Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Swiss Bank Fined $1.5 Billion for Fixing Libor Rate


UBS to Pay $1.5B in Fines to Settle LIBOR Probe

By Associated Press
19 December 12

wiss bank UBS agreed Wednesday to pay $1.5 billion in fines for trying to manipulate a key interest rate that affects borrowers around the world.
The settlement with U.S., British and Swiss regulators caps a tough year for the company and the reputation of the global banking industry. The fine on UBS, which will also see two former traders charged with conspiracy, is triple the amount that British bank Barclays PLC agreed to pay in June to settle similar charges.
And it comes a week after HSBC agreed to pay nearly $2 billion to settle allegations of laundering money for Mexican drug cartels and countries under U.S. embargoes, such as Iran.
UBS, Switzerland's largest bank, said some of its employees tried to rig the LIBOR rate - short for London Interbank Offered Rate - in several currencies. The rate is set daily using information that banks provide and is used to price trillions of dollars in contracts around the world, including mortgages and credit cards.
Some UBS traders voluntarily submitted - or pressured others to submit - inaccurate data to gain some financial advantage.
The bank's Japan unit, where much of the manipulation took place, entered a plea to one count of wire fraud in an agreement with the U.S. Justice Department.
The Justice Department said two former UBS senior traders, Tom Alexander William Hayes, 33, of Britain, and Roger Darin, 41, of Switzerland, will be charged with conspiracy, while Hayes also will be charged with wire fraud in New York federal court. Justice Department officials said they believed the two men were in Britain and Switzerland, and would be seeking their extradition.
UBS will pay $1.2 billion of its fine to the Justice Department and U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC will get $700 million, the largest fine it ever ordered. The remaining $300 million will go to regulators in Britain and Switzerland.
As a result of the fines, litigation, unwinding of real estate investments, restructuring and other costs, UBS said it expects to lose between 2 billion and 2.5 billion Swiss francs ($2.2 billion to $2.7 billion) in the fourth quarter. Nevertheless, the Zurich-based bank maintained that it "remains one of the best capitalized banks in the world."
UBS shares closed down 0.3 percent at 15.20 francs on the Zurich exchange.
The LIBOR scandal is likely to make headlines again in coming months. Other big global banks are also being investigated for rigging the same market and are expected to be fined.
UBS said some of its personnel had "engaged in efforts to manipulate submissions for certain benchmark rates to benefit trading positions" and that some employees had "colluded with employees at other banks and cash brokers to influence certain benchmark rates to benefit their trading positions."
Britain's financial regulator called the misconduct by UBS "extensive and broad," with the rate-fixing carried out from UBS offices in London and Zurich.
Different desks were responsible for different rate submissions. At least 2,000 requests for inappropriate submissions were documented. An unquantifiable number of oral requests were also made, the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority said.
"Manipulation was also discussed in internal open chat forums and group emails, and was widely known," the FSA said. "At least 45 individuals including traders, managers and senior managers were involved in, or aware of, the practice of attempting to influence submissions."
Joe Rundle, head of trading at London-based ETX Capital, said the case exposes "just how brazen and arrogant" the UBS traders were while collaborating with "corrupt external brokers."
Sergio Ermotti, who was appointed CEO of UBS in November 2011 in the wake of a major trading scandal, said the misconduct does not reflect the bank's values or standards.
In an interview with Swiss TV, Ermotti said the bank fired 36 employees involved in the scandal over the past 18 months and learned some clear lessons from it - mainly that "we had to strengthen our controls."
"We are on our way to finding solutions to some of the problems," he told the German-speaking public broadcaster SRF. "We have to recognize our failures and learn from them, but also look ahead."
With more than 2.2 trillion Swiss francs ($2.4 trillion) in invested assets, UBS is one of the world's largest managers of private wealth assets. At last count, the bank had 63,745 employees in 57 countries and said it aims for a headcount of 54,000 in 2015.
Along with Credit Suisse, the second-largest Swiss bank, UBS is on the list of the 29 "global systemically important banks" that the Bank for International Settlements - the central bank for central banks - considers too big to fail.
It's not the first time that UBS has fallen afoul of regulators. In 2009, U.S. authorities fined UBS $780 million for helping U.S. citizens avoid paying taxes.
The U.S. government has since been pushing Switzerland to loosen its rules on banking secrecy. The country has been trying to shed its image as a tax haven, signing deals with the U.S., Germany and Britain to provide greater assistance to foreign tax authorities seeking information on their citizens' accounts.
Ermotti has called Switzerland's tax disputes with the U.S. and some European nations "an economic war" putting thousands of jobs at risk.
In September 2011, UBS revealed that unauthorized trades in London by a 32-year-old employee, Kweku Adoboli, had cost it more than $2 billion, the biggest ever fraud at a bank in Britain.
Britain's financial regulator fined UBS, saying its internal controls were inadequate to prevent Adoboli, a relatively inexperienced trader, from making vast and risky bets. Adoboli has been sentenced to seven years in prison.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Obama Opposed by Top Dems on Soc. Security


