Type the topic in any language to check out real time results of Who's Talking on Social Media Sites

• Twitter + Facebook
• Twitter
• Facebook
• Flickr
• Youtube
• Picasa
• Google+
• Digg
• Blog
• Forums
• Yahoo Answers

Most recent 17 results returned for keyword: Marcus Agius (Search this on MAP)

Upside : The future of financial services, and why we started Upside There are a lot of reasons we started Upside... The future of financial services, and why we started Upside There are a lot of reasons we started Upside. Mostly we want to help people reach their goals—like retirement, saving for their children’s education, or buying a home. We also want to be a part of some pretty dramatic and positive changes that are taking place in the financial services sector. Before starting Upside, I spent five years working with big financial services institutions. I was at Barclays when the Group CEO, Bob Diamond, got caught up in the LIBOR rate-setting scandal that led to his and Chairman Marcus Agius’s resignations. At the time the announcement came, I was with the CEO of the UK retail bank, and his sense of shame and disappointment was obvious. Diamond was trying hard to change the culture at Barclays, but he was also a big part of the bank when its culture and behavior was a bit less scrupulous. That let us down. The employees of Barclays certainly aren’t alone in their sense of disappointment. Public frustration with the pursuit of short-term profits and excessive bonuses has made it impossible for the banks to avoid serious change—and rightly so. As of 2012, less than half of Americans trust the financial services sector, and financial advisors are the least trusted members of the sector (PDF download). Ouch! Even though it hurts to read those numbers, it’s one of the reasons we started Upside. There’s a real opportunity to show people that we really can do good, but that requires a different kind of company and a different approach. We think that using a genuine customer focus and innovative investment guidance are going to change the game. We hope you’ll come back soon and often to find out how! 3 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Henry Sullivan : The LIBOR Scandal: Not that Big a Deal? Former Barclays chairman Marcus Agius faced the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee on the LIBOR scandal in London in July. Photo by Jason Alden/Bloomberg via Getty Images. One of the biggest busi... 4 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Ravi Sahu : Barclays chairman Marcus Agius Barclays chairman Marcus Agius Barclays chairman Marcus Agius resigns over rate rigging scandal Barclays chairman Marcus Agius quit and said an interest rate rigging scandal had dealt "a devastating... 5 months ago - Via Google+ - View - ivailo kirilov : Marcus Agius Resignation for His Direct Involvement in Rate- Fixing Scandal | Marcus Agius chairman of Barclays given his resignations for having his direct involvement in the interest rate-rigging scandal. 7 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Rob Colley : FSA flagged up Diamond flaws | City A.M. BOB Diamond and Barclays chairman Marcus Agius were both warned in 2010 that the bank’s new chief executive could be undermined by the Libor-fixing investigation, 8 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Linda Johnson : Following Barclays' Scandal, Stiglitz says 'Send Bankers to Jail' This undated file photo made available by Barclays Bank Monday July 2, 2012 shows the Chairman of United Kingdom-based Barclays bank Marcus Agius in London. The chairman of Barclays announced his resi... 8 months ago - Via Google+ - View - POWKEL : Barclays Named New CEO on Thursday Barclays named retail banker Antony Jenkins as chief executive on... Barclays Named New CEO on Thursday Barclays named retail banker Antony Jenkins as chief executive on Thursday, signalling a shift from riskier investment banking as it tries to recover from the interest rate-rigging scandal that brought down his predecessor. Criticised by regulators for an aggressive culture under limelight-loving American Bob Diamond, Barclays must now decide how far to curb the investment bank he built and which generates most of the British bank's profits. His soft-spoken manner contrasting with the brash Diamond's, Jenkins said Barclays had made mistakes and had to change to get beyond them. "Getting there will require nothing short of the transformation of how we operate the business," he said. He told Reuters: "It would be wrong to ignore some of the things that have happened in the past. That does require us to modify the culture." Jenkins inherits a daunting in-tray. He was appointed hours after Britain's fourth biggest bank by market value said fraud