Bankrupt Banker

Banks

A previously unpublished document from the Citizens Advice Bureau to the Financial Services Authority shows the paid-for accounts, costing on average around £15 per month, can lead to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.

Banks are 'mis-selling to the vulnerable'

A previously unpublished document from the Citizens Advice Bureau to the Financial Services Authority shows the paid-for accounts, costing o...

'Other

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.

'Other banks to face Libor revelations'

Senior managers at Barclays have warned staff in an internal memo that the Libor scandal will envelop other banks. The memo circulated on F...

Now

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.

Now banks face inquiry over their current account failings

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. T...

Del

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.

Del Missier to face MPs over Libor

The third member of the trio of top bankers ejected from Barclays over the Libor scandal will appear before the UK’s Treasury select committ...

U.S.

<h1></h1><address> </address><div><div><img alt="Barclays is at the center of an interest rate-fixing scandal." height="387" id="100000001645233" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/04/business/dbpix-barclays-bldg/dbpix-barclays-bldg-tmagArticle.jpg" width="592" />Carl Court/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images    Barclays is at the center of an interest rate-fixing scandal.</div>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.<div><div id="NYTMM_Embed915"><ul><li>Q. and A.: Understanding Libor</li></ul> </div> </div>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.</div>

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

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

Was the petrol price rigged too

Concerns are growing about the reliability of oil prices, after a report for the G20 found the market is wide open to “manipulation or disto...

Bankers no longer respect the rule of law.

The scandal engulfing the financial industry is yet another sign that our business leaders no longer respect the rule of law. <a href="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/615_Scales_of_Justice.jpg"><img alt="615_Scales_of_Justice.jpg" height="300" src="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/07/615_Scales_of_Justice-thumb-615x300-92974.jpg" width="615" /></a><div>Reuters</div>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.

Bankers no longer respect the rule of law.

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

Signs You May Need to Ditch Your Bank

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 Card2. 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 Make3. 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.

Signs You May Need to Ditch Your Bank

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

From $200 Million to $500K

<div><div><div></div></div><div><div id="___plusone_0"><img alt="From 200 Million to 500K Lessons from Diggs Slow Demise" src="http://www.entrepreneur.com/dbimages/blog/h1/digg-sold2.jpg" /></div></div></div><div id="article">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 Downfall2. 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.</div>

From $200 Million to $500K

Not long after launching in 2004, social news aggregation site Digg was heralded as tool that forever changed the nature of the news media. ...

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

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 blunderWe 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 hometownOf 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."

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

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 res...

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

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

U.S. investigates whether JPMorgan traders hid losses

federal criminal investigators are looking at people at JPMorgan in London, where the CIO's risky bets were placed. The criminal investigation began in earnest in the past few weeks after JPMorgan's internal investigation uncovered that CIO traders may have intentionally masked losses, said the source, who is not authorized to speak about the matter and declined to be identified. "I see little doubt that someone is going to get charged with fraud," said Bill Singer, a lawyer at Herskovits in New York who provides legal counsel to securities industry firms, and publishes the BrokeandBroker website. Authorities ranging from the FBI to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are probing the bank. The SEC could charge JPMorgan with weaknesses in oversight and internal controls, said James Cox, a securities law expert at Duke University. "I think the SEC will continue to look at 'What exactly did Jamie Dimon know and when did he know it?'" Cox said. An internal review found that some of the CIO traders appear to have deliberately ignored the massive size of their trades - and the difficulty in liquidating them - when valuing their positions. The values they reported ended up being too high, which is forcing JPMorgan to restate its first-quarter results. The bank is cooperating with authorities. The trading losses and possible deception from traders are a black eye for Dimon, who was respected for keeping his bank consistently profitable during the financial crisis. Dimon, who has criticized regulators for meddling too much with banks, has lost credibility because of difficulties in his own house. "How do we know there are not more roaches in the kitchen?" said Paul Miller, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets, referring to the maxim that seeing a single roach typically means there are far more hiding in the woodwork. The Chief Investment Office became infamous in May when JPMorgan said bad derivatives bets had triggered about $2 billion of paper losses, a figure that turned into $4.4 billion of actual losses in the second quarter. One trader in the CIO, Bruno Iksil, took big enough positions in the credit derivatives markets to earn the nickname "The London Whale." He made at least some of the big bets that caused trouble for the bank, and has since left JPMorgan, a source said on Friday. Ina Drew, who headed the CIO, has also left, and offered to give back as much of her pay as the bank was contractually entitled take back, said Dimon, whose pay could be taken back as well. A spokesman for the bank said JPMorgan had accepted Drew's offer. The bank said it had moved the bad trades from the CIO, which invests some of the company's excess funds, to its investment bank. JPMorgan was one of the inventors of credit derivatives, and its investment bank is one of the biggest traders of the product on Wall Street. The CIO will now focus on conservative investments, JPMorgan said. The bank has taken a number of other steps to prevent these types of losses from repeating, including changing the way it limits risk taking in the CIO's office. "People feel good that the loss is largely contained at this point," said Nancy Bush, a banking analyst at independent research firm NAB Research. JPMorgan said later on Friday that its former CIO risk officer, Irvin Goldman, had resigned. Goldman "behaved with integrity and we wish him well," JPMorgan said.