Obama Social Security offer at odds with top Dems
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:03 AM EST

 
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's offer to slow the growth of Social Security benefits would force fellow Democrats in Congress to abandon promises to shield the massive retirement and disability program from cuts as part of negotiations to avoid the year-end fiscal cliff.

Both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pledged not to touch Social Security as part of deficit reduction talks. Now that Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, have agreed to a new measure of inflation that would reduce annual cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, for Social Security and other government programs, Democrats are reluctant to call it a deal-breaker.

As Obama and Boehner continued to haggle over how much to raise taxes and cut spending, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called the new inflation measure a technical adjustment designed to make inflation estimates more accurate, and he emphasized it's Republicans who want it.

"Let's be clear. This is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the president has agreed to put this in his proposal," Carney told reporters Tuesday. "The president has always said, as part of this process when we're talking about the spending cut side of this, that it would require tough choices by both sides."

Boehner proposed the change earlier this month in talks with Obama, and the president included it in a counteroffer this week.

Carney said Obama's plan "would protect vulnerable communities, including the very elderly, when it comes to Social Security recipients."  (Everybody else watch out. -ed)

The White House has not released details on how Obama's plan would do this. But the President's 2010 deficit commission recommended an enhanced minimum benefit for low-wage workers and an automatic increase in benefits once a person has been receiving Social Security for 20 years. (85 years old? - ed)

The inflation measure under consideration is called the Chained Consumer Price Index. On average, the measure shows a lower level of inflation than the more widely used Consumer Price Index because it assumes that as prices rise, consumers turn to lower-cost alternatives, reducing the amount of inflation they experience.  (eg Expensive drugs, wheelchairs, prothetics, and doctor bills - ed)

If adopted across the government, the change would have far-reaching effects because so many programs are adjusted each year based on year-to-year changes in consumer prices.

On average, annual increases in Social Security payments, government pensions and veterans' benefits would be about 0.3 percentage points smaller each year. Next year's COLA is 1.7 percent. Under the new measure of inflation, it would be about 1.4 percent.

Taxes would slowly increase because annual adjustments to income tax brackets would be smaller, pushing more people into higher tax brackets. Over time, fewer people would be eligible for anti-poverty programs like Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps and school lunches because annual adjustments to the poverty level would be smaller, leaving fewer people under the official poverty line.

If enacted for 2014, the change would reduce government borrowing by $223 billion over the next decade — $158 billion in spending cuts and $65 billion in tax increases, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The biggest savings — $102 billion — would come from Social Security.  (Soc. Sec. is not part of deficit. -ed)

"I just don't think that's fair," Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., said. "We've got to get serious about balancing the budget. But asking Donald Trump to pay a dollar more is not the same as taking something away from a lower income community that's just squeaking by."

Advocates for older Americans have been fighting against chained CPI for years, and they have stepped up their efforts since Boehner raised the issue earlier this month.

"Too many Washington politicians clearly hope middle-class Americans simply won't notice billions of dollars in Social Security benefit cuts," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "I promise you. Seniors and their families will notice."

Reid has been adamant that Social Security should not be included in deficit-reduction talks, but he side-stepped a question about it Tuesday.

