Bankrupt Banker

Vince Cable: UK to remove takeover 'wiggle room'

2014-07-13T19:02:00.001+01:00

Business Secretary Vince Cable has said he will tighten the rules to deal with foreign takeovers of UK firms. He wants any new regime overseeing takeovers to also include possible fines for firms which renege on promises made during the deal. He told the BBC that any commitments must have no "wiggle room". He said legal changes would probably be needed to enforce such commitments, but that there was agreement across government for such measures. After his comments, Labour's shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna said his offer to work with Mr Cable on the issues "remains open".

Millionaire helping pregnant women flee UK to avoid babies taken into care

2014-07-13T18:58:00.001+01:00

multi-millionaire is helping pregnant women whose babies are deemed at risk to flee the UK. Ian Josephs has spent over £30,000 helping 200 to avoid having their newborns taken away by social services. He pays for their fares to a new life and offers them free legal advice, even paying for lawyers in some cases. Around 50 have fled to Ireland on his money while another 150 went to France, Spain and Italy. Forced adoption opponent Mr Josephs, who runs a language business and has a law degree, has defended his decision to fund their escape, despite many already having children in care. He said: “Social services have moved away from giving families support and are now too quick to take children away. “I know what I do is controversial. People ask how I know the people I’ve helped don’t go on to do something wicked, but my reply is that even killers are entitled to lawyers.

Tories Plan To Make Mental Health ESA Claimants Prove They Are Really Depressed

2014-07-13T18:54:00.001+01:00

Critics have expressed horror at Tory plans to make benefit claimants prove they suffer from anxiety or depression, or risk having their payments cut. Current rules mean that people cannot be forced into treatment, like psychological therapy, as a condition of receiving their sickness benefits. But the Telegraph reported high-level discussion at the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions are currently ongoing to require hundreds of thousands of people to undergo treatment, if they are declared unfit for work due to mental health problems. Government statistics show 46% of people receiving £101 a week Employment and Support Allowance have mental health issues, meaning that new rules could apply to 260,000 people.

CRITICAL: European Banks Insolvent again

2014-07-13T18:44:00.001+01:00

CRITICAL: European Banks Insolvent

UK banks may have to hold more capital than under global rule

2014-07-13T18:40:00.001+01:00

The Bank of England (BoE) proposed on Friday that Britain's biggest banks should set aside from 2019 more capital than planned under global rules being drawn up to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis. Launching a public consultation on a new leverage ratio - the amount of capital a bank has to hold as a percentage of total assets - the BoE said many financial institutions may have to set aside funds on top of a global minimum that has yet to be fully agreed.

A leverage ratio of 3 percent, the provisional global level, means a bank must hold capital equivalent to 3 percent of its total assets, regardless of how risky they are. "There may be a case to introduce a supplementary leverage ratio component to a subset of firms, for example ring-fenced banks and/or systemically important institutions, whose failure would be most destabilizing for the financial system," the BoE said in a consultation paper. This would cover the bulk of Britain's banks as they have already been deemed to require a ring-fence of extra capital to protect depositors, hold extra capital because of their size, or both. The BoE is proposing two types of supplements, a permanent one for some lenders, and a temporary one to cool credit booms. Some banks would have to comply with both in some circumstances. The supplements may have to comprise the most expensive form of capital, thereby putting limits on a bank's ability to use cheaper hybrid debt known as contingent capital or Cocos. Members of parliament's influential treasury committee want a minimum leverage ratio of 4 percent or above, saying tougher measures are needed to ensure taxpayers are not asked to bail out banks like in the financial crisis. British banks such as Barclays , HSBC , Lloyds and RBS already have to meet a 3 percent target, forcing some to raise more capital. The British Bankers' Association (BBA) said the proposals complicated global plans for a simple, internationally harmonized leverage ratio.

Man pleads guilty to investment fraud scheme

2014-07-13T18:35:00.001+01:00

A Louisiana man has pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud for executing a $13 million investment fraud scheme that included victims in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and Florida. The Advocate reports (http://bit.ly/1m41vok ) 59-year-old James R. Holdman, of Baker, Louisiana, entered the plea Friday in federal court in Baton Rouge. In return for Holdman's guilty pleas, prosecutors agreed to dismiss 16 additional counts of mail fraud. U.S. District Judge James J. Brady has not set a sentencing date. Each of the mail fraud counts carries a possible 20-year prison term and fine of $250,000.

Financiers may grumble that the United States is acting like an imperial power in punishing foreign banks for dealings far beyond U.S. territory

2014-07-13T18:33:00.001+01:00

Financiers may grumble that the United States is acting like an imperial power in punishing foreign banks for dealings far beyond U.S. territory, but in the end they are more likely to bow to Washington than kick against its dollar muscle. Last week, French politicians and business leaders demanded an end to the global dominance of the U.S. currency - and hence of the U.S. banking system - after a New York court fined French bank BNP Paribas $9 billion for doing business in Sudan, Iran and Cuba. Yet despite irritation at the long reach of U.S. sanctions, most bankers see that as wishful thinking. Instead, major lenders in Europe and Asia are reacting to the steady flow of punishments from the United States by doing ever more to comply with U.S. laws and by cutting business ties in countries Washington dislikes rather than risk its wrath and, in the worst scenario, risk exclusion from the dollar system. Official regulators outside the United States are starting to look at ways to prevent their own banks and markets from being damaged by the scale of U.S. penalties. But for now, each bank on its own has little choice but to toe Washington's line. "The demands placed on banks to know their customer's customer, even in countries where such records are not routinely kept, means that banks have little choice but to terminate relationships or risk eye-watering, balance sheet altering fines," said Anthony Browne, chief executive of the British Bankers' Association (BBA). The BBA estimates Western banks have cut hundreds of relationships with correspondent banks in emerging markets, hurting businesses, governments and people in poorer countries.

Bolivia nationalized the company that runs the three largest airports in Bolivia because the government claims the company did not invest in improving the airports.

2013-02-19T12:07:00.001+00:00

Servicios de Aeropuertos Bollivianos SA (Sabsa) is a division of Spain's Abertis Infraestructure SA but Sabsa is also partly owned by Aena Aeropuertos SA based in Madrid. Bolivian president Evo Morales said that the privatization of Sabsa in 1997 was equivalent to "robbery" and "looting". He claimed that since that time the company's profits have been exorbitant and investments "ridiculous".

real estate company Reyal Urbis filed for insolvency after failing to renegotiate debt with its creditors.

