Bank of England

• Most Germans Reject Ceding Sovereignty to EU, Stern Poll Shows (Bloomberg)
• How Stockton went broke: A 15-year spending binge (Reuters)
• Manchester United Shoots for $100 Million IPO (WSJ)... with 4x leverage and Jefferies as underwriter
• Iran says can destroy U.S. bases "minutes after attack" (Reuters)
• Poison claims spark call for Arafat exhumation  (FT)
• Diamond Would Be Catch for Investment, Private Equity (Bloomberg)
• Investors may shun big Libor lawsuit and go it alone (Reuters)
• New Particle Found, Consistent With Higgs Boson (WSJ)
• Chinese riot police clash with protesters  (FT)
• Euro-Area June Manufacturing, Services Output Contracts (Bloomberg)
• Utilities Struggle to Restore Power in East (WSJ)
• Dark economic clouds gather anew over Obama campaign (Reuters)

As was first reported two days ago, and confirmed today, Barclays' natural response to allegations it single-handedly manipulated the interest rate complex for up to $500 trillion notional in IR-sensitive swaps and other products (it didn't - everyone else did it too), was to drag everyone into the scandal, starting off with the Bank of England (and about to drag Whitehall into it too), and specifically the man who was next in line for governorship of the English Central Bank: Paul Tucker. What does this mean? Well, as we suggested also two days ago, now that the natural succession path at the BOE has been terminally derailed, it brings up those two other gentlemen already brought up previously as potential future heads of the BOE, both of whom just happened to work, or still do, at... Goldman Sachs:  Canada's Mark Carney or Goldman's Jim O'Neil. Granted both have denied press speculation they will replace Mervyn King, but it's not like it would be the first time a banker lied to anyone now, would it (and makes one wonder if this whole affair was not merely orchestrated by the Squid from the get go... but no, that would be a 'conspiracy theory'.) Yet the fact that Goldman is hell bent on global domination by stretching its tentacles into every monetary policy administration is no secret: it is only a matter of time before GS also runs the English CTRL-P macros. More interesting is that in addition to the BOE, Barclays today also dragged America's very own Federal Reserve into the fray.

Things in broke Europe are becoming stranger by the minute. Stepping away from the Bank of England telling private institutions what to do, and overriding fiduciary responsibility, we now shift to France, but not in the context of the Second Great Socialist Revolution and its Fairness Doctrine annex, but to the home and office of ex-president Nicholas Sarkozy whose home and office where just raided according to Politique in connection with long-running allegations that his presidential campaign had been illegally funded by France's richest woman Lilliane Bettencourt. Do you see what happens Larry when there are no PACs and it is illegal for rich people to outright bribe politicians?

Wonder who was pushing Barclays to manipulate its rate? Why none other than the English Fed. From BBG:

• BARCLAYS SAYS BANK OF ENGLAND CALLED ON OCT. 29, 2008 ON LIBOR
• BARCLAYS SAYS DIAMOND MADE NOTE OF CALL
• BARCLAYS SAYS DIAMOND RECEIVED CALL FROM PAUL TUCKER
• BARCLAYS SAYS TUCKER SAID `CERTAIN' BARCLAYS DIDN'T NEED ADVICE
• BARCLAYS SAYS TUCKER SAID DIDN'T ALWAYS NEED TO BE SO HIGH (Supposedly LIBOR)
• BARCLAYS SAYS DEL MISSIER CONCLUDED INSTRUCTION HAD BEEN GIVEN
• BARCLAYS SAYS DEL MISSIER TOLD RATE SETTERS TO LOWER RATES

In other words, a central banks was directly and indirectly involved in manipulating interest rates. Say it isn't so. Fast forward two months when the BOE's Tucker testifies that the Chairsatan made him do it.

Anyone wondering if the reason why Diamond resigned less than 6 hours ago is because he suddenly grew a conscience, will be disappointed. The real reasons are two: on one hand politicians were concerned he would make it public where all the bodies were buried as reported last night, in the process taking down at least half the English political establishment, obviating his departure from the public eye immediately, and, more importantly, as BBC's Robert Peston reports, the English Fed, that "impartial" and "apolitical" institution known as the Bank of England, got involved. From Peston: "I have learned that Bob Diamond's departure was encouraged by the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, and the chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), Lord Turner."

