Diamond Cracks: Here Are The Shocked Reactions

Tyler Durden's picture

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 (whose severance payment, certainly in the millions, is still unknown)

U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne:

Mr. Osborne welcomed Mr. Diamond’s decision to resign and said he hoped it marked a first step toward “a new era of responsibility” in British banking.

Speaking to the British Broadcasting Corp., he said that recent revelations about attempts to rig interbank rates had “in a way opened a door on the very bad practices in banking” that had led to the 2008 financial crisis.

“We need to see a change in the culture of banking and today we saw a step towards that,” Mr. Osborne said. “We are determined to play our part in bringing about this change.”

*Simon Willis, Daniel Stewart & Co investment bank:

“Firstly, we find it difficult, given the dearth of senior banking management talent, [to see] who Bob Diamond’s replacement might be. We believe that it will be harder for Barclays to achieve its growth and ROE targets. At the very least there will be a hiatus period.

“Secondly, the Libor manipulation affair was clearly by no means confined to Barclays. This begs the question which other senior executives in other banks (U.K. and overseas) face being ousted.

“Thirdly, circumstances suggest that a number of people in the regulators — meaning the FSA and the Treasury, as well as the Bank of England — must have known the detail of Libor fixings.”

*Richard Hunter, Head of Equities, Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers:

“The revolving doors at Barclays are working overtime. Discussions at the Treasury Select Committee should throw some light on the internal turmoil at the bank, whilst it remains to be seen whether Barclays will eventually end up with some credit in being the first to hold its hand up over the Libor investigations.

“It is difficult to estimate how much of the news is now priced in to the shares in the absence of more detail. One thing is for certain, namely that the consensus of the shares as a cautious buy has been creaking in recent days.”

*Move Your Money U.K., a campaign to move money out of high street banks:

“It’s only right that Bob Diamond has resigned. Both those who committed these crimes and the executives responsible for overseeing them have to take personal responsibility for the disgraceful behavior of the bank and, where appropriate, face criminal prosecution. However, a couple of ‘fat cats’ falling on their swords must not distract us from the urgent task at hand of reforming our banking system.

“George Osborne has announced a parliamentary inquiry into the Libor fixing scandal. However the inquiry falls well short in terms of both scope and powers of the full judicial inquiry demanded by the New Economics Foundation and supported by Labour.”

*Ian Gordon, asset managers Investec:

“CEO Bob Diamond has resigned. Whereas such an outcome was ultimately expected by many, in the light of Bob’s robust response to the political/media fire-storm over the past few days, the timing will surprise. If there is ‘new news’ to share (whether embarrassing to U.K. regulators or otherwise) Bob can now speak more freely at the Select Committee show-trial tomorrow. More importantly, Barclays must quickly refocus attention onto its attractive organic story and undervalued ‘defensive’ franchise.”

*Gary Greenwood, investment group Shore Capital:

“This is a massive U-turn. I can’t remember anything like this happening before, but ultimately they’ve reached the right decision. [Bob] Diamond was a key drag to sentiment and bowed to ongoing shareholder and political pressure.”

“[Marcus] Agius standing down yesterday looked to some like a dereliction of duty,” the analyst added. “In times of difficulty, you want the chairman to make the tough decisions.”

*Oriel Securities, stockbroking and advisory firm:

“Bob Diamond’s resignation was a surprise, leaving a key management gap and another major uncertainty over the investment case, it said. Oriel said the CEO will still attend the Treasury Select Committee hearing Wednesday and his resignation is likely to make him less inclined to hold back on speaking out about potential FSA or Bank of England failures associated with historic Libor rate manipulation.

*John Cridland, CBI Director-General:

“Bob Diamond has made his own decision that it is the right thing to do to resign as Barclays’ CEO.

“The focus now must be to urgently restore confidence in the banking system. This is vital if Britain’s businesses are to get the banking services they need to grow the economy.”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Colombian Gringo's picture

Too bad he wasn't hung.  Think of how many investors he cheats, how much money he has, and how he will walk away like Corzine. Crime pays if you are a Bankster.

WTFx10's picture

"Crime pays if you are a Rothschild's Bankster"

fixed it for you

Popo's picture

In banks all over England, email servers are being wiped and shredders are working overtime...



financial apocalyptic contagion's picture

yea why the fuck weren't there raids happening last week across all the banks

these agencies suck, give me a gun and a badge and i'l get confessions from all these bastards in a day

btw any1 out with odds on the next one fired?


jmcadg's picture

How about that slimeball Heston. RBS is fucked, everyone knows it. Liquidity Stephen not computer glitches, what a moron.

financial apocalyptic contagion's picture

Cockscucker Hester
the way he's been declining his million dollar bonuses, he's shitting his pants on his way to work everyday
Its time for him to "relieve" him self from his duties 


JeffB's picture

Isn't waterboarding financial terrorists legal in the U.S. now?