2013-02-19T11:52:00.001+00:00

Spain's property market crash claimed another victim on Tuesday, as real estate company Reyal Urbis filed for insolvency after failing to renegotiate debt with its creditors.

The move takes the property developer, which had 3.6 billion euros ($4.8 billion) of debt at the end of September, closer to becoming Spain's second-largest bankruptcy after Martinsa Fadesa, which defaulted on 7 billion euros of debt in 2008.

Dozens of property companies have collapsed in Spain, where house prices have fallen around 40 percent since their 2007 peak. With the country locked in a deep recession, analysts expect prices to fall further still.

Spain's banks were crippled by the property market bust, eventually requiring the state to agree a European bailout for its lenders of almost 40 billion euros last year. Indebted property firms have asked banks for debt relief but patience is wearing thin among lenders saddled with soured property assets.

Reyal Urbis is 70 percent owned by construction magnate Rafael Santamaria and its creditors include Santander, BBVA, Bankia and Banco Popular.

The company, which valued its property portfolio at 4.2 billion euros in June 2012, said it would continue to operate as permitted by Spanish insolvency laws.

Its insolvency petition now goes to court and its fate will be in the hands of a judge.

Reyal Urbis said Santamaria would remain at the helm of the company and he still hoped Reyal Urbis could reach a deal with its creditors, given "the good will of all negotiating parties".

The company had until Feb. 23 to reach a debt restructuring deal with the banks or file for insolvency. Sources close to the matter told Reuters on Friday that creditors had rejected the company's 3.6-billion-euro proposal.

Trading in the company's shares was suspended on Tuesday, Spain's stock market regulator said. The stock had plunged 99 percent since June 2007 to close at 0.124 euros on Monday.

At the end of 2011, Reyal Urbis owned some 888 finished homes in a country where over a million homes lie empty. The company also had 8 million square metres of land for development and 237,000 square metres of commercial property, including offices, shopping centres, industrial property and hotels.

2012-12-10T09:10:00.001+00:00

Emotional eating is when people use food as a way to deal with feelings instead of to satisfy hunger. We've all been there, finishing a whole bag of chips out of boredom or downing cookie after cookie while cramming for a big test. But when done a lot — especially without realizing it — emotional eating can affect weight, health, and overall well-being.

Not many of us make the connection between eating and our feelings. But understanding what drives emotional eating can help people take steps to change it.

One of the biggest myths about emotional eating is that it's prompted by negative feelings. Yes, people often turn to food when they're stressed out, lonely, sad, anxious, or bored. But emotional eating can be linked to positive feelings too, like the romance of sharing dessert on Valentine's Day or the celebration of a holiday feast.

Sometimes emotional eating is tied to major life events, like a death or a divorce. More often, though, it's the countless little daily stresses that cause someone to seek comfort or distraction in food.

Emotional eating patterns can be learned: A child who is given candy after a big achievement may grow up using candy as a reward for a job well done. A kid who is given cookies as a way to stop crying may learn to link cookies with comfort.

It's not easy to "unlearn" patterns of emotional eating. But it is possible. And it starts with an awareness of what's going on.

Gibraltar must stay British – MP

2012-09-19T06:45:00.001+01:00

Spain contests sovereignty of the Rock, which commands the entrance to the Mediterranean. Mr Colvile attended the celebration in his capacity as vice-chairman of the Armed Forces All-Party Parliamentary Group. Speaking at a rally of 10,000 people in the main square, he said: "Gibraltar has been British since 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht when the Royal Marines repelled Spanish and French forces during the siege of Gibraltar. "The Royal Marines are so proud of their part in this siege that it is the one battle honour that they recognise and is the badge that they wear on their berets." Earlier this month, in a parliamentary question, Mr Colvile urged William Hague, the Foreign Secretary to stop Spanish fishermen from fishing in Gibraltar waters. "The Rock has close links with Plymouth through their Dockyards. It is British, and should remain so until the people of Gibraltar decide otherwise."

The UK government unexpectedly had to borrow money in July, traditionally a good month for tax receipts.

2012-08-21T16:48:00.000+01:00

English: George Osborne MP, pictured speaking on the launch of the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2009 European Parliament elections, at Keele University. (805x1207 px, 283,711 bytes) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Borrowing to cover the gap between spending and revenue was £600m in July,the Office for National Statistics said. There was a surplus of £2.8bn in the same month a year earlier.

The Treasury blamed disappointing corporation tax receipts.

Labour said the government's efforts to try to cut the deficit had "choked off the recovery".

Analysts suggest the government could end up borrowing about £30bn more than last year, when official forecasts had suggested borrowing would fall this year.

The Office for Budget Responsibility, the official UK economic forecaster, said there was still "significant uncertainty" about the outlook for borrowing this year.

Four months into the financial year the government has borrowed £44.9bn, £9.3bn higher than the same period in 2011. That excludes banking interventions and the one-off boost in April from a transfer of Royal Mail pension assets to the public sector.

The OBR had predicted that borrowing on the same measure would be £120bn for the whole of the financial year, down from the £125bn borrowed last year.

Policy pressure

Labour MP Chris Leslie "The chancellor is borrowing to cover the cost of economic failure"

The government received 0.8% less in tax than a year earlier due to a drop in corporation tax receipts. Income tax, national insurance and VAT held up, while spending, which includes welfare payments, was more than expected.

Labour said the figures were "a damning indictment of a chancellor who promised to secure the recovery and get the deficit down".

"[George Osborne's] failed plan has delivered the exact opposite - a double-dip recession which is leading to soaring borrowing," said Rachel Reeves, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury.

A Treasury spokesman said: "The government remains committed to the credible plan we have set out to deal with Britain's debts."

One economist said the figures would lead to further calls for the government to change course.

"We're going backwards not forwards," said economist Alan Clarke of Scotia Bank.

"It's going to increase pressure on the government to get back on track either by tightening fiscal policy further to make up for the lost ground, or loosening policy in the hope that stronger economic growth improves the public finances."

Weak economy

July is usually a good month for tax receipts, meaning the government normally makes a surplus, because it is the month that businesses make quarterly corporation tax payments and individuals' tax self-assessment returns are recorded.