U.S. investigates whether JPMorgan traders hid losses

federal criminal investigators are looking at people at JPMorgan in London, where the CIO's risky bets were placed. The criminal investi...

J.P. Morgan Chase said traders appear to have hidden problems in a portfolio whose losses have ballooned to $5.8 billion

J.P. Morgan Chase JPM +5.96% & Co. said traders appear to have hidden problems in a portfolio whose losses have ballooned to $5.8 billion, the latest twist in an episode that has tested the reputation of Chief Executive James Dimon as one of Wall Street's soundest risk managers. A review of roughly 1 million e-mails and tens of thousands of voice tapes suggests traders within the once-obscure Chief Investment Office "may have been seeking to avoid showing the full amount of losses" during the first quarter by placing inaccurate prices on their positions, the bank said Friday. One trader, nicknamed the "London whale," may have been pressured by a boss to mark positions more aggressively, people close to the investigation said. WSJ's David Reilly pulls up a chair on Mean Street and discusses the idea that despite J.P. Morgan's Q2 loss announced on Friday, should CEO Jamie Dimon be seen as a hero? Photo: Getty Images. The discovery, made in recent days, prompted the company to restate earnings for the first quarter and admit to a "material weakness" within a unit that manages the bank's excess cash—embarrassments for J.P. Morgan, long considered one of the best-managed U.S. banks. Timeline: Tracking Trading at CIO View Interactive "This has shaken our company to the core," Mr. Dimon told analysts and investors Friday. Recap: The J.P. Morgan Call 'Maximum' Clawbacks Sought Deal Journal: Three Key Results Tracking the Trade: New 'Whale' Revelations Heard on the Street: J.P. Morgan's Cookie-Jar Quarter The largest U.S. bank tried to demonstrate Friday that the worst of the problem was in the rear-view mirror, reporting a $4.96 billion profit for the second quarter, down 8.7% from a year ago. The New York company said the results reflect solid performances in its retail, investment-banking and mortgage units. Second-quarter mortgage-loan originations jumped 29% from a year ago to $43.9 billion, while credit-card sales volume rose 12% from a year earlier to $96 billion. The company's investment bank was ranked first globally in fees. Enlarge Image Associated Press J.P. Morgan Chase CEO James Dimon enters the company headquarters Friday. The bank also cited an overhaul in personnel and risk controls within the Chief Investment Office, and announced that compensation would be clawed back from former CIO head Ina Drew and three London managers involved in the bad bets, without giving a total. Ms. Drew declined to comment. "It's time to move forward," Matt Zames, the new head of the CIO, said in a memo to employees. Investors reacted positively, pushing up shares of the bank $2.03, or 6%, to $36.07. Following J.P. Morgan's earnings call and details of their $5.8 billion loss, will investors be too jittery to invest in the stock in the long term? David Benoit reports on Markets Hub. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images) But it could take longer for J.P. Morgan Chase to lastingly convince investors that any risk-management weaknesses have been fixed and the losses are under control. The trading losses are far larger than the $2 billion to $3 billion of losses that the company two months ago said could result from the bungled trades; the $5.8 billion total is through Thursday. Chief Financial Officer Doug Braunstein said Friday that the troubled positions could still lead to additional losses of $700 million to $1.7 billion. Eight agencies are conducting probes into the losses, including the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Now Reporting Track the performances of 150 companies as they report and compare their results with analysts' estimates. Sort by date and industry. More photos and interactive graphics In addition, the second-quarter profit was boosted by one-time gains that won't likely recur in coming quarters, and revenue tumbled 17% from a year earlier. Overall, J.P. Morgan has lost $18 billion in market value since it shocked Wall Street on May 10 with the existence of trading losses. J.P. Morgan's assurances on Friday don't "eliminate the concern that this accident could be a predictor of future accidents," said Mike Mayo, a banking analyst with CLSA. "Maybe they are higher risk than we thought before. There