Boilermaker's picture

Barclay's equity up almost 4 1/2%

ES climbing.

Good thing the rigged nature of the marketplace is now exposed and will be fixed.

falak pema's picture

this whole LIBOR thingie epitomizes a true principle of libertarian ideology : that markets and private sector financial actors ARE above governments! The beauty of zero public control of the financial market; auto regulation my market itself, is personnified in all its pristine beaty here! It was supposed to be picture perfect since 1970 days when it emerged and Austrian logic was the rage along with Friedman floating rates! 

Now this! Eat your heart outs libertarians! You have Facts in your face not theory! Auto regulated sacred free markets indeed!  Von Mises has the measles! 

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

falak, are you really that dim witted? dropped on your head early in life? gov and banks are ONE you dip.

falak pema's picture

really, you've read history and come to that conclusion and its poured in concrete! 

Ever heard of the Knights Templars? They were the MIC/CIA and the bankers of the Crusades. They failed as the ideologically indoctrinated MIC. The king burnt them as dangerous bankstas and took their money away. Thats a fact which has escaped you.

In Italy Charles V destroyed the power of the Medicis, as they were dangerous as bankers, as Popes and heads of FLorence, powerful feudal city. Not on.

In France Charles VII destroyed banker Jacques Coeur. Louis XIV destroyed FOuquet his banker. Henry VIII made the feudals his own puppets and made king's bank a monopoly as he was also head of church. 

Only under Victorian Britain did the bankers become agents at par with royalty and governement. In the USA that tradition went further as US industrial Oligarchs have been more powerful than governments since post civil war days. In a nation the size of a continent in the throes of industrial revolution.

So over two thousand years, only in post Victorian UK and post civil war USA has there been such an accumulation of financial power. Two centuries of Pax Britannia and PAx Americana have consecrated this supremacy.

So your vision is limited to this period; which may be coming to an end under its own dead weight. 

Don't be dogmatic and think you are the cat's whiskers; you are not. History goes back a lot further than your glib quibbling. As for the future...its being written and it always rights what went wrong, sooner or later! Thats entropy correction.

And, Don't forget FDR who stopped the rot in the 1930-1940 period, with the tools he has at his disposal. (Not perfect, far from it).

Bahamas's picture

That's why banks financed revolutions that all ended with the death of the kings and the establishment of so called democratic governments.

falak pema's picture

that's the power game, you win some you lose some. Now its no longer the king that wins always. I'm not complaining! But I don't want the bankstas to be the new eternal kings; no way!

Dr. Engali's picture

You have no idea what you are talking about. Barclays' is just doing what their government bids them to do.

tabasco71's picture

This is the real juice - as recently intonnated by the Diamond MAD murmurings... I'll be glued to his committee appearance tomorrow.

Bob's picture

Of course, the money has nothing to do with it.  The pirates are just patriotic at heart. 

old naughty's picture

...or, the patriots are just piratec at heart.

Skull and Bones by the Knights Templar.

If .gov and banksters are one, then that sits on top in the triangle may be playing another unseen (untold?) game.

But, but, why now?

Popo's picture

Except the banks would actually have imploded had it not been for the regulatory response to bail them out, grant them government-sponsored 0% borrowing and grant them infinite concessions.

So the notion that government involvement "prevents" abuse is also silly. 

The problem is not one of regulation or deregulation -- it is one of collusion.    Fascism is the problem.

Terrorist's picture

falak, you idiot, subject hijacking troll, Libertarians believe strongly in anti fraud enforcement.

falak pema's picture

like the popes believed in doing god's work...belief has to face the acid test of acts; you are what you do! THe popes killed in inquisitorial mode, the free market kills in oligarchy mode. See the fact from the fiction; free yourself from dogma. 

Western civilization's progress is based on only three principles: reason, observe facts, then act. Nothing else. The libor is the expression in all its simplicity that markets are NEVER perfect. So eat your beliefs or admit you belong to a dogmatic church not to western free thinking. 

Lebensphilosoph's picture

Western civilization's progress is based on only three principles: reason, observe facts, then act. Nothing else.

It's 'progress' is based in the superior intellect of its peoples.

falak pema's picture

ha Zaraustra! blood line eh? Which blood line would that be?