Crisis jargon buster

Use the dropdown for easy-to-understand explanations of key financial terms:

Deficit

The amount by which spending exceeds income over the course of a year.
In the case of trade, it refers to exports minus imports. In the case of the government budget, it equals the amount the government needs to borrow during the year to fund its spending. The government's "primary" deficit means the amount it needs to borrow to cover general government expenditure, excluding interest payments on debts. The primary deficit therefore indicates whether a government will run out of cash if it is no longer able to borrow and decides to stop repaying its debts.

Glossary in full

But some said this month's figures should be treated with caution as corporation tax receipts are affected by the temporary closure of the Elgin gas field due to a leak.

The ONS also warned that the timing of self-assessment returns - which are recorded in August as well as July - makes direct comparisons between years difficult. More returns that usual may be recorded in August, as the deadline is the last day of July.

The previous months borrowing figures have also been worse than expected.

"It's the same story we've been seeing since the beginning of the year, that tax receipts are down, which is not surprising given the weaker growth performance of the economy," said Gustavo Bagattini from RBC Capital Markets.

Tom Vosa, an analyst at National Australia Bank, said although the monthly numbers were "terrible", "the trend so far isn't disastrous".

"Unless we see a further fall in revenue, the government could possibly still have a small undershoot for the fiscal year as a whole."

The Office for National Statistics said net debt - the sum of all borrowing - was now £1.032bn, or 65.7% of GDP.

The ONS also revised the figure for how much the UK borrowed in the 2011-12 financial year to £125bn. The OBR had forecast £126bn.

Jessica Harper admits £2.4m Lloyds Bank fraud

2012-08-07T14:51:00.001+01:00

A former Lloyds Bank worker in charge of online security has admitted carrying out a fraud worth more than £2.4m. Jessica Harper, 50, had been accused of submitting false invoices to claim payments between 2007 and 2011. At the time she was working as head of fraud and security for digital banking and made false claims totalling £2,463,750. Harper, of South Croydon, south London, will be sentenced on 21 September. At Southwark Crown Court, Harper admitted a single charge of fraud by abuse of position by submitting false invoices to claim payments. 'A very simple fraud' She also admitted a single charge of transferring criminal property, the money, which she had defrauded from her employers. Harper was arrested on 21 December before being charged in May. Continue reading the main story “ Start Quote Jessica Harper has today been convicted of the type of crime the bank employed her to combat” Sue Patten Crown Prosecution Service Antony Swift, prosecuting, did not open the facts of the case but said it was a "a very simple fraud". He added Harper had already repaid £300,000 and was in the process of selling her house for about £700,000. "That will be some £1m out of £2.5m that's gone missing," he told the judge. Carol Hawley, defending, said: "She appreciates the seriousness and has made full admissions in interview. "She understands perfectly well on the next occasion she will be facing imprisonment of some length." Breach of trust Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith granted Harper bail on the condition she stays at her current address, obeys a 21:00 to 07:00 curfew and hands in her passport. Sue Patten, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Central Fraud Division, said: "Jessica Harper has today been convicted of the type of crime the bank employed her to combat. "The evidence in the case was clear and left Harper with little choice but to plead guilty. "In doing so, she has admitted to a huge breach of trust against her former employer." Lloyds is now 39.7% state-owned after being bailed out by the government during the financial crisis.

Shares in Standard Chartered dive after Iran allegations

2012-08-07T10:05:00.001+01:00

Shares in Standard Chartered PLC dropped sharply today as investors reacted to US charges that the bank was involved in laundering money for Iran. The charges against Standard Chartered were a shock for a bank which proudly described itself recently as “boring.” Shares were down nearly 20 percent at 1,187 pence at one point in early trading Tuesday on the London Stock Exchange. In Hong Kong, they were down 16.6 percent near the end of the session. New York State Department of Financial Services alleged on Monday that Standard Chartered schemed with the Iranian government to launder $250 billion from 2001 to 2007, leaving the United States' financial system “vulnerable to terrorists.” Standard Chartered said it “strongly rejects” the allegations. In a statement, the bank said “well over 99.9 percent” of the questioned transactions with Iran complied with all regulations, and the exceptions amounted to $14 million. The New York regulator ordered Standard Chartered representatives to appear in New York City on Aug. 15 “to explain these apparent violations of law” and to demonstrate why its license to operate in the State of New York “should not be revoked.” Gary Greenwood, analyst at Shore Capital in London, said the possible revocation of the New York license was of far greater concern than any potential fine, which could run into hundreds of millions of dollars. Standard Chartered's US operation facilitates trade for customers that have operations in both the United States and emerging markets. “Indeed, this is an area of the business that has been highlighted by management for growth,” Greenwood said. “A loss of its US banking license would not only jeopardize part of this profit stream, but the associated reputational damage could also have a severely damaging impact to its operations within emerging markets.” The New York agency alleged that Standard Chartered conspired with Iranian clients to route nearly 60,000 different US dollar payments through Standard Chartered's New York branch “after first stripping information from wire transfer messages used to identify sanctioned countries, individuals and entities.” The New York regulators called the bank a rogue institution and quoted one of its executives as saying: “You (expletive) Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians.” The order also identifies an October 2006 “panicked message” from a London group executive director who worried the transactions could lead to “very serious or even catastrophic reputational damage to the group.” If proven, the scheme would violate state money-laundering laws. The order also accuses the bank of falsifying business records, obstructing governmental administration, failing to report misconduct to the state quickly, evading federal sanctions and other illegal acts. Between 2004 and 2007, about half the period covered by the order, the department claims Standard Chartered hid from and lied about its Iranian transactions to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Before 2008, banks were allowed to transact some business with Iran, but only with full reporting and disclosure, the order states. In 2008, the US Treasury Department stopped those transactions because it suspected they helped pay for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and finance terrorist groups including Hamas and Hezbollah. The order states the bank has to provide information and answer questions to determine if any of the funding aided the groups or Iran's nuclear program. Last week, Standard Chartered' chief executive, Peter Sands, boasted that the bank has racked up a 10-year string of record first-half profits “amidst all the turbulence in the global economy and the apparently never-ending turmoil in the world of banking.” “It may seem boring in contrast to what is going on elsewhere, but we see some virtue in being boring,” Sands added.