is a nagging overhang that we might not know everything that we should know." The bank has been probing the losses for two months. But it was only in recent days that the bank became convinced that traders may have done more than make trading mistakes, according to two people close to the investigation. The company's report didn't name the traders, but one of the turning points came in an interview with one of them, Bruno Iksil, known as the London whale for his large trades, the people said. As part of its investigation, the bank said it "has recently identified concerns around the integrity of traders' marks," or the values placed on the traders' positions. The bank said "emails, voice tapes and other documents, supplemented by interviews, [are] suggestive of trader intent not to mark positions where they believed they could execute." The London Whale Claw Is Out for 'Whale' Officials July 11, 2012 J.P. Morgan plans to reclaim millions of dollars in stock from executives who were at the center of the bank's costly trading blunder. Dimon on the Hill: Cool and Contrite June 13, 2012 J.P. Morgan's chief, tarnished by trading losses, remains steadfast before Senate Banking Committee J.P. Morgan Knew of Risks June 12, 2012 Warning flags were raised two years ago about the trading desk that lost $2 billion. Inside J.P. Morgan's Blunder May 18, 2012 A behind-the-scenes account reveals that CEO Dimon blessed the concept behind the trads that cost the bank billions and stunned Wall Street. Bruno Iksil: From 'Caveman' to Whale May 17, 2012 Last year, J.P. Morgan's Iksil wagered large and won, but in 2012, his bets soured. J.P. Morgan's $2 Billion Blunder May 11, 2012 The nation's second-largest bank by assets admits losses on a massive trading bet gone wrong, a mistake CEO James Dimon calls "egregious" and "self-inflicted." The Original WSJ Article: 'London Whale' Rattles Debt Market April 6, 2012 The credit markets have been buzzing about the identity of a deep-pocketed trader dubbed 'the London Whale,' and some investors are placing heavy bets against him. How the London Whale story unfolded The two people close to the investigation say investigators didn't find a smoking gun suggesting potential malfeasance. But the evidence "painted a picture that made us uncomfortable," one of them said. Mr. Iksil received pressure from a boss to be more aggressive about certain valuations within an accepted range, one of the people said. Mr. Iksil's lawyer said his client "has done nothing wrong and will be exonerated." On Friday, executives offered the most detailed account to date of how the losses happened, attributing the fiasco to a combination of complacency, poor judgment and faulty risk controls. The portfolio—which featured outsize bets on certain corporate credit indexes—generated about $2 billion of profit from 2007 to 2011. Traders were asked in late 2011 to reduce the positions and instead put on other trades that increased the size of overall portfolio. The bank also singled out risk management within the Chief Investment Office for being "ineffective" and having "failed to meet expectations." Risk managers should have addressed the office's inadequate risk limits more quickly, challenged the office's leaders more forcefully and escalated more problems to management. The person who was named chief risk officer for the unit in late Janaury, Irv Goldman, has resigned from the bank, said a person familiar with the situation. Mr. Goldman couldn't be reached for comment. In January, certain risk limits within the office were breached, and yet in February Ms. Drew said in a presentation to Mr. Dimon and other senior officers that the reduction plan was on track. The office breached certain risk limits again in March, losses increased and Ms. Drew asked her traders to stop trading on March 23. After The Wall Street Journal reported the existence of the trades on April 5, Mr. Dimon asked for a review of the troubled portfolio. Ms. Drew told Mr. Dimon that the positions were likely to lose as much as $250 million in the second quarter and possibly even gain $350 million. A more extreme scenario called for losses two or three times as large as $250 million, said a person close to the investigation, but Messrs. Dimon and Braunstein were given "multiple assurances" that the position was manageable. On April 13 Mr. Dimon told investors that concerns about the trades were a "complete tempest in a teapot." On Friday, Mr. Dimon admitted that "we shot ourselves in the foot."