prosecutors had launched a criminal probe into dealings with Qatar in 2008. That comes just two months after it was fined over $450 million for manipulating Libor benchmark interest rates, prompting Diamond's resignation. Jenkins, 51, started as a graduate trainee at Barclays in 1983. After spells elsewhere, he returned six years ago to turn around its credit card business before taking on all its retail and business banking. He had been seen as the leading internal candidate to succeed Diamond, although some investors had questioned his lack of investment banking experience and would have preferred an external hire to mark a bigger change. INVESTMENT BANK DOUBT The investment bank has been at the heart of the firm's recent troubles, but it delivered 54 percent of the group's underlying profit in the first half of 2012. "The fact that he's come up the ranks in the retail and commercial world means he'll take a very fresh view of the investment bank," Oriel Securities analyst Mike Trippitt said. "He's a very capable guy." Jenkins declined to outline plans for the investment bank. Barclays would only be following other global banks in scaling back investment banking at a time of tougher economic conditions and additional regulation, but there was no guarantee of dramatic changes. They would be "incremental rather than revolutionary" said Jason Napier, analyst at Deutsche Bank. Barclays shares closed down just over 1.5 percent compared to a 1.2 percent fall in the European banking index. Its shares are down over 4 percent since the Libor scandal blew up, valuing the bank at 23 billion pounds. In style, there is little doubt Jenkins will mark a contrast with the flashier Diamond, who relished being photographed handing out the trophies for England's top football league, which the bank sponsors. Jenkins dislikes football. Known as "AJ", he prefers tennis and running and likes to keep a low profile. The Oxford University graduate, who grew up in the central English town of Stoke-on-Trent, left Barclays in 1989 and spent 16 years at U.S. rival Citi in London and New York before returning to a bank whose origins date back over 300 years. STABILITY "First is a period of stabilisation," Jenkins said, promising to work with investors, politicians and regulators, who often bristled at the approach of Diamond, who once famously said it was time for bankers to stop apologising. A long-term plan should come in the first quarter of next year, Jenkins said. He set less ambitious financial targets than his predecessor - aiming to deliver return on equity (RoE) above cost of capital of about 11.5 percent rather than use the absolute RoE target of 13 percent set by Diamond. RoE is a key measure of profitability and many banks are struggling to match their cost of capital. The bank's adjusted RoE was 9.9 percent in the first half of this year. Some financial analysts doubted whether Jenkins would bring about a deep change in culture. "At least he comes from the side of the bank that was blameless in the recent troubles," said Jane Coffey, head of equities at Royal London Asset Management. Given his fondness for technology and gadgets, Jenkins may be more likely to accelerate change in retail banking as it is transformed by developments such as contactless card payment and mobile phone money transfers. The appointment of Jenkins fills the second of the top two posts left vacant at Barclays by the Libor scandal. Outgoing chairman Marcus Agius, who also resigned over the rate-rigging, will be replaced in November by former Morgan Stanley advisor David Walker. His background could appease anyone worried about the future of the investment bank or the need for an outsider to bring change. Jenkins will be paid a salary of 1.1 million pounds, but could take home 8.6 million including bonus, long-term incentives and pension - or 29 percent less than his predecessor's maximum. To think through a problem, he puts on jazz or classical music, he once said. "If I have a big meeting that I need to get pumped up for I'll put on rock music," he added. Barclays names retail boss Jenkins as CEO | Reuters 8 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Obaid Karki : Truckload of Parliamentary Vocabulary with no Substance outta Mervyn King,  the Anglosexual Governor ... Truckload of Parliamentary Vocabulary with no Substance outta Mervyn King,  the Anglosexual Governor of Bank of England, and Adair Turner, Chair of Financial Services Authority, under questioning by Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP and chair of House of Commons treasury committee. It looks to me as if BoE & FSA wholesaled Rigged Libor that Barclays Retailed Worldwide. Geinther & Bernanke flagged it: RIGGED-LIBOR-TO-BE-REGULATED IN CASE WE EVER