Banks are 'mis-selling to the vulnerable'

2012-07-16T00:11:00.001+01:00

A previously unpublished document from the Citizens Advice Bureau to the Financial Services Authority shows the paid-for accounts, costing on average around £15 per month, can lead to "unmanageable debt problems" for those on low incomes. The FSA is expected to publish a critical report in the next two weeks demanding changes to the way in which packaged or bundled accounts – including services such as insurance cover or roadside assistance – are sold. More than 10 million people across the UK use the accounts, but the CAB has accused Britain's banks of blanke-selling these products to those with learning difficulties, a basic understanding of English, and a limited knowledge of personal banking. Gillian Guy, chief executive of the Citizens Advice Bureau, said: "We've seen people who thought they'd opened a basic account only to find they had unknowingly been given an account with monthly charges, pushing some of them into debt. Others believed they could use all of the benefits of the account, not knowing that they weren't covered by the insurance." One man with learning difficulties was existing on part-time wages of around £300 per month, said the CAB. He had debts of over £1,400, as well as an overdraft, compounded by being sold a packaged account with benefits he was unlikely to use. As a result, the customer was paying around 20pc of his income on bank charges and getting still further into debt.

'Other banks to face Libor revelations'

2012-07-16T00:10:00.001+01:00

Senior managers at Barclays have warned staff in an internal memo that the Libor scandal will envelop other banks. The memo circulated on Friday said that revelations about its rivals would "put in perspective" Barclays' culpability. Meanwhile Barclays' former chief operating officer Jerry del Missier will answer MPs' questions on Monday. Mr del Missier stands accused of having mistakenly believed Barclays was told by the Bank of England in 2008 to under-report its borrowing cost. Libor - the London Interbank Offered Rate - is a benchmark interest rate set each day by the British Bankers' Association based on the interest rate that 16 major international banks based in London tell it that they must pay in order to borrow cash from other banks. It is used as a benchmark rate for trillions of pounds worth of financial contracts, including many mortgages. According to Barclays' own explanation of events in October 2008, the height of the crisis, the banks then-head of investment banking, Bob Diamond, discussed Barclays' persistently high Libor submissions with the Bank of England deputy governor Paul Tucker. There were fears that Barclays' apparent high cost of borrowing compared with other banks could be interpreted by the financial markets as a sign that the bank was in trouble. According to Barclays, Mr del Missier then misinterpreted Mr Diamond's summary of the call to mean that the Bank had given Barclays permission to under-report its own borrowing costs in order to appear to be in line with other banks. On Monday, Mr del Missier will follow Mr Tucker, Mr Diamond - who recently resigned as chief executive - and Barclays chairman Marcus Agius, who all appeared before the Commons Treasury Committee earlier this month. 'Let down' Meanwhile, it appears that Barclays believes other banks will soon turn out to be more culpable in the scandal than themselves. According to the Barclays' memo to staff: "As other banks settle with authorities, and their details become public, and various governments' inquiries shed more light, our situation will eventually be put in perspective." The memo, from Mr Agius and other senior executives, admitted that customers, shareholders and regulators "all have a right to feel let down" by the bank after it admitted to manipulating Libor, and incurred a £290m ($450m) fine from UK and US regulators. Several banks are currently being investigated, both in the UK and the US, for allegedly manipulating Libor. On Friday it emerged that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - which is responsible for overseeing banks in the US city - discussed concerns about the way Libor was being set as early as May 2008. Timothy Geithner, the current US Treasury Secretary and who headed the New York Federal Reserve at the time, emailed the Bank of England Governor Sir Mervyn King with suggestions for how to prevent misreporting by the banks of their true borrowing costs. However, the email does not specify evidence given by the Barclays employee and it is unknown to what extent the Bank of England governor was aware of the wrongdoing. Continue reading the main story Libor: the evidence US DoJ - Barclays misconduct admission Financial Services Authority report (pdf) US regulator (CFTC) report (pdf) Barclays' account of Bank of England contact Bank of England emails (pdf) New York Federal Reserve Bank disclosures Bob Diamond Treasury Committee hearing (pdf) Marcus Agius Treasury Committee hearing (pdf) Paul Tucker Treasury Committee hearing (pdf) * Download pdf reader here The Bank of England said concerns were widespread at the time, but they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing. 'Absolute rubbish' But separate documents released by the New York Fed indicate that the Americans did have some evidence. In one transcript of a telephone call from 11 April 2008 released by the New York Fed on Friday, a Barclays employee told the New York Fed that Barclays was underreporting its rate to avoid the stigma associated with being an outlier with respect to its Libor submissions, relative to other participating banks. In a later telephone call, on 24 October 2008, a Barclays employee told a Fed official that the Libor rate was "absolute rubbish". There was a great deal of concern, both within Barclays and the government, as to why Barclays' Libor submissions were higher than other banks at the height of the financial crisis at the end of 2008. A higher submission rate might be interpreted by the market as a sign that Barclays was in particular trouble compared with other banks, and this created an incentive for Barclays to under-report its true cost of borrowing to the Libor committee. Barclays' high Libor submissions had led some to suspect that - after the part-nationalisations of RBS, Lloyds and HBOS - Barclays would be next, deputy Bank of England governor Paul Tucker told MPs on the Treasury Committee earlier this month. The British Bankers Association was also aware at the time of rate manipulation at Barclays, according to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, after a senior treasury manager at the bank informed the body that the bank was not "clean-clean". It is yet unknown whether the BBA had notified the Bank of England, and if not, why.

