Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The Guardian are attempted to link Libor rigging with cash problems for the NHS trusts which signed idiotic PFI deals. I guess they didn't stop to think that the blame should go on the incompetent government idiots who negotiated deals in the first place, not to mention the fact that the general thrust of manipulation was to LOWER the Libor rate to make the banks look more credit worthy.
An absolutely woeful article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/libor-rate-rigging-hospital-crisis#start-of-comments
An absolutely woeful article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/libor-rate-rigging-hospital-crisis#start-of-comments
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 20
|
By:
Not once in this whole article do they estimate how much the Libor fiddle has cost the NHS.
The say ... "Bromley, are increasing at about £1m a year partly because of complex financial instruments known as derivatives that are based on the Libor rate." So would the repayment have been £999,900 without the fiddle? They have just linked 2 bad things. 1) Labour's PFI deals were often a bad deal for taxpayer 2) Banks were naughty with Libor. Conclusion - banks cost the NHS money. |
|
By:
You fail to understand, java.
THe NHS entered into a debt, the repayment of which was linked to Libor. The person they contracted with fraudulently altered Libor rates. It is both prima facie fraud and a breach of contract. The law is very clear on the question of fraud, the perpetrator is not entitled to enforce an agreement that has been subject to that fraud. Whether the rates went up, down or sideways; it doesn't matter. |
|
By:
Fair play to the Guardian readers who have left comments. Most seem to think this article is very poor.
There is the normal "Torys started PFIs" but generally most comments blame the poor PFI deals on the government at the time. |
|
By:
Sib - that is a valid argument but the Guardian did not mention their thought process.
I assume that would only apply with PFI deals made with Barclays & the other banks who have pleaded guilty? |
|
By:
"The person they contracted with fraudulently altered Libor rates"
Disagree completely. The hospital entered into a deal with Bank A which was presumably dependant on Libor fixings. Libor is determined by considering submissions from Banks A, B, C, D, E etc. Outlying submissions at both top and bottom are kicked out before creating a blended rate. To say a specific bank in a specific PFI deal manipulated Libor is simply not true. Unless you can argue that every bank acted like a cartel. |
|
By:
"The law is very clear on the question of fraud, the perpetrator is not entitled to enforce an agreement that has been subject to that fraud"
It's not clear when a 3rd party is involved. Let's Bank A trades a CDS with Bank B with regard to the credit worthiness of entity Z. The COO acts fraudulently causing entity Z to default on it's loans. The bank in the CDS contract who has sold protection still has to pay up despite the existence of fraud. |
|
By:
If the Guardian report is correct, the bank were involved in the fraud. That is enough, however many other parties were involved.
|
|
By:
Sib reading that Guardian report my impression was they claim that the PFI deals were made worse by the Libor scandal.
I did not get the impression that the journalist was claiming that the UK could use the law to rip up/ renegotiate the poor value PFI deals. Partly for this reason I thought it was a poor article. If you are correct & these deals are not legal then that is good news for the UK. Got top be worth a test case when there is so much money involved. |
|
By:
It doesn't actually say that though does it Sib?
The article is a shambles. They expressly say the NHS loses from the fraud but in reality they haven't got a clue. They are just trying to make an absurd link. |
|
By:
As Mexico says Sibaroni - why don't you encourage the Govt to invalidate these deals in court? I assume you won't because it wouldn't stand a chance.
|
|
By:
The only real point I was trying to make was that it makes no difference whether or not the NHS show loss. If a contract has been fraudulently messed with, you don't have to show loss for it to be unenforceable. Fraud being the operative word, anything less and then loss has to be shown.
|
|
By:
Aside from the fact you are clouding the fact the Guardian has published an article of stunning ignorance, I suggest if you are right you get right on the case.
Although Brown's PFIs don't get included in the deficit figures as far as I know, you can can save us from future disasterous liabilities. Go Sib! |
|
By:
I wouldn't particularly want to be relying on the Guardian as a means of assessing the strength of a case. All I seek to establish is that loss is entirely irrelevant if the question concerns enforcing a fraudulent contract. Since you were saying the opposite, I felt it helpful to point this out.
|
|
By:
Nope. You were being a pompous misinformed ass.
The Guardian says the NHS hospitals have LOST money as a result of Libor being fixed. I am pointing out that since Libor was massaged downwards this would have SAVED the NHS money. Get the difference? |
|
By:
If you want to get an idea how these Guardian journalists are on a different planet, try and find the article by Suzanne Moore, where her kids hate leaving London as there are far too many white people.
It's an absolute belter! |
|
By:
That's fooking brilliant!
 "I live in London but I leave it often enough to know that parts of the country are pretty white, enough to scare my "white" children because they are just not used to such a monoculture and find it disturbing, unreal and, to be frank, lacking"  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/diversity-statistics-change-top |
|
By:
Wages are driven down. Globalisation does this. War does this. Recession does this. But it's easier to blame your neighbour.
Yes Ms Mooore, because the oversupply of cheap labour is what forces wages down. She’s a beauty that one. |
|
By:
I ever don't ever read The Guardian.
but it seems a spurious link to me. Incompetence by those involved in signing PFI deals; deliberate market rigging by the spivs. The Daily Mail was more focussed IMO concentrating on the criminality of the bankers. The connection between NHS PFIs and Libor is misleading; if the rate was subject to a criminal conspiracy , it is irrelevant if that conspiracy affected PFIs. |
|
By:
Java
If I find any of these whiteys around I will get my somali staff to drive them off. But from what I can see there won't be too many of them in london these days!! |
|
By:
She's a racist against her own kind, there are many of them about.
Her sort would have you locked up for telling a joke with a foreign person as the butt. Nasty moo. |