OVERFUCKED. Nevertheless Bob Diamond ain’t scapegoat but a Genius exploited to Coerce Gossips. Here’s the deal Barclays Rigged $25T in five years and fined only $450M. How about that? What a Fucking culture? Here is Some Mind-steroid-Must-Read from Terence Corcoran Financial Post: U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner Wednesday bounced the Libor football back to the Bank of England and the U.K. Financial Services Authority, which is where it belongs. The score so far: Team U.S. 2, Bank of England 0. Asked about Libor, Mr. Geithner said that as far back as early 2008, when he headed the New York Federal Reserve, he said: “We gave them very specific detailed changes” to the London interbank offered rate (Libor) system. “If more of those would have been adopted sooner, you would have limited the risk.” Of course, there is no clear evidence yet that any great Libor scandal exists or how big any risks actually were. Whatever happened four to seven years ago, and all of it was predicted or acknowledged as a reality or a possibility at the time. What the regulators in New York and London thought would be a minor problem in 2007 and 2008 is now being treated as the financial crime of the century, with Barclays Bank singled out with a US$450-million fine and a purge of top executives. There are two aspects to the Libor affair. The first is the attempt by low-level traders to manipulate Libor rates between 2005 and 2007. The second is the low-ball submission of Libor rates by banks during the 2007-08 financial crisis to avoid being seen as risky institutions. Financial regulators and authorities in the United Kingdom knew as far back as 2008 and earlier that trader attempts to fiddle with Libor were likely taking place. They also knew that banks were juggling their rate submissions during the financial crisis. But they did nothing to stop such practices, because at the time they considered them to be minor problems. Even Mr. Geithner’s proposed Libor reforms carried little sense of urgency, despite the fact the New York Fed had been tipped by Barclays staff and other whistleblowers that Libor rates were out of line with the market. The N.Y. Fed says that in the fall of 2007 and early 2008 there “were indications of problems with the accuracy of Libor reporting.” A N.Y. Fed summary of events four years ago makes it clear everybody knew what was going on. “Suggestions that some banks could be underreporting their Libor in order to avoid appearing weak were present in anecdotal reports and mass-distribution emails, including from Barclays, as well as in a December 2007 phone call, with Barclays noting that reported Libors appear unrealistically low.” The Fed has released transcripts of these early emails and phone calls. At the Bank of England in May of 2008, a report to deputy governor Paul Tucker highlighted every element of the current Libor affair. “The Libor problem has two fundamental sources: the nature of the fixing process (a survey, not a traded rate), and its transformation from a measure of London money-market conditions to the basis of a global derivatives market.” The 2008 report to the Bank of England’s deputy governor also states that “there is a long-standing perception that Libor … is open to distortion; panel banks have no obligation to trade or to have traded at the rates that they submit, so it is a least plausible that these are influenced by commercial incentives.” But this plausible development was seen as neutral over the long term, since they might “only have a marginal effect, and could bias Libor different ways at different times.” But for reasons that are not entirely clear, the same oversight institutions, particularly the Bank of England and the British Financial Services Authority, now seek to turn previously tolerated Libor flaws into crimes of the century. Today, U.K. officials are distancing themselves from any previous knowledge. Appearing before the treasury committee of the British House of Commons last week, Bank of England governor Mervyn King was asked if he knew the Libor manipulation worked for the benefit of traders. “No,” he said. “Again, it took three years for the regulators to find out that it was being done.” It stretches credibility that the bank had no ideas of how trader pressure might work. Pressed further by Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom, Mr. King said: “We are not an investigative body — that is the regulators’ job. We have only seen these accusations — or reports, rather — in the three regulatory bodies for two weeks.” Then he said that “my conclusion is that a system that is based on self-reporting, where submissions of the rate that people think they can borrow at based on their own judgment, is one that