Now banks face inquiry over their current account failings

2012-07-16T00:07:00.001+01:00

The UK’s banks are to come under yet more scrutiny after the Office of Fair Trading launched a new probe into the current account market. The OFT warned that banks are doing too little to focus on the needs of their customers and raised fresh concerns over a lack of competition on the high street. It will look into whether current account providers have satisfied requirements that it set out after its previous review four years ago. Much of the focus will be on the ease of switching current account, helping customers run their accounts better and the transparency of charges. Claire Hart, director of the OFT, said: “More generally, we are concerned that a lack of effective competition means the retail banking sector is not working in the interest of customers and businesses. “We want to see banks become more customer-focused and this will be the central theme of our programme of work going forward.” The OFT’s findings – due by the end of the year – will feed into its response to the Independent Commission on Banking, which last year called for greater competition to shake up the high street banking market. Under the ICB’s proposals, the OFT would refer the current account market to the Competition Commission by 2015 if it hasn’t seen sufficient improvements. The review comes in the wake of a series of scandals that have further undermined trust in the UK’s high street banks. The Barclays Libor scandal and a Royal Bank of Scotland systems meltdown that caused chaos for millions of account holders have triggered new calls in recent weeks for unhappy customers to vote with their feet. Organisations to have reported a sharp increase in the number of people switching away from the big banks this week include Nationwide. The UK’s biggest building society – owner of the Dunfermline – yesterday revealed that it had seen a 67 per cent rise in the number of people moving their main current account to it over the past five days. John Crossley, head of current accounts at Nationwide, said: “Recent events appear to have encouraged change. “People are starting to realise that switching is easier than they thought and that for a little time and effort they can get a competitive current account deal from a provider that they trust.” Eight in ten people would now consider switching current account, with a fifth already doing so, according to new research from uSwitch.com. A similar poll by Moneysupermarket.com found showed that a fifth of banking customers have lost trust in their bank amid the latest controversies. Kevin Mountford, head of banking at MoneySupermarket, said: “The recent turmoil in the banking sector has shown a desire from consumers to vote with their feet. “However, improving competition is not just about making switching easier, the OFT will also look at ways to improve the payments system and the banking market for small and medium-sized businesses.” The furore surrounding high overdraft fees has died down since the OFT lost a 2008 bid to rule on the fairness of the charges. But there were 15,000 new complaints about current accounts in the year to the end of April, according to the Financial Ombudsman Service, making it the third most complained about product. Many concerned delays in switching accounts, one of the areas the OFT plans to shine a light on over the coming months. Administration errors, problems with packaged accounts and disputed transactions were also common causes for complaint, said the ombudsman.

Del Missier to face MPs over Libor

2012-07-16T00:06:00.001+01:00

The third member of the trio of top bankers ejected from Barclays over the Libor scandal will appear before the UK’s Treasury select committee Monday, as MPs aim for a clearer view of the bank’s manipulation of interbank borrowing rates. Jerry del Missier, who resigned a fortnight ago as chief operating officer, had previously been co-head of Barclays Capital, the group’s investment banking arm. He was also the linchpin in the bank’s involvement in “lowballing” Libor, having ordered colleagues to understate the levels at which Barclays told the Libor rate-setting panel that it could borrow. RBS withdraws from Tibor panel Frank Partnoy Make cheating banks pay Barclays employee alerted NY Fed over Libor in 2008 Lex Libor ON THIS TOPIC Investors query effect of Libor manipulation Finance The bank that roared Libor-rigging probe labelled ‘whitewash’ Senators urge probe of Libor regulators IN BANKS HSBC faces probe on money laundering claims EBA chief plots path to banking union Europe’s banks face tougher demands Ex-Citi banker faces trial over CDO sale His resignation followed that of chief executive Bob Diamond and chairman Marcus Agius, though Mr Agius is staying on to plan the CEO succession process. Over the past two weeks, the committee heard first from Mr Diamond and then from Mr Agius about how Barclays became embroiled in Libor fixing, with much of the committee’s attention focused on a telephone conversation between Mr Diamond and Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England, who was also quizzed by the MPs this month. That exchange – relayed in an email to Mr del Missier – included the assessment that Mr Tucker had felt Barclays’ Libor submissions “did not always need to be ... as high as [they] have [been] recently”. Both Mr Diamond and Mr Tucker said the conversation and subsequent email were not intended as an instruction to lower the submissions. But Mr del Missier is said to have “misunderstood or miscommunicated” the message – according to both Mr Diamond and the conclusions of a US-UK regulatory probe that led to a £290m fine for Barclays over the affair. Friends of Mr del Missier disagree over whether he could disturb the version of events that the committee has heard so far. “Jerry is still close to Bob,” says one person who knows him well. “He is not going to implicate him.” However, others believe he will be keen to give as straight a version of events as possible. “Jerry is a boy scout,” says one. “There are no shades of grey to his integrity. He will not be mean-spirited towards Bob or Tucker. But he won’t obfuscate either. He’ll tell the truth.” His testimony could reopen the question of the extent to which the Bank of England sanctioned Barclays’ “lowballing”. Alongside Mr Diamond and Rich Ricci, still head of Barclays’ investment banking unit, Mr del Missier was the technical brains behind the three-man team that built up that business over 15 years. A low-profile figure, he was one of the world’s top-paid bankers in 2010, when he received total pay worth more than £40m. Friends say he was diagnosed with a brain tumour in the past couple of years, but was successfully treated and continued working for Barclays. They say the Canadian-born banker, who is New York-based, is likely now to take some time off before deciding on his next move, but expect him to move to another investment bank or to set up a hedge fund. It is unclear whether he will maintain close links with Mr Diamond, who is also set to move back to the US, where his family is based.

U.S. Is Building Criminal Cases in Rate-Fixing

2012-07-15T23:57:00.001+01:00

Carl Court/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Barclays is at the center of an interest rate-fixing scandal.

As regulators ramp up their global investigation into the manipulation of interest rates, the Justice Department has identified potential criminal wrongdoing by big banks and individuals at the center of the scandal.

The department’s criminal division is building cases against several financial institutions and their employees, including traders at Barclays, the British bank, according to government officials close to the case who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing. The authorities expect to file charges against at least one bank later this year, one of the officials said.

The prospect of criminal cases is expected to rattle the banking world and provide a new impetus for financial institutions to settle with the authorities. The Justice Department investigation comes on top of private investor lawsuits and a sweeping regulatory inquiry led by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Collectively, the civil and criminal actions could cost the banking industry tens of billions of dollars.

Authorities around the globe are examining whether financial firms manipulated interest rates before and after the financial crisis to improve their profits and deflect scrutiny about their health. Investigators in Washington and London sent a warning shot to the industry last month, striking a $450 million settlement with Barclays in a rate-rigging case. The deal does not shield Barclays employees from criminal prosecution.

The multiyear investigation has ensnared more than 10 big banks in the United States and abroad. With the prospects of criminal action, several firms, including at least two European institutions, are scrambling to arrange deals, according to lawyers close to the case. In part, they are trying to avoid the public outcry that stemmed from the Barclays case, which prompted the resignation of top executives.Regulators are investigating whether big banks improperly set key interest rates.

Q. and A.: Understanding Libor

The criminal and civil investigations have focused on how banks set the London interbank offered rate, known as Libor. The benchmark, a measure of how much banks charge one another for loans, is used to determine the borrowing costs for trillions of dollars of financial products, including mortgages, credit cards and student loans. Cities, states and municipal agencies also are examining whether they suffered losses from the rate manipulation, and some have filed suits.