"This isn't going to be a situation where we're going to vote on a particular provision in the bill," Reid said. "It's going to be a framework to do something about the long-term security of this country."

Other Democratic Senators were more direct.

"It doesn't warm my heart, I'll tell you that," Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said of the proposal. "The whole understanding has been that we wouldn't do Social Security. That was for later."

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said, "I'm going to fight hard to keep Social Security out of this. I'm going to fight to protect our federal workforce because they've already made sacrifices. There's a lot of priorities I have. But I think we have to wait and see how the negotiations go."

———

Associated Press writers Jim Abrams, Henry C. Jackson, Ken Thomas and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

CWA President: Reform Senate Rules


Cohen: We Need Senate Rules Reform

Illustration by DonkeyHotey/Flickr
This post originally appeared at The Huffington Post.
For several years now, the Communications Workers of America has been working with Fix the Senate Now, a broad coalition of democracy, community, women, faith-based and civil rights groups that are fed up with a Senate that functions more like Cicero's Senate of ancient Rome than a 21st century democracy. Despite being considered the world's model deliberative body, in reality it's a place where little gets done because of the abuse of the Senate rules. This isn't news.
 
But there is a one-day opportunity on the first day of a new Congress when senators can adopt new rules by a majority vote, as provided by the Constitution. It's called the "constitutional option."
Two years ago, our coalition hit the airwaves, spawned 40,000 supportive calls to Senate offices and gathered more than 100,000 signatures on a petition in favor of such a change. Unfortunately, the resulting "gentlemen's agreement" of reforms did nothing to curb the rampant obstructionism in the Senate.
But Fix the Senate Now hasn't stopped fighting to end the gridlock.
 
On Dec. 19, the coalition is launching a nationwide call-in to Senate offices to tell our lawmakers we need real change. In particular, we are demanding that the minority must talk if they want to block a vote, instead of putting the burden on the majority to find 60 supporters just to start debate. Furthermore, executive and judicial nominations must be put to a vote following limited debate. It is absurd that after a two-year, $3 billion presidential election, presidential appointments can simply be blocked in the cloak room with no discussion.
Pick up the phone right now and urge your Senator to support Senate Rules Reform. Call 1-888-966-9836 or text RULESREFORM to 69866. 
 
Filibustering by the minority will still be possible, but those senators should be required to rustle up 40 supportive colleagues, so that lawmakers holding up the debate actually prove they have the votes. Our coalition also believes filibustering senators should actually hold the floor and speak on the subject. The American people are entitled to a debate, especially on issues that have majority support.
 
Without reform, we've witnessed 386 silent filibusters during Sen. Harry Reid's six years as majority leader. Lyndon B. Johnson served six years as Senate majority leader with one filibuster.
In the past six years, a number of critical bills suffered silent deaths. Lacking 60 votes, the DISCLOSE Act, which would have increased transparency for independent groups' campaign spending, died without discussion. Senate Republicans blocked the Bring Jobs Home Act, an insourcing bill that would have ended tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. A minority of senators also prevented debate on the Veterans Jobs Corp Act, which would have created new job-training programs in targeted fields like conservation and firefighting. The DREAM Act was blocked despite overwhelming popular and Senate support for the children of immigrants. The Employee Free Choice Act and climate change legislation both came very close to 60 votes, but fell short. These and too many other critical issues couldn't get even a minute of debate on the Senate floor.
 
The constitutional option isn't unusual. It's not radical or even partisan. In fact, each time the filibuster rule has been amended—most recently in 1975—reformers used the constitutional option at the start of a new session to compel the Senate to act. Both Richard Nixon and Robert Byrd have argued in favor of using this parliamentary procedure.
 
On Jan. 3, that small window of opportunity to exercise the constitutional option will again open. Our democracy can't afford to wait another two years. We have by far the most expensive Senate campaigns ever, with the 2012 election spending approaching $743 million. Yet only weeks later we again could be facing a Senate that does practically nothing that Americans voted for and debates few issues of the day. Our democracy is in real trouble unless we act now to force the issue into the open and mobilize millions to demand change.