can clearly be manipulated by collusion between submitters.” Documents show, however, that the Bank of England and regulators in the U.K. resisted pushes to participate in Libor reforms. In a memo to the governor’s office in June, 2008, staff delivered a waffling review of how and when reforms should take place, leaving the process of reform in the hands of the British Bankers’ Association, which ran the Libor process. “We do not think that central banks should be formally involved in the Libor panels and processes, but we do think that we should maintain a watching brief.” The brief ends: “Is the governor content with the proposed strategy set out above please?” A handwritten note across the top of the memo from Mr. King says: “I am broadly content with the approach directed here.” Having dodged Libor four years ago, the governor of the Bank of England is now dodging responsibility and instead is laying blame on Barclays and any other bankers the bank can lay its hands on. The same is true of the Financial Services Authority. The end result was the extraordinary moves by the bank and the FSA to remove Bob Diamond as CEO of Barclays. It is clear that FSA head Adair Turner and Mr. King, using the slipperiest of methods, orchestrated Bob Diamond’s departure from Barclays. In the transcript nearby, Lord Turner explains how he and Mr. King sought to force Mr. Diamond to resign by pressing Barclays chairman Marcus Agius. “Let me be clear,” Lord Turner says he told Mr. Agius. “We have not found anything against Bob Diamond, so we are not in a position to give, and we are not giving, any instruction or direction that we are not considering him fit.” A more weaselly bureaucratic Yes Minister episode has rarely been recorded in public. In short, Mr. Diamond was forced to resign for political and regulatory reasons over a scandal that he did nothing to create and which, in the final analysis, appears to be far from the financial crime of the century now portrayed by the media, politicians and regulators.  Mr. Diamond and Barclays appear as the victims in a Libor coverup.  Meanwhile, Mr. King at the Bank of England, having voiced his central banker’s contentedness with Libor dithering in 2008, has now called for central banks to seize control of Libor reform at a meeting of central bankers in September. Terence Corcoran: The Libor fixes that weren’t Edited excerpt from testimony by Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, and Adair Turner, chair of the Financial Services Authority, under questioning by Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP and chair of the House of Commons treasury committee, on July 17. The questions deal with the behind-the-scenes role of the FSA and the Bank of England prior to the resignations of Barclays chairman Marcus Agius and CEO Bob Diamond Tyrie You told us: “Over the weekend [of June 30-July 1] Marcus Agius decided that he should himself resign.” I am reading from the uncorrected transcript. “I thought that was an honourable decision. It was, however, a decision that surprised me.” Had you made it clear in your conversation with Marcus Agius that you were referring, in your expression of concerns about Barclays, to the chief executive? Turner Yes, absolutely clear. The discussion I had with Marcus Agius was about the position of Bob Diamond. I said, “I’m sure you are considering whether you can continue with Bob Diamond as CEO,” and I said, “Let me be clear. We have not found anything against Bob Diamond, so we are not in a position to give, and we are not giving, any instruction or direction that we do not consider him fit and proper or appropriate to do this job, but you have to think about whether he” – it was very clearly “he” – “is the right person to lead the substantive change which is required in the culture, given his association with some of the things in the past.” I also stressed – I think it is an important thing – that they needed to think about whether they thought he was capable of leading that substantive change substantively, but also about whether the external world would perceive that, because I think perception is part of the reality in these circumstances and it was something they had to take into account. I said, “You have to think about whether that is something which Bob Diamond will find impossible to do.”