With civil actions, regulators can impose fines and force banks to overhaul their internal controls. But the Justice Department would wield an even more potent threat by bringing criminal fraud cases against traders and other employees. If found guilty, they could face jail time.

The criminal investigations come at a time when the public is still simmering over the dearth of prosecutions of prominent executives involved in the mortgage crisis. The continued trouble in the financial sector, including the multibillion-dollar trading losses at JPMorgan Chase, have only further fueled the anger of consumers and investors.

But the Libor case presents a potential opportunity for prosecutors. Given the scope of the problems and the number of institutions involved, the rate-rigging investigation could provide a signature moment to hold big banks accountable for their activities during the financial crisis.

“It’s hard to imagine a bigger case than Libor,” said one of the government officials involved in the case.

The Justice Department has jurisdiction over the London bank rate because the benchmark affects markets in the United States. It could not be learned which institutions the criminal division is chasing next.

According to people briefed on the matter, the Swiss bank UBS is among the next targets for regulatory action. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is pursuing a potential civil case against the bank. Regulators at the agency have not yet decided to file an action against the bank, nor have settlement talks begun. UBS has already reached an immunity deal with one division of the Justice Department, which could protect the bank from criminal prosecution if certain conditions are met. The bank declined to comment.

The investigation into the global banks is unusually complex and it could continue for years, and ultimately end in settlements rather than indictments, said the officials close to the case. For now, regulators are building investigations piecemeal because the facts of the cases vary widely. That could make it difficult to compile a global settlement, although some banks would prefer an industrywide deal to avoid the harsh glare of the spotlight, said a lawyer involved in the case.

American authorities face another complication as they build cases. Investigators still lack access to certain documents from big banks.

Before gathering some e-mail and bank records from overseas firms, the Justice Department and American regulators need approval from British authorities, according to the people close to the case. But officials in London have been slow to act, the people said. At times, British authorities have hesitated to investigate.

By contrast, the Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have spent two years building cases together. Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice department’s criminal division, has close ties with David Meister, the former federal prosecutor who runs the commission’s enforcement team.

In the Barclays case, the British bank was accused of reporting false rates to squeeze out extra trading profits and fend off concerns about its health. During the crisis, banks feared that reporting high rates would suggest a weak financial position.

Lawmakers in London and Washington are examining whether regulators looked the other way as banks artificially depressed the rates. On Friday, it was disclosed that a Barclays employee notified the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in April 2008 that the firm was underestimating its borrowing costs. Despite the warning signs, the illegal actions continued for another year.

But in April 2008, a senior enforcement official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Vincent McGonagle, opened an investigation. He directed the case along with another longtime official, Gretchen Lowe.

At first the case stalled as the agency waited months to receive millions of pages of documents when Barclays pushed back against the American regulators, according to the officials close to the case. By the fall of 2009, the trading commission received a trove of information, providing a broad view into the wrongdoing.

A series of incriminating e-mail and instant messages, regulators say, laid bare the multiyear scheme. In one document, a Barclays employee said the bank was “being dishonest by definition.”

The case gained further traction in early 2010, when the agency’s enforcement team engaged the Justice Department. The department’s criminal division, led by Mr. Breuer, agreed that regulators had a strong case. The investigation continued until January 2012, when the trading commission notified Barclays lawyers that they were entering the final stages before deciding about an enforcement action.

As part of the deal, regulators pushed the bank to adopt new controls to prevent a repeat of the problems. Among other measures, the bank must now “implement firewalls” to prevent traders from improperly talking with employees who report rates.

The bank says that it provided extensive cooperation during the three inquiries, and has spent around $155 million on its own three-year investigation. Because it agreed to settle with British authorities, Barclays received a 30 percent fine reduction.

In the United States, Barclays offered to pay a fine of $200 million to the C.F.T.C., slightly below the initially proposed range, according to government officials close to the case. Mr. Meister’s team soon accepted the offer, securing the biggest fine in the commission’s history.

On June 27, British and American authorities announced the deal with Barclays, which agreed to pay more than $450 million total. “For this illegal conduct, Barclays is paying a significant price,” Mr. Breuer said then.

Was the petrol price rigged too

2012-07-15T23:49:00.001+01:00

Concerns are growing about the reliability of oil prices, after a report for the G20 found the market is wide open to “manipulation or distortion”. Traders from banks, oil companies or hedge funds have an “incentive” to distort the market and are likely to try to report false prices, it said. Politicians and fuel campaigners last night urged the Government to expand its inquiry into the Libor scandal to see whether oil prices have also been falsely pushed up. They warned any efforts to rig the oil price would affect how much drivers pay at the pump, which soared to a record high of 137p per litre of unleaded earlier this year. Robert Halfon, who led a group of 100 MPs calling for lower fuel prices, said the matter “needs to be looked at by the Bank of England urgently”

Bankers no longer respect the rule of law.

2012-07-14T00:17:00.001+01:00

The scandal engulfing the financial industry is yet another sign that our business leaders no longer respect the rule of law.

Reuters

Maybe the acronym at the heart of the scandal is too confusing. Or Americans are simply tired of hearing about greedy bankers. By any measure, though, the Libor bank scandal is an extraordinary example of the 1 percent stealing from the 99 percent - and our crumbling ethics.

If an organized crime group was accused of breaking into the Nassau County Treasurer's Office on New York's Long Island and stealing $13 million, outrage would be widespread. And if the same group was accused of stealing millions from the City of Baltimore and other struggling municipalities, they would emerge as an issue in the presidential campaign.

Instead, the Libor scandal is emerging in dribs and drabs and drawing little public attention. The middle class is being victimized, and there is little protest.

Last month, the British bank Barclays agreed to pay $453 million to American and British authorities to settle allegations that it manipulated key interest rates for profit between 2005 and 2009, specifically the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor. American and British investigators are now examining whether traders at a dozen other banks -- including the "too-big-to-fail" U.S. banks JPMorgan, Citibank and Bank of America -- also manipulated rates.

It is hard to overstate the impact of the Libor benchmark, which is used to value some $360 trillion in loans and financial contracts worldwide. It affects lending to governments, businesses and consumers, and even student loan and credit card rates.

So Barclays' victims weren't just other banks and traders. They included taxpayers in dozens of communities who are believed to have paid millions more in interest than they should have at the height of the financial crisis. Teachers and other public servants may have been laid off because of bankers' pursuit of ever-higher profits.