Semitic of crooked nose? Greek of doggy bag style frolick?, Dirty latinos? Filthy french? Dumb teutonic? Ah, Superb english ! (not to be mixed with those gaelic louts and pict stouts wearing skirts)!

Hey Philofax? Are you Oswald Mosley's sprained ankle or Enoch Powell's blocked bowel? 

Hohum's picture


Why do you say most libertarians believe in anti fraud enforcement?  I don't get that vibe from this site.

sablya's picture

I suggest that this whole disaster is primarily a regulatory problem, in that the regulators ARE the problem.  The regulators wanted LIBOR suppressed and had no legitimate mechanism for bringing that about.  So they turned to the bankers to do it.  

And don't throw this in the face of Austrian economics.  That's unfair! Limited regulation is not the hallmark of Austrian economics but is a common thread among men of different schools.  Milton Friedman, a monetarist, was just as in favor of limited regulation as was Hayek.  


GeneMarchbanks's picture

Ah, falak finally your direct speech draws attention. Notice how many more hits you're getting speaking a simple truth instead of your customary elegant prose?

What you fail to see is this --now daily-- failure of "market" Theology is being experienced by our mouthbreather friends as the death of God. Mark the half-baked rationalizations these sad saps are clutching at, mind the pathetic attacks on your summary of happenings.

It's like the Athenians with Socrates.

falak pema's picture

not being Socrates, I prefer chardonnay to hemlock! 

Acet's picture

Here's a little one for you Falak:

- In the UK, regulations from the Financial Services Authority say that "expert banks" have to hold less Reserve Capital than other banks. You know, "expert banks" like RBS, Llloyds (that needed to be taken over by the state) or Barclays

Sounds a lot like an artificial market barrier to entry, and this is just one of many, many rules and regulations that hinder new entrants.

Unsurprisingly, banking in the UK, a nation of 60 million people is around 90% dominated by 5 big banks.

The truth is that the situation we have now did not came about due to the free market, quite the opposite: things are the way they are due to deep regulatory capture. If there were no Regulator to be captured, the market landscape in banking in the UK would be very different (and probably far more robust).

falak pema's picture

All you are saying is is that like in politics and in war, the game is too important to leave it in the hands of "specialists".

That is in essence the whole game of power in society since inception. Oligarchs always control the levers of power in the end, unless they are kept at bay. How? Not by zero regulation! That makes it easy as they have their own militia to power their way in. So people's reps can keep them out? Not always, but we don't know better than separation of powers as guiding principle.

Your take, that ideally, free markets would never be manipulated, does not pass the litmus test of being free. What Montesquieu said in the face of Machiavelli, (they allegedly met in Hell), was : I know you believe in Oligarchy manipulate, I believe in having you out in the open and your mirror opposite as well out in the open. And I believe in having a neutral juge to then regulate the game. Separate the market players from the neutral juge.

Too easy the game when two Machiavellis regulate it amongst themselves. Thats Oligarchical reality. WIthout the juge it would be worse! 

Nothing is perfect for men as reality is in our image. 

eddiebe's picture

I'm with you on this one, Falak. The issues raised in this banter are complex and go to the core of who we choose to be. The fact is though that what the Libertarians and indeed the Republicans tout as "Free markets" are far from free, even though they hide behind that curtain. Therefore, just like in society at large there have to be laws and law enforcement to even the playing field for everyone, otherwise all confidence is lost by the masses and chaos ensues.

 It looks now like we are lucky enough to increasingly get peaks at how we all have been gamed by those ' free market players'. I only hope the rage of those gamed doesn't consume all the positives we have accomplished along with the parasitic rot that grew along with the achievements.

Acet's picture

Oh, not at all - I think regulation is needed: the idea of free markets is bullshit given that if you remove any and all kind of state influence in the market you end up with "the guy with the most buddies with guns wins" and all kinds of negative-externality problems.

However, the LIBOR situation is not at all a good example of a free market failure since, at least in the UK, the companies that were in a position to manipulate the LIBOR only got to be were they were exactly because their market was highly manipulated through regulatory capture.

On the other hand, regulated markets in a Capitalist system suffer from the problem that in the Capitalist game, anything goes, including deploying your capital to influence regulators and regulations in your favour (i.e. pay to change the rules of the game). I reckon extremelly strong Democratic and Judicial institutions, plus the kind of society were being seen as socially selfish is highly frowned upon are needed for such a system to work half-way deccently. Neither of that are in display in the US or the UK and the closest to that ideal I can think of are the Nordic countries.