… So it was absolutely clear we were talking about the role of Bob Diamond. Tyrie Was there any scope at all for a reasonable man to misunderstand what you were saying? Turner No. That we were talking about Bob Diamond was absolutely clear. I can remember one thing I said, which stuck in my mind. I said, “One thing you’ll have to think about is whether Bob as a brand is just holed below the water.” I don’t know whether I used the phrase “holed below the water,” but I basically said “whether Bob the brand is now something which isn’t going to work.” So there can have been no doubt that we were having a conversation about whether Bob Diamond was the person substantively to lead the change which was required…. Tyrie So you were handing the chairman of Barclays a revolver and you were telling him to go and shoot his chief executive? Turner No, I don’t think that is quite right. I think that’s an arresting way of putting it. I think I was doing precisely what I’ve said I was doing. I was saying, “We are not giving you a direction, but this is the issue you have to think about as a board.” Tyrie On the basis of what you said, though, where is the scope for the bul-let to miss? What course of action – Turner I think if they had really come back with a compelling answer as to why they believed that Bob Diamond was right, we might have been convinced by that. At at the end of that conversation I rang [Andrew Bailey, another FSA executive] fairly immediately afterwards and said, “Look, I would be quite surprised if the net effect is not that Bob Diamond resigns.”  Tyrie So you thought that you probably had handed over a revolver?  Turner I thought that the most likely result would be that Bob Diamond would resign.  Tyrie But in fact he did take the revolver and he decided to shoot himself.  Turner Yes, and as I said last night, I think that was an honourable thing to do. I think Mr. Agius thought it was the right thing to do. It was not what I was expecting him to do, and I have to be blunt: I did not think it was the most sensible decision in the circumstances. But we were not informed beforehand of his intention to do that. Tyrie Why was it, given that you are the regulator, that the governor of the bank got involved? [W]hy didn’t you handle this issue to its conclusion as the chairman of the FSA? Turner I thought it was appropriate for the governor to see Mr. Agius and to put over a message as well, and it was a message which the governor and I discussed in the course of – Tyrie Why? He has no regulatory authority. Turner The role of the Bank of England, in terms of the need for banks to feel that they have the confidence of the Bank of England, I think is something which has continued, despite the regulatory changes of 1997…. I do not see a problem with the governor of the Bank of England choosing to see the chairman and chief executive, if they want, or the chairman in this case, in order to express a point of view – a point of view which we had discussed in the course of the afternoon and were fully agreed on. Tyrie Well, that was long as a reply, but rather less clear…. BoE & FSA wholesaled Rigged Libor that Barclays Retailed Worldwide. Geinther & Bernanke flagged it: RIGGED-LIBOR-TO-BE-REGULATED IN CASE WE EVER OVERFUCKED. If 1st Amendment on YouTube is Scam, Spam & Deceptive then you had Attention of a Narcissist who is Digging USA Grave. Google must find him & fire him. First they ignore you, then they laugh a... 9 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Positions and Promotions : David Walker appointed to succeed Marcus Agius as chairman David Walker appointed to succeed Marcus Agius as chairman David Walker appointed to succeed Marcus Agius as chairman - Who is promoted - Positions and Promotions - The web magazine for top managers Magazine for top managers and their free time 9 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Claire Robertson : A Five Point Plan for Barclays A Five Point Plan for Barclays A Five Point Plan for Barclays The British bank urgently needs to restore its relationship with the U.K. financial authorities after a damaging row that led to the departure of previous Chairman Marcus Agius and Chief Executive Bob Diamond. Mr. Walker's long career as a Treasury and Bank of England official and ... 9 months ago - Via Reshared Post - View - UK Progressive Magazine and Denis Campbell : Barclays names 72 year old Sir David Walker as new chairman http://bit.ly/O8GoGp Barclays names 72 year old Sir David Walker as new chairman http://bit.ly/O8GoGp Barclays names Sir David Walker as new chairman Sir David Walker, 72, replaces Marcus Agius as Barclays' new £750,000 a year chairman following Libor scandal 9 months ago - Via HootSuite - View - OnlyStrategic : David Walker appointed Barclays chairman Opinion Barclays appointed Sir David Walker as its next chairman. He will take over from Marcus Agius on November 1st this year. Walker is currently senior advisor to Morgan Stanley International and is a pre... 9 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Thudder & Wicks : David #Walker to succeed Marcus #Agius as #Barclays Chairman David #Walker to succeed Marcus #Agius