Lawsuits filed by the City of Baltimore and dozens of other parties against Barclays, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank and Deutsche Bank have been consolidated into a single case in a New York federal court. Banks are denying any wrongdoing, and the true scope of the losses -- and the role of American banks -- is expected to emerge in the complex legal battles ahead.

I do not believe all bankers are evil. I admire business owners who innovate, create jobs and strengthen communities. But theft -- whether the perpetrator is clad in a business suit or blue jeans -- is theft.

And let's not kid ourselves. Our ethical decay stretches beyond Wall Street. It spans industries, political parties and groups. In April, systematic bribery by executives of the U.S.'s second-largest company - Walmart - was reported across Mexico. In June, American sports officials accused cyclist Lance Armstrong of engaging in a massive doping conspiracy. And Jesse Jackson Jr. appears to be the fifth member of Congress to be embroiled in an ethics scandal in two years.

Around the world, a globalized economy is creating planetary-sized profits -- and relentless pressure. A May survey by Ernst & Young of 400 chief financial officers around the world found that a growing number of them were willing to pay bribes and falsify their firm's financial performance to survive the financial downturn.

The number of chief financial officers who said they would engage in bribery to stay in business grew from 9 percent in 2011 to 15 percent in 2012. And the number who said they would misstate their company's financial health to get though a downturn rose from 3 percent in 2011 to 5 percent in 2012.

"One of the most troubling findings of the survey is the widespread acceptance of unethical business practices," Ernst & Young said in a statement. "It is particularly alarming that respondents are increasingly willing to make cash payments."

Corporate boards and other overseers, meanwhile, appear to be looking the other way. Eighty-one percent of those surveyed worldwide by Ernst & Young said anti-bribery and anti-corruption codes of conduct were in place in their companies. But nearly half said they did not believe employees had been punished for violating those polices.

The same problem exists in American institutions. Senior executives at Walmart tried to bury internal reports of bribes being paid. Leaders of Congress continue to hand out shamefully light punishments to their peers, such as the 2010 censure of New York Representative Charles Rangel.

And a report released today by former FBI Director Louis Freeh found that Joe Paterno and other senior leaders at Penn State covered up Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse of children for over a decade to protect the university's multi-million dollar football program.

Many columnists have said this before and many more will say it in the future. I am no paragon of virtue and I have made mistakes. But we can and must do better. Our moral decay threatens us.

A liberal, capitalist democracy -- and a middle class -- can only thrive in a culture where the rule of law is respected, information is reliable and the playing field is as level as possible. If we abandon that, we lose much more than self-respect. We squander a way of life.

Signs You May Need to Ditch Your Bank

2012-07-14T00:14:00.001+01:00

one in four small businesses changed banks in the last four years, according to a survey out this week from the National Small Business Association.

The two most popular reasons for making a move are feeling "mistreated" by a bank and seeking betterfinancing options, according to the report from the Washington, D.C.-based small business advocacy group. In particular, small business owners are least impressed with big banks. Of those small businesses that work with big banks, only 14 percent reported the services and finance offerings as "excellent." At the same time, 43 percent of respondents who work with community banks and 38 percent who use credit unions rate their respective banks as excellent in the same areas.

To be sure, it's a hassle to switch banks, but sometimes it is worth it. Here are three signs you need to make a change:

1. Abrupt changes in financing terms. "If their credit line gets cut or interest rates rise unexpectedly, I think that is pretty telling," says John Paglia, a professor at Pepperdine University's business school. Almost one in four business owners have seen the terms on their loan become worse in the past year, according to the NSBA survey. Some were given no reason, while others were told their business had become more risky or banking standards had been raised. Meanwhile, 29 percent of survey respondents reported having their available line of credit reduced in the last four years.

Whether you're securing a loan or line of credit, be sure to read all of the fine print, keeping an eagle eye for language suggesting the bank can change your loan terms based on "changing market risk," or other vagaries, Paglia warns.

Related: 3 Questions You Must Ask Before Securing a Small Business Credit Card

2. Your bank can't keep up with you. "If the bank doesn't have what you need at the next stage of your growth, then you need to look elsewhere," says Bob Seiwert, head of the American Bankers Association's Center for Commercial Lending and Business Ranking. For example, every bank has a cap on what they can lend out at any one time and a limit on what they can lend out to any one firm. "If you need a lot more money than that banker is comfortable lending to any one business," says Seiwert, "that is a sign that you have outgrown your bank" You may also need additional financial services as your business evolves.

Related: A Common Personal Finance Mistake New 'Treps Make

3. Your banker doesn't talk to you. "Not all business owners are financially savvy from the day they open their doors," says Terry Jorde, the Senior Executive Vice President and Chief of Staff at the Independent Community Bankers of America. You deserve a banker that is willing to sit down with you, talk to you, listen to your business plan, and really learn about the business you are running. The banker "should be there to guide them through the process," Jorde says. And if you have to continually "re-educate" your bank about your business, she says that is a pretty good indication that you should be looking for another bank.

Once you have decided that your current bank is no longer serving your needs, talk to other businesses in your community about which bank they use, adds Paglia. If you are looking for a smaller bank, the BankLocally website has a zip-code look-up for community banks.

From $200 Million to $500K

2012-07-14T00:11:00.001+01:00

Not long after launching in 2004, social news aggregation site Digg was heralded as tool that forever changed the nature of the news media. By 2008, the site was nearly acquired by search giant Google for $200 million.

Yesterday, Digg was bought by a company called Betaworks for -- wait for it – a mere $500,000. Betaworks is the company behind other tech brands like URL shortener bit.ly, website analytics tool Chartbeat and another social news site News.me.

How did a former social-media darling, founded by serial entrepreneur Kevin Rose, see its value drop so precipitously when the social web has only grown in popularity? Over the years, the site has been plagued by some unfortunate missteps. Here are three lessons any entrepreneur can learn from Digg's slide:

1. Continue to innovate and provide value.
One of the coolest features Digg had when it launched was the ability for users to "digg," or vote for their favorite content and "bury" the content they didn't like. The more diggs something got the higher it was regarded among the Digg community. It created interactivity around the content on the site.

But a number of competing social companies adopted similar features that allow users to vote content up and down. Among them Facebook and Twitter. When Digg failed to innovate, it fell behind the competition. And its traffic figures have been in steady, if not dramatic, decline.

