FX and LIBOR scandals, we thought it most interesting to focus on the legal theories and their current status.

In LIBOR, the US consolidated case held that there was no antitrust damage as the LIBOR rate setting process was not competitive in nature and thus there could not be anti-competitive behavior.  However, "second-generation" lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming direct trading losses from derivatives with banks that provided benchmark LIBOR rates, are moving through the legal system.  Two large plaintiffs are the FDIC, on behalf of 38 failed banks, claiming fraud and collusion were used by the LIBOR setting banks to suppress rates, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, claiming that LIBOR manipulations caused them to suffer losses on mortgages and financial derivatives.

LIBOR cases in the UK have been limited, with only two cases filed, one of which was settled and the other remains with the courts.

In the FX benchmarks, the US has consolidated numerous class action suits into one.  Differences between the rate setting process in FX vs. LIBOR make it unclear whether antitrust charges will hold up in the FX case.  Fraud and collusion charges remain in FX as well, but the later start of FX allegations, the complexity of the cases and the continuing regulatory and internal bank investigations, means that further clarity will not be forthcoming until at least late 2014.

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? 

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? 

UK Authorities Continue to Make Progress in LIBOR Prosecution Effort

Dealbook reports that 3 Former ICAP Brokers Appear in British Court in Libor Manipulation Case.  Efforts in the UK seem to advance faster than those in the US.  Can't wait to see what evidence will be revealed once the cases proceed.

Class Action FX Benchmark Lawsuit Filed

A dozen individual lawsuits alleging antitrust and anti-competitive behavior on the part of the 12 largest FX trading banks, based upon their behavior at the WM Reuters London Close FX fix, were consolidated and filed as a class action last week.  The plaintiffs and defendants are listed below.

The allegations are similar to those aired in the press over the last nine months or so.  This suit has updated some of the individual suits based upon recent information from the Bank of England and recently fired or suspended bank traders and include some examples of how FX rates were allegedly manipulated.  While for bank customers and those interested in the integrity of markets, the issue is simply whether or not the allegations are true, for the success of the suit, antitrust and anti-competitive behaviors must be shown.  Thus much of the suit contains the plaintiffs' building of such a case.  Similar issues drove the LIBOR case.

Much of the information for the case and press stories, relates to banks' internal investigations and their cooperation with regulators.  As highlighted in the suit, DOJ LIBOR non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements require many banks to provide information relating to benchmark manipulation, including manipulation of FX benchmark rates.

The class has been defined as those trading FX at or around the London Close since at least June 1, 2003. Included are those not trading the fix but trading at around that time of day and those trading forwards and swaps as well as spot.

No attempt is made to quantify damages or who are the members of the class.  Reference is made that records should exist, which we can only assume would be held by the banks.

Plaintiffs                                                                        Defendants
Aureus Currency Fund                                                     Bank of America
City of Philadelphia, Board of Pensions and Retirement     Barclays
Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of       BNP Paribas
       the Virgin Islands                                                     Citigroup
Employees’ Retirement System of Puerto Rico Electric      Credit Suisse
       Power Authority                                                       Deutsche Bank
Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Association           Goldman Sachs
Haverhill Retirement System                                           HSBC
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System     JP Morgan
State-Boston Retirement System                                      Morgan Stanley
Syena Global Emerging Markets Fund                               RBS
Tiberius OC Fund                                                            UBS
Value Recovery Fund
United Food and Commercial Workers Union and
       Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State
       Pension Fund

Quick Test of your Fraud Detection Skills

Which one of these interest rate histories does NOT look real?!

HINT:  One of the curves represents secondary market trading of the 4-week Treasury bill.  The other curve is 1-month LIBOR set by a panel of banks now accused of providing false and managed "LIBOR settings."

UK: 9 US: 8 / Keeping score in the LIBOR prosecutions

Bloomberg News reported today that additional ex-ICAP brokers will be charged by the UK Serious Fraud Office for alleged LIBOR manipulation, bringing the total criminal charges in the UK to 9.  This compares with 8 charged by the US Department of Justice.

US Attorney General Eric Holder stated last year that LIBOR prosecutions are a top priority for the DOJ but many writers and commentators, including Judge Rakoff, have questioned the lack of prosecution of senior finance executives over the financial crisis.  While the alleged LIBOR manipulation is not generally thought of as being a cause or contributor of the financial crisis, it did occur during the same time and also falls under white collar financial crimes.  Not that we're keeping score, but folks will be watching to see how the DOJ performs in prosecuting LIBOR.  

UBS Announces Internal Investigation into Precious Metals Trading

The UBS annual report released Friday mentioned this as an outgrowth of their earlier begun FX investigation.  A couple of interesting points:

1) The mainstream reports over the last year have referred to alleged gold price fix manipulation.  Only 5 banks are involved in the benchmark rate setting process, and UBS is not one of them.  Goldbugs, on the other hand, have screamed market manipulation (by banks holding down the price of gold) for years.  While we are not gold market mavens, it appears difficult to believe that a long term strategy to hold down the market price of a commodity can be successful.  However, if any manipulation is found at all, we can expect many more conspiracy theories to see the light of day (and manipulation reports over the last few years will make them all a bit more believable).

2) Since the LIBOR scandal, UBS has developed a reputation of being the first bank to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and the first to approach regulators when anything untoward is found, trying to reduce or eliminate penalties.  Thus, this raises the question if once again, UBS is an early mover and additional precious metal trading investigations are to be begun.

EURIBOR Benchmark Reforms

The EURIBOR European Banking Federation (EURIBOR-EBF) manages short term interbank interest rate benchmarks within the EU.  The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA) released a report reviewing changes made by the EURIBOR-EBF, noting the progress made in "raising the transparency of the benchmark setting process, enhancing the governance and control mechanisms of the benchmark, thereby improving the quality and reliability of the resulting index".

Just as interest rate benchmark process changes have been and continue to be made, changes in FX benchmarks are on the way as well.  We reported earlier this week that Singapore has stopped publishing FX benchmarks for certain SE Asian currencies used for non-deliverable forwards (Singapore Ends FX Benchmark for Indonesian Currency).  It is unlikely that WM Reuters or other benchmark setters will wait for the results of investigations before changing their processes as press reports have raised market concerns which will need to be addressed as soon as practical.

EURIBOR-EBF

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? 

LIBOR Settlements may Ease the Investigations into Potential FX Benchmark Manipulation

This Financial Times article highlights the weak position in which the money center banks find themselves vis-a-vis the regulators' investigations into potential manipulation of FX benchmark fixes.  In addition to the potential for large fines and a wave of civil litigation, as reported to the FT by the US DOJ, the LIBOR settlements for several banks included pledges for the banks to co-operate with investigations into all benchmark manipulations.

Thus in addition to banks co-operating to uncover any wrongdoing by their employees, or to seek a first mover advantage in securing possible leniency or immunity, these prior agreements may be part of the reason for the reports of numerous investigations and quick turning over of findings by banks.