as #Barclays Chairman 9 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Brainstorm Mi : Criminal banking cartel dominates US, British governments Fri Aug 3, 2012 9:57AM GMT By Webster G. ... Criminal banking cartel dominates US, British governments Fri Aug 3, 2012 9:57AM GMT By Webster G. Tarpley ...the US and British banking systems are indeed parasitical criminal enterprises which serve no positive social purpose, but which absorb government and other resources in such a way as to make economic recovery in their respective nations impossible." A series of enormous financial scandals over the past few months provides new proof of the existence of an international banking cartel in the form of an ongoing criminal enterprise devoted to market manipulation, money laundering and embezzlement, and enjoying the collusion of the US and British governments at the highest level. The LIBOR scandal may well represent the biggest corruption case in the history of the world. Every morning at 11 a.m. UK time, 16 leading banks operating in the City of London report, under the auspices of the British Bankers’ Association, the rate of interest that they would expect to pay to borrow money from another bank. Of these 16 numbers, the four highest and the four lowest are removed from consideration, and the remaining eight are averaged together.  The result is LIBOR, meaning the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate, which is published by Thomson Reuters at 11:30 a.m. London time, and which represents the main point of reference for short-term interest rates around the world. The interest rates paid on almost $1 quadrillion ($1,000 trillion) of Eurodollar contracts, interest rate swaps, and various other derivatives are based directly on LIBOR. This entire process is almost completely unregulated by government agencies, relying instead on the word of honor of bankers who have repeatedly shown that they are predators and liars.  The banks taking part in the LIBOR fixing include Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Lloyds Bank TSB (which absorbed HBOS in January 2009), Bank of America, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, UBS, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Westdeutsche Landesbank, Société Générale of France, Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UJF, Norinchukin of Japan, Royal Bank of Canada, and Rabobank of the Netherlands. The list of LIBOR participants is actually a membership list of the world’s “too big to fail” banking cartel of the most powerful - and the most insolvent - financial faction on the planet.  As early as 2007, Deputy Governor Paul Tucker of the Bank Of England was aware that some banks were reporting that they could borrow money at interest rates which were much lower than what they were really forced to pay. These banks were trying to conceal how close to bankruptcy they actually were, in the hopes of avoiding panic withdrawals by depositors. Sometimes, banks attempted to drive LIBOR up because of certain speculative positions they had taken. International financial authorities like the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements attempted to cover up the scandal, but it finally exploded into public view in March 2012. Evidence in the form of e-mails showing a conspiracy to manipulate LIBOR emerged first in regard to Barclays Bank, which was fined $200 million by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $160 million by the US Department of Justice, and 60,000,000 Pounds by the British Financial Services Authority. Barclays Chairman Marcus Agius was forced to quit, as was Chief Executive Officer Robert Diamond. But there were no criminal charges.  Timothy Geithner, who is currently Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, was in 2008 the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the flagship of the US Federal Reserve System. Geithner’s testimony at congressional hearings showed that he had done nothing to stop the criminal abuse of LIBOR, but he attempted to escape responsibility by saying it was up to the British to take the lead. Most importantly, no US or British official did anything to warn the public about the biggest financial fraud of all time. The central banks and government agencies, which are supposed to act as regulators, have all been captured and put into the service of the banks they are supposed to be overseeing.  It is impossible to imagine that Barclays Bank acted alone. Because of the way the LIBOR process is structured, a single bank cannot hope to manipulate the rate. Therefore, there had to be a conspiracy embracing most or all of the 16 LIBOR banks. With these revelations, a final and conclusive case emerges that the US and British banking systems are indeed parasitical criminal enterprises which serve no positive social purpose, but which absorb government and other resources in such a way as to make economic recovery in their respective nations impossible.  