MAS Censures 20 Banks on Traders’ Bids to Manipulate Rates

[Mi Amigo]

Oh dear. It looks like those 'merchant bankers' have been at it again (or so it is alleged)...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-1 ... rates.html

The banks have taken disciplinary action against the 133 traders found to have tried to rig the rates, with about three-quarters of them having resigned or been asked to leave their firms, MAS said. The traders who are still employed will be subject to disciplinary action, it said.

[JR8]

“While there was no conclusive finding the SIBOR, SOR and FX benchmarks were successfully manipulated, the traders’ conduct reflected a lack of professional ethics,â€Â

[Mi Amigo]

Well you're much more familiar with the way these organisations work that me, but the implication I took from the news was that a substantial number of people were fired / resigned / disciplined for attempting to manipulate rates. If so, the fact that they (apparently) didn't succeed doesn't make their alleged actions 'OK', does it?

Or are you suggesting that these people have been made escape goats (sorry morenangpinay, couldn't resist ) in some kind of attempt by the gahmen to be seen to be 'getting tough' on the banks? It just seems strange to me that the banks would fire / discipline all those people if there were no actual evidence that they had tried to manipulate rates. i.e. I'm working on the 'no smoke without fire' principle here, but do you think that other factors were at play?

Re your point about the golden goose, surely one shouldn't condone (alleged) wrongdoing in the pursuit of business success and profit?

To be clear, I'm asking the above questions in a non-judgemental way; I really don't know what actually happened, only what I read on the internet. But from what I've read so far, it does look to my untrained eye like something fishy was going on. Let's be honest - it wouldn't be the first time that some merchant bankers have been caught doing naughty things...

[JR8]

[quote=â€Â