Related: 4 Lessons Every Entrepreneur Can Learn from RIM's Downfall

2. Make sure the system works.
Digg's social voting feature also was one of its downfalls. When you'd visit the Digg website, you'd probably think the content at the top of its homepage was voted there by the site's millions of active users. If so, then you'd be wrong.

At least one report suggested that Digg's popular content was dictated by a group of power users. It said the site's top 100 users accounted for more than half of the stories that appeared on the homepage. In other words, Digg was mostly highlighting the opinions of only a small, select group of users.

If Digg's algorithm was playing favorites with some users, it was inevitable that it would anger many others.

3. Pay close attention to design execution.
Perhaps the final straw for Digg came in 2010 when the site launched a major redesign thatignited the furor of its users. It was aggregating stories from other news aggregators due to a glitch in its new auto-submission system. Server issues caused functions like commenting to stop working. The site kept crashing.

While many sites experience some technical hiccups as well as some negative feedback from upset users following a redesign, this one caused Digg users to declare a "quit Digg day," and many jumped ship for competing news aggregator, Reddit.

More revelations of still open deals at JPMorgan.HAVE ALL THE DEALS BEEN CLOSED??

2012-07-14T00:08:00.001+01:00

Here is perhaps the most amazing thing about JPMorgan Chase's (JPM) $5.8 billion trading loss: Take a look at the firm's overall results, and it's like the London Whale's misstep, one of the largest flubs in the history of Wall Street, never happened.

Back in mid-April, about two weeks before talk of the trading losses emerged, JPMorgan was expected to earn $1.21 a share in its second quarter. On Friday, JPMorgan reported that it had, Whale and all, earned exactly that.

How the bank appears to have offset the huge trading loss is a prime example of how complex and malleable bank profits actually are, and how much they should be believed. JPMorgan's quarter should give fodder for accountants to talk about for some time.

Who will take JPMorgan to task?

"Yes, I have seen these results, but I have also seen how the sausage is made and I am worried that I might get food poisoning in the future," Mike Mayo of Credit Agricole Securities and author of the book Exile on Wall Street told Dimon in a meeting with analysts following the bank's earnings release.

Sure some of JPMorgan's businesses were strong. Profits in its mortgage operations, helped by falling interest rates, rose by nearly $1.3 billion. But a good deal of JPMorgan's earnings came from some shifting of losses and an assumption that things for the bank, and the economy in general, are about to get a good deal better. That assumption might prove right, but it could also add to losses in the future.

So how do you make a nearly $6 billion loss go away? First stop taxes. The bank said that the London Whale's blunder cost the bank $4.4 billion in the second quarter alone. But that's before taxes. After it pays taxes, though, JPMorgan says the loss will shrink to just over $2.7 billion, which means the bank plans to take a $1.7 billion write off from Uncle Sam. Like any loss, banks are allowed to use trading blunders to offset taxable profits elsewhere in the bank. The question is the rate. At $1.7 billion, JPMorgan is writing off roughly 38% of the loss. That's not that out of line with the U.S. corporate tax rate, but it's a far larger percentage of profits than most companies actually pay. Nonetheless, on taxes alone, the bank was able to shrink the London Whale's wake to $4.1 billion.

How JPMorgan made its multi-billion dollar blunder

We haven't left the firm's vaunted chief investment office yet. CEO Jamie Dimon has long said the portfolio is safe and that if he were to liquidate it today he could produce an $8 billion gain for the bank. In the second quarter, he dipped into some of that. London Whale aside, the CIO took a $630 million gain. Now we're down to $3.5 billion.

Next stop loan losses. Banks have to put money away for loans they believe are going to go bad. But banks can lower their expenses by putting away less money for future loan losses. In the second quarter, the bank put away just over $200 million for future loan losses. That was not only the lowest amount the bank had set aside in any three month period since the start of the financial crisis, it was the lowest by far. A year ago, the loan loss provision was $1.8 billion.

What's more, not only did the bank put away less money for future loans, it also pulled back money it had put away in the past. And any money you take out of your loan loss reserves the accountants let you send right to your bottom line. It appears $1.3 billion, or about 28% of the company's total second quarter profit, came from this move, which is again only real earnings to accountants.

MORE: Wall Street's latest sucker: Your hometown

Of course, some of this move may be justified. The bank's loan portfolio does appear to have improved - fewer new people are telling the bank they can't pay their loans. The question is, once again, how much. For example, in the bank's retail business alone, JPMorgan still has $8 billion in loans in which people have stopped paying. That's only down by 4% from a year ago. And CFO Doug Branstein told analysts not to expect any more reduction in reserves from credit cards, which means they probably took all the earnings juice they could get out of that business this quarter.

Put them together, and JPMorgan appears to have gotten a $2.9 billion boost from changes it made to its loss provisions. Impressive. Just $600 million of the Whale to go.

Now we get to the more esoteric moves. Mortgage servicing rights - the obligation that a bank takes on to collect payments and pass those along on the loans it sells to investors - are one of those assets that accountants call intangible. Banks hold those rights on their balance sheets as if they are worth something, but it's really an obligation, and no bank could actually sell it, at least not for much. Nonetheless, JPMorgan said in the second quarter, due to improved risk management - never mind the whole robo-signing thing - the value of its mortgage servicing rights jumped by $233 million, nearly 10 times the benefit the bank got from the same accounting maneuver a year ago. And we're down to $400 million.

Finally, the bank pulled another classic loss hiding move: Say it happened sometime else. Just before the bank released its earnings, it announced that it was restating its first quarter earnings. JPMorgan now claims more of the London Whale's trading losses happened in the first quarter, $459 million to be exact - or just slightly more than what Dimon needed to fill the gap - than it earlier thought.

And, voila, with that, the London Whale disappeared from sight, or at least from the horizon of JPMorgan's bottom line.

"I think they did as much manipulation as they could have to hide the loss," says Christopher Whalen, who follows bank stocks for Tangent Capital Partners. "Some businesses were strong, but I don't think they would have tried so hard to boost earnings if the London Whale didn't exist."

Feds-Arrest-Peregrine-CEO-After-215-Mill

2012-07-14T00:02:00.001+01:00

The Feds arrested Peregrine CEO Russell Wasendorf, Sr who attempted suicide four days ago after his brokerage went bankrupt losing $215 million in client assets.