Lebensphilosoph's picture

It's the old conundrum, isn't it? How do I have anarchy without some archos imposing it?

PoorByChoice's picture

falak I enjoy your rants but this one I'm not so sure about

Disclosure: I'm a libertarian (I think LOL!)

The reason the banks were able to do this was as much because they were allowed to become so overpowerful in the market place as well as  lightly regulated. So just a key few individuals could corrupt the LIEBOR.

And they became so powerful because of the undue influence on our political classes..  Thus they maintained high barriers to competition enterering the ring against the behemoths.

The big banks looked pretty much like nationalised industries long before they became so in fact.

Frankly if we are into a blame game we should start with the voters in the west. Anyone in the last 20 years who says they didn't realise they were voting for corrupt zealots is:-

a) Lying  (Even to yourself still counts, YES you know who ARE!...)

b) Naive  (too lazy to learn the truth about your favoured candidate...)

c) Part of the problem  (Government non jobs, PFI, benefits culture)

As long as we had our 2 tropical holidays a year and SKY Sports on our big screen tv we wouldn't rock the boat, so we ended

up with the government we deserve

I tried regularly to influence opinion of friends and family and just received ridicule, now they listen a little more but it's taken the depression to do that!

Still, keep testing my belief system falak, I'm learning just how important questioning the choices we make is since visiting ZH......

peace (amongst friends anyway!)



Lebensphilosoph's picture

So how did Soviet Russia work for you, eh?

falak pema's picture

how did it work for the people? your bull shit reasoning has got you alzheimered? Stalin was an Oligarch. He was no people's rep! He is the best example of a true Machiavellian prince. He robbed the Marxist church of its liturgy and turned it to his own advantage. That's perfect sleight of hand. We see the same play today by men of similar mindset using the free market liturgy to the same effect. Different churches same result! 

Having philosopher in your avatar doesn't seem to seep into your brain. Trickle down effect not working?

Lebensphilosoph's picture

Stalin was an Oligarch.

How convenient that is for you. And the entirety of Soviet history is the history of Stalin too. I'll have to remember that.


Having philosopher in your avatar doesn't seem to seep into your brain.

Perhaps. But my rac ... sorry, the genetic heritage of my line of ancestors still puts me ahead of you and yours as far as the brain is concerned.

falak pema's picture

lol, coming down to brass tacks aren't we? Noblesse oblige, I'll leave you with that illusion like the people did with Louis XVI.

MrButtoMcFarty's picture

I love the smell of ignorant hubris in the morning!!


PS....I got your ancestor's brains right here motherfucker.

Andy_Jackson_Jihad's picture

President Obama,

Don't you have a press conference to give or fund raiser to get ready for?

Lebensphilosoph's picture

your bull shit reasoning has got you alzheimered?

'Bullshit' reasoning, is it? Would you call stacking up a straw man to set it alight and dance about it like a mad pagan on Imbolc reasoning then?

What happened with Russia is, in terms of the structures of power, exactly what you opine about the consequences of Libertarianism; what happened in terms of the ideological lunacy that this power was to impose upon every aspect of life is another matter altogether.

Go write another trashy novel instead of torturing us with your tortuous logic.

Saro's picture

Clearly, this fraud perpetrated by banks already loaded up under a staggering number regulations and the complicitness of the regulators hired to prevent just this scenario only underscores the need for those regulation and regulators. Just like the solution to too much debt is more debt, the solution to big government failure is bigger government. 

This time will be different.


overmedicatedundersexed's picture

I now will retire my tin foil hat..enough with conspiracy ..I will don my tin foil it's a fact hat.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


I now will retire my tin foil hat..enough with conspiracy ..I will don my tin foil it's a fact hat.

It's a fact: you can get blood from a stone.


Al Gorerhythm's picture

Diamond should have called Servpro. Clean up "Like it never really happened".


williambanzai7's picture

Ding dong the witch ain't dead yet.

Al Gorerhythm's picture

But the fat lady's warbling, stage right.

sleestak's picture

This might mean trouble for all sorts of "fixing" that's been going on. "Erase the emails" "lose the disks" "I'm sorry, this connection isn't working"...  All sorts of cartel activity is at risk now.  Diamond is BIG.  Executed one of the best scalps of the crisis by buying Lehman and had the stamp of approval from all sorts of plugged-in-ati.  That he has fallen is a heads up to his ilk that collusive activity of the cartels can be exposed and has real, personal consequences, even when protected by the CBs.  That's when rats start ratting (and swimming).  Gold next?