Because LIBOR had been faked, many investors around the world, including pension funds and individuals, received smaller payments on various investments tied to LIBOR. Many of these investors will now sue the 16 banks in court, demanding payment of restitution plus punitive damages. Berkshire Bank of New York City is typical of the smaller financial institutions who now want payment for what they lost through the cheating. The City of Baltimore, Maryland is suing LIBOR banks. Deutsche Bank is being dragged into court by investors who say they lost money on Japanese yen investments governed by LIBOR. New legal actions are being filed every day, and it is already clear that the LIBOR scandal will generate more financial lawsuits than any other event in recent years. As for criminal action, the British Serious Fraud Office and the US Department Of Justice have a shameful record of leading criminal bankers get away with murder, with no penalty.  HSBC: Money launderers for al-Qaeda and Mexican drug cartels  The depth of bank corruption was further illustrated in July 2012 by a scandal involving HSBC, one of the LIBOR banks and by some measures the second largest bank in the world. HSBC has been called before the U.S. Congress to answer charges that this bank assisted Mexican drug lords in laundering billions of dollars of their profits, provided financial infrastructure for international terrorism, and routinely ignored US financial sanctions.  One beneficiary was a Saudi bank accused by some US officials of providing financial services for al Qaeda. The Mexican branch of HSBC is accused of providing these services by way of US dollar accounts located in the Cayman Islands, an offshore banking center in the Caribbean which one senator said was “known for secrecy and money laundering.” (US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has parked some $30 million of his personal fortune in 12 Cayman Islands accounts.) HSBC, feeling that too big to fail also means too big to jail, wants to be allowed to apologize, and then get back to business as usual. So far, no US regulator has filed for criminal charges. HSBC is the current form of the Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation, infamous for decades for its complicity in laundering the proceeds of international narcotics trafficking through the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. Between 1839 in 1861, the British fought three Opium Wars to prevent China from blocking the importation of narcotics manufactured by the British East India Company in India. The predecessors of HSBC were historically implicated in that drug trafficking. Today, the CIA runs the drugs and the Wall Street banks launder the proceeds.  Jon Corzine and MF Global  More light was thrown on Anglo-American banking practices by the November 2011 bankruptcy of MF Global, a global financial derivatives broker known for risky transactions including the purchase agreements or repos. As MF Global approached bankruptcy, almost $900 million was removed from the trading accounts of individual customers, and was used by someone in the MF Global management to cover trading losses.  The prime suspect was Jon Corzine, a friend of Obama and a leading politician of the Democratic Party. Corzine had become rich during his time at Goldman Sachs, the classic predatory Wall Street firm. Helped along by his own millions, he had become US Senator from New Jersey, and then Governor of New Jersey. Shortly after leaving office in early 2010, Corzine became the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of MF Global.  Corzine has repeatedly denied any role in using the $900 million stolen from customer accounts to try to keep MF Global from going bankrupt. But, in March 2012, the Bloomberg news service reported that congressional investigators had found an MF Global internal email stating that Corzine had issued “direct instructions” to embezzle the money belonging to customers and use it to help the management avoid bankruptcy.  So far, no criminal charges have been made against Corzine, who was listed as Obama’s top Wall Street fundraiser at the moment MF Global went bankrupt. At that point, Corzine had gathered (or “bundled”) over $500,000 for Obama’s reelection. It is widely assumed that Obama’s Justice Department is reluctant to bring charges against Corzine during an election campaign in which Obama needs every dollar he can get to match Romney’s superiority in fundraising. The result for the American people is public corruption and plutocratic power. