<http://www.business-standard.com/india/>
http://www.business-standard.com/india/images/bs_logo_print.jpg
Libor scandal shows flaws in rate-setting
Even if banks do not deliberately manipulate the rates, the benchmark
remains vulnerable
Peter Eavis & Nathaniel Popper / July 21, 2012, 0:54 IST
It is an open secret in the banking world: the interest rates for many
mortgages and loans are based on a benchmark that is largely guesswork.
The flaws in the rate-setting process, used to determine the pricing for
trillions of dollars of financial products, have been exposed by the latest
banking scandal.
Regulators around the world are investigating whether big banks gamed the
rates for their own benefit before and after the financial crisis. But even
if banks do not deliberately manipulate the rates, the benchmark remains
vulnerable.
Banks derive the rates from estimates, rather than real market data. So, the
benchmark, a measure of how much banks charge each other for loans, does not
necessarily represent actual borrowing costs. This weakness has only been
exacerbated in recent years, as banks have mostly stopped lending to each
other.
The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S Bernanke, told Congress this week that
he did not have "full confidence" in the process, calling it "structurally
flawed." The troubles centre on a key benchmark known as the London
interbank offered rate, or Libor. This rate and its variants are used to
determine the prices for mortgages and other loans, and play a critical role
in the multitrillion dollar market for the financial contracts called
derivatives.
The Libors are set every weekday around 11 am, a process overseen by the
British Bankers' Association. At that time, a group of big banks report how
much interest they would pay to borrow money from other institutions over
different periods and in different currencies. After removing the outliers,
the remaining numbers are averaged to come up with the various rates. On
Thursday, the three-month Libor, in American dollars, stood at 0.4531 per
cent. But the precise rates have little basis in reality.
Since the crisis, many banks have been content to park their cash with
central banks, rather than lending it out to other institutions. That means
there are few interbank transactions on which to base their Libors,
according to bankers who operate in this market.
"Libor was intended for an international lending market that has long since
past," said Pete Hahn, a finance professor at the Cass Business School in
London. "The whole concept of interbank lending died after Lehman Brothers
collapsed."
Now, regulators and investors are questioning whether the benchmark should
play any role in determining borrowing costs. Top central bankers will meet
in September to discuss potential reforms.
"Why continue with something you know has a substantial amount of wiggle
room?" said Alexander T Arapoglou, a professor at University of North
Carolina's business school. "It is just opinions that people could disagree
with or manipulate."
The benchmark was supposed to solve a problem for bankers. For years,
institutions haggled over the rates charged for different types of loans. To
create consistency, the British Bankers' Association developed the Libor
standard. At the time, the interbank market functioned relatively well.
As the financial sector ballooned in the last two decades, Libor became
increasingly more important.
The rates currently cover 10 different currencies, and underpin more than
$360 trillion of financial products worldwide. Even so, the process remains
unregulated, with oversight falling largely to the bankers' association. In
response to concerns during the crisis, the association conducted a review
of Libor and put changes in place in late 2008.
A spokesman for the trade body declined to comment.
After Barclays agreed to pay $450 million to settle a rate-manipulation case
with authorities in June, the trade organisation began its own investigation
into Libor. The British Bankers' Association is also assessing ways to
improve the process, along with central bankers and other authorities.
But it is very difficult to improve Libor if a robust market does not exist.
The industry does not track comprehensive totals for interbank loans. One
measure, published by the Federal Reserve, shows that such lending has
declined to levels not seen since the 1970s, although the figures do not
capture the entire market.
Bankers indicate that such lending has almost completely evaporated. In the
current environment, financial institutions will lend money to each other
only for a short time, say one month or less. That means banks are largely
making estimates for key benchmarks like the three-month and the one-year
Libor.
Those two borrowing periods are critical. Vast amounts of derivatives are
pinned to the three-month Libor, while the rates on many adjustable-rate
mortgages are based on the one-year Libor.
"We just aren't borrowing that much in this market right now," said Daryl N
Bible, the chief financial officer of BB&T, a bank based in Winston-Salem,
NC. Since interbank lending has stagnated, institutions are largely looking
to other types of borrowing to come up with Libors, including certificates
of deposits and loans from money market funds. But this is an inexact
science that can distort the Libor market.
For example, banks often submit the same rates several days in a row,
despite changing market and economic conditions.
In June, JPMorgan Chase reported the same one-year Libor every single day,
according to data from Thomson Reuters, which is responsible for collecting
the benchmark information. The bank's rate: 1 per cent.
By contrast, UBS calculated the figure to three decimal places and regularly
changed its rates. At the beginning of June, the Swiss bank reported a
one-year rate of 1.037 per cent. It dropped to 0.972 per cent at the end of
the month.
Neither bank responded to a request for comment.
There can also be wide discrepancies among similar benchmarks, which may
reflect the artificial nature of the process.
While the recent three-month Libor stood at 0.4531 per cent, the parallel
euro interbank offered rate in American dollars amounted to 0.91643 per
cent.
During periods of turmoil, the process gets murkier. Some traders indicate
that banks at times of stress report rates that would be almost impossible
to achieve.
When the European debt crisis heated up this summer, French banks were
viewed as vulnerable, meaning they would have had a hard time borrowing at
reasonable rates. But the country's banks continued to report Libors, and
they remained largely flat.
"When the French banks saw their stock price going down 10 per cent a day,
could they have borrowed at Libor? There isn't a chance," said a senior
executive at a large Wall Street firm who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because of the ongoing investigations.
In some ways, the flaws with Libor make it a convenient tool for Wall
Street. If banks had to carefully reference a real, sometimes volatile,
market, they might find it harder to set rates regularly.
Allowing banks to submit guesstimates makes it relatively simple to come up
with a daily number. The practices suits the vast derivatives markets, which
need a daily rate to price products like interest-rate swaps.
"It is true that current Libor methodology is very convenient for the
derivatives world," said Darrell Duffie, professor of finance at Stanford.
"Convenience should not trump accuracy."
As the Libor scandal has unfolded, the industry is grappling with how to fix
the process. One suggestion is to choose banks' Libor submissions randomly
when setting the overall rate, making it harder to manipulate. Authorities
have also proposed having independent auditors oversee the process.
The race to replace Libor has also heated up. One suggestion is to use rates
from another market that banks frequently use to lend to each other. These
loans are backed with high-quality financial assets that lenders can keep if
borrowers fail to repay. The limited volume of Libor-related loans do not
have such collateral.
The Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald is also developing an index of
different short-term lending markets. The idea is that the benchmark, a more
diversified reflection of borrowing, could be used as a substitute for
Libor.
"To be reliable, indices have to be transaction-based and transparent," said
Gary S Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
the regulator that led the inquiry into Barclays.
_____
C 2012 The New York Times News Service
--
You are subscribed. This footer can help you.
Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this
message.
You can visit the group WEB SITE at
http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options,
pages, files and membership.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You
don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put
anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this
address (repeat): [email protected] .
<<image001.jpg>>