J.P. Morgan Chase said traders appear to have hidden problems in a portfolio whose losses have ballooned to $5.8 billion

J.P. Morgan Chase JPM +5.96% & Co. said traders appear to have hidden problems in a portfolio whose losses have ballooned to $5.8 billio...

Facebook's First Earnings Report Could Be a Huge Disappointment

Facebook (NYSE: FB ) may not enjoy the 8.7% sequential revenue growth most analysts say it will when the company reports second-quarter res...

Barclays Libor emails paint ugly picture

Ever feel like the financial markets are simply a rigged game where the house (i.e. the world's largest banks) always win? Reading text messages and emails between traders at Barclays (BCS) about their often successful attempts to manipulate global benchmarks for interest rates will only reinforce that belief. These traders influenced the pricing of the London Interbank Offered Rate or Libor, a benchmark that dictates the pricing of up to $800 trillion of securities (yes trillion) and several other key benchmarks between 2005 and 2009. Traders' emails and text messages were made public as part of a $453 million settlement Barclays with U.S. and U.K. regulators to settle its role in the Libor manipulation. Libor rates are reset daily by British banking regulators who receive quotes from up to 18 banks on what it costs them to borrow in the public markets each day. Interest rate swaps traders in New York and London asked Barclays employees and employees at other banks to move rates in directions that benefited their trading positions, according to the bank's settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Barclays Libor emails paint ugly picture

Ever feel like the financial markets are simply a rigged game where the house (i.e. the world's largest banks) always win? Reading text ...

Fiat to close Italy factory if Europe market slump continues

Auto giant Fiat will be forced to close down one of its factories in Italy if the European car market continues to slump, unless sales to the Unites States can be increased, the company's head said Wednesday. "If the uptake levels in Europe remain the same over the next 24 to 36 months, there will be one too many factories in Italy," Fiat head Sergio Marchionne was quoted as saying by the Corriere della Sera daily. "If we manage to orient production capacity towards the United States, the problem would disappear," he said, referring to a plan to increase the sales of cars produced in Italy to the United State, where the market is in better health. "We will continue to sustain investments in Italy based on the performance of the market here, which has never been this low," he said, as the automobile sector in Europe continues to be hit hard by the economic crisis. In Italy, new car sales slumped in June for the ninth month in a row, dropping 24.4 percent on a 12-month basis according to the transport ministry. Sales of new cars were down 19.73 percent in Italy in the first six months of the year, compared to the same period in 2011, the ministry said on Monday. The Fiat group, which includes the Lancia, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge brands, saw a 23.38 percent drop in sales in June on a 12-month basis. But the group's share of the market rose slightly to 30.7 percent, compared to 30.3 percent in June 2011. Fiat is currently benefitting from profit banked by its US partner Chrysler -- which saw sales jump 30 percent in May compared to a year earlier -- without which it would be in the red. In a reference to the legal problems the company has faced in Italy in attempting to streamline production and contracts in the face of some union resistance, Marchionne said: "We need tranquility to produce in Italy." Last month an Italian court ordered Fiat to hire 145 workers who are members of Italy's biggest metalworkers' union, after finding the company guilty of discrimination against them. Fiat said it will challenge the decision.

Fiat to close Italy factory if Europe market slump continues

Auto giant Fiat will be forced to close down one of its factories in Italy if the European car market continues to slump, unless sales to th...