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/03/254175/criminal-banking-cartel-dominates-us-uk/ Criminal banking cartel dominates US, UK Iran's television network, broadcasting in English round-the-clock. Based in Tehran. 9 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Achala nilanka : Online infomation of loans: Marcus Agius might have to face investors This week, the name, Sir Mike Rake, can come together to stop the fall of the scandal of investors, and the rapid rate of the width between banks in London is to save the face of other evidence of pho... 9 months ago - Via Google+ - View - Reputation Rhino : Our take on the Barclays LIBOR scandal #ORM Our take on the Barclays LIBOR scandal #ORM Inside the Barclays LIBOR Scandal Even if you’re tired of reading about Wall Street greed and financial fraud, you may want wake up to read about the latest scandal to hit the global banking industry. Barclays Chairman Marcus Agius, ... 10 months ago - Via Google+ - View - James Clair Lewis : #Barclay's Chief Executive #Bob-Diamond has stepped down amid growing political and public pressure due... #Barclay's Chief Executive #Bob-Diamond has stepped down amid growing political and public pressure due to the interest rate fixing scandal. Diamond resigned as chief executive as well as a director at the bank with immediate effect, Barclay's said. "The external pressure placed on Barclay's has reached a level that risks damaging the franchise -- I cannot let that happen," Diamond said in a statement. Last week Barclay's #paid-$450 million to settle an investigation by British and American regulators over the bank's involvement in a conspiracy to rig interbank rates between 2005 and 2009. Watch the video: GLOBAL BANKING ELITE: Barclays Bob Diamond CEO resignes, allegations of SCAMS he should go to JAIL GLOBAL BANKING ELITE: Barclays Bob Diamond CEO resignes, allegations of SCAMS he should go to JAIL Barclays Chief Executive Bob Diamond has stepped down amid growing political and public pressure due to the interest rate fixing scandal. Diamond resigned as chief executive as well as a director at the bank with immediate effect, Barclay's said. "The external pressure placed on Barclays has reached a level that risks damaging the franchise -- I cannot let that happen," Diamond said in a statement. Last week Barclay's paid $450 million to settle an investigation by British and American regulators over the bank's involvement in a conspiracy to rig interbank rates between 2005 and 2009. Diamond was the second high-profile figure at Barclay's, who became a victim of the rate fixing scandal. On Monday Barclay's Chairman Marcus Agius resigned, saying the scandal dealt "a devastating blow" to the bank's reputation. But Agius is to stay in office as long as the search for a new chairman continued. He would also lead the search for a new chief executive. "They lost their chairman Monday and they've lost their chief executive on Tuesday. So if I were a Barclay's shareholder I would be worried. And I slightly suspect that some of the other banks are beginning to question -- ok if we get caught at having done something wrong," Chris Roebuck from the Cass Business School in London told RT. "I think in the next three months we would see in the next 3 months 20 chief executives of global banks having to resign," adds Chris Roebuck. Currently more than a dozen major banks such as America's JPMorgan and Citigroup, Germany's Deutsche Bank, Swiss UBS and Credit Suisse and British HSBC are under investigation into alleged rate manipulation.Meanwhile Barclay's shares rebounded 4.56% after the reports on Diamond's resignation. Last week Barclay's saw its share fall 15% as the bank's involvement in interest rate manipulation was revealed. British Chancellor George Osborne welcomed the resignation of Diamond. "I think it's the right decision for Barclays, I think it's the right decision for the country because we need Barclays Bank focused on lending to our economy and not distracted by this argument about who should be in charge," Osborne told the BBC. Tags: 2012 rtglobalreport news media zion zionism Barclays Scams Bob Diamond CEO economic economy gold silver bullion global banking elite attorney insurance claim credit cards loans home equity loans mortgage lawyer scams scandal jail prison fraud criminal world finance company UKs banking system US Britain Revolution low interest loans quick money currency recovery trading senior executives corruption vital times profits gross profit net profits zombie banks business homeowners falsified system efficient failing banks administration real economy bonus scheme savings defraud politicians politics 10 months ago - Via Reshared Post - View -