A bottle of Bollinger has brought down Bob. This is just the beginning, because one knows Barclays by definition was not alone. Many, many more banks will emerge, hopefully their bankers were not quite as dumb as Barclays' henchmen to discuss in retainable, email format their plans for interest rate manipulation, although we doubt it. In which case many more executives will fall as all those "conspiracy theorists" over the past 4 years are proven right once again, and as politicians scramble to cover up all loose ends which may expose them as instrumental (and bribed) in the fact that the "market" is once big farce. In the meantime, courtesy of the WSJ, here are the shocked, nay stunned, reactions to Bob Diamond's resignation.

Three weeks ago we mocked, rightfully so, the utter joke that is Liebor, which had been unchanged for just over 3 months. Nobody cared, certainly not the British Banker Association. This was not the first time: our first allegations of Liebor fraud and manipulation started over three years ago. There were others too. Nobody certainly cared back then. Now, in the aftermath of the Barclays lawsuit, and "those" e-mails, everyone suddenly cares. And a few days after the first public exposure of Lie-borgate, the first victim has been claimed: as numerous sources report, Barclays' Chairman Marcus Agius wil step down immediately. From the WSJ: "Political and investor pressure has mounted on the management of U.K.-based Barclays since the settlement was announced Wednesday. The announcement of Mr. Agius's departure could come as soon as Monday, said one of the people. Mr. Agius, 65 years old, a British-Maltese banker who formerly worked at Lazard Ltd., has led the bank since 2007, steering Barclays through the 2008 financial crisis and avoiding the direct state bailouts that were needed by many of its global peers." While the sacrifice of a scapegoat is expected, what we don't get is why the Chairman: after all by the time Agius became Chair of the British bank, the bulk of the Libor fixing alleged in the FSA lawsuit had already happened. And of course, with Bob Diamond having succeeded John Varley as CEO in 2010, one can easily claim that in this first (of many) confirmed Liebor transgression there really is nobody at fault who can be held accountable. Of course, Barclays is merely the first of many. We fully expect Lieborgate to spread not only to other British BBA member banks, but soon to jump across the Atlantic, where CEOs who have been with their banks for the duration of the entire Libor-fixing term will soon find themselves under the same microscope.

While the Lieborgate scandal gathers steam not so much because of people's comprehension of just what is at stake here (nothing less than the fair value of $350 trillion in interest-rate sensitive products as explained in February), but simply courtesy of several very vivid emails which mention expensive bottles of champagne, once again proving that when it comes to interacting with the outside world, banks see nothing but rows of clueless muppets until caught red-handed (at which point they use big words, and speak confidently), the BBC's Robert Peston brings an unexpected actor into the fray: the English Central Bank and specifically Paul Tucker, the man who, unless Goldman's-cum-Canada's Mark Carney or Goldman's Jim O'Neill step up, will replace Mervyn King as head of the BOE.

Only a wilful and ideological Keynesian could ignore the salient detail: as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard,  total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate.   Coincidence? I don’t think so — a fundamental change in the nature of the money supply coincided almost exactly with a fundamental change to the shape of the nation’s economy. Is  the simultaneous outgrowth in income inequality a coincidence too? Keynesians may respond that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and though we do not know the exact causation, there are a couple of strong possibilities that may have strangled productivity. It’s not just total factor productivity that has been lower than in the years when America was on the gold exchange standard — as a Bank of England report recently found, GDP growth has averaged lower in the pure fiat money era (2.8% vs 1.8%), and financial crises have been more frequent in the non-gold-standard years.

• Merkel Backs Debt Sharing in Germany Amid Closer EU Push (Bloomberg)
• With a ruling as early as today, here are four health care questions the Supreme Court is asking (CBS)
• George Soros - Germany’s Reticence to Agree Threatens European Stability (FT)
• China Stocks Drop to Five-Month Low (Bloomberg)
• The New Republic of Porn (Bloomberg)
• That's a costly detached retina: Greek Lenders Postpone Mission to Athens (FT)
• Spain Asks for Aid as EU Fights Debt Crisis (FT)
• Wolfgang Münchau - Why Mario Monti Needs to Speak Truth to Power (FT)
• U.S. Banks Aren’t Nearly Ready for Coming European Crisis (Bloomberg)
• MPC Member Wants £50bn Easing (FT)
• India Boosts Foreign Debt Ceiling by $5 Billion to Defend Rupee (Bloomberg)

All you need to read.

All you need to read.

"The art of life is the art of avoiding pain." ~ We'll see how this goes.

"Private Debt Doesn't Matter" Because "Banks Can't Create Money Out of Thin Air"

Just read.