Major banks say they are ready to go under

The US Federal Deposit Insurance and Federal Reserve released public summaries of plans for quick liquidation of nine of the world’s largest banks in the case of an emergency, without government bailouts. Complex financial firms with more than $250 billion in nonbank assets including J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, Barclays PLC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and UBS were the first to prepare the worst case scenarios by July 1. In total, about 125 banks are expected to submit plans to the regulators by the end of 2013. Public summaries reveal that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs plan to sell assets or stand-alone businesses to other financial firms, private-equity investors or insurance companies in the event of a collapse. Citigroup said its banking business could be split off from the parent company and recapitalized as a smaller bank. Credit Suisse plans to sell its businesses to hedge funds, banks and securities firms. Meanwhile Barclay’s paper is already out of date after the resignation Tuesday of CEO Bob Diamond and COO Jerry Del Missier. Banks are required to give the government the tools to wind them down in a case of failure under provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law designed to end the practice of bailing out “too big to fail” banks by the state. The act aims to secure the financial system from turmoil such as followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns in 2008.

Major banks say they are ready to go under

The US Federal Deposit Insurance and Federal Reserve released public summaries of plans for quick liquidation of nine of the world’s largest...

Bob Diamond resigns as Barclays chief

Bob Diamond resigns as Barclays chief Bob Diamond has resigned as chief executive of Barclays with immediate effect, bowing to calls to go o...

Barclays bank chairman Marcus Agius to resign

Marcus Agius is to resign as the chairman of Barclays in the wake of the Libor lending rate scandal. There will be an announcement on Monday morning, BBC business editor Robert Peston says. It comes after Barclays was fined £290m ($450m) for attempting to manipulate the Libor inter-bank lending rate. Earlier, it emerged the Royal Bank of Scotland had sacked four traders over their alleged involvement in the Libor-fixing scandal. The dismissals happened at the end of last year. Barclays was fined after the Financial Services Authority (FSA) found its traders had lied about the interest rate other banks were charging it for loans. Investigations are also under way at RBS, HSBC, Citigroup and UBS. Giving a lower reading than the true rate would give the impression other banks thought it was a better risk to lend to than it was. Libor (London Inter Bank Offered Rate) is the rate at which banks in London lend money to each other. Diamond support Robert Peston said Mr Agius's decision was not wholly unexpected as he was first in the firing line as far as shareholders were concerned and Barclays had been thinking it needed a new chairman for some time. He said some shareholders did not think Mr Agius, who had been chairman for six years, was tough enough to stand up to Barclays boss Bob Diamond, who was regarded as very talented but also very headstrong. Mr Diamond has insisted he will not resign over the scandal. He is due to appear before the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday, with Mr Agius set to follow on Thursday. In a letter to the committee last week, Mr Diamond condemned the inappropriate behaviour of a "small number" of employees who had tried to make profits for their own benefit. In his open letter to Andrew Tyrie MP, the chairman of the Commons Treasury Committee, Mr Diamond pointed out that authorities found no evidence that knowledge of the manipulation, for which it has been fined £290m, went any higher than "immediate desk supervisors". Our business editor said he believed Barclays board had "thrown its weight" behind Mr Diamond, considering him to be the best man to clean-up the bank's culture. Earlier, the head of the Financial Services Authority, Lord Turner, said the FSA's fine for Barclays was its strongest currently available sanction and the law should be tightened to tackle misbehaviour in banking. He told the BBC's Andrew Marr programme there should be a presumption a director of a failed bank should not work in the industry again. Business Secretary Vince Cable is considering criminal sanctions for bank directors. He said those in charge of failed banks should face prosecution - a view echoed by Lord Turner. Ministers have announced an independent review of the Libor workings, which will be established next week and report by the end of summer. On Saturday, Labour leader Ed Miliband called for a public inquiry into the customs and practices of the banking industry.

Barclays bank chairman Marcus Agius to resign

Marcus Agius is to resign as the chairman of Barclays in the wake of the Libor lending rate scandal. There will be an announcement on Monda...

Top