There are reports that 5 major banks (JP Morgan, Barclays, Citigroup, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS) are likely to pay $ 5 billion as fines for rigging forex markets to USA and UK authorities.
Individual accountability should also be fixed as this is tantamount to deception of individual investors.
Owing to this rigging, some one has suffered a loss. Forex is a zero sum game. One man's loss is another man's gain. So profiteering through cheating and deception has a criminal intent.
Can big banks escape merely because they are too big and powerful enough to negotiate and to arrive at settlements? Justice has to be fair to the small and the large. There is the principle of equity. There is also the principle of accountability for misdemanour by the players both individually and as an institution. There is the doctrine of indoor management which expects that the bank is responsible for the action of its individual employees to its customers unless there is collusion between the customer and the bank.
There has been financial misconduct and impropriety. Even provided that there are no individual complaints against the banks, regulators and supervisors have to proceed on public interest against these banks and any other institutions involved. As these banks had large, voluminous share in the markets, they swayed the markets unfairly to the detriment of the individual consumer. This calls for accountability of the dealers, the chief dealers, the back offices risk managers and the foreign exchange managers. There has to be top management owning up managerial moral accountability. As risk limits are set by the Top management, they should have monitored.
The investor would expect that fines can only be part of the proceedings. All those who bought and sold forex during the days of the rigging have a say and are an aggrieved party. It cannot be that if you are a big bank you can pay off fines from earnings and be let off the hook. Justice must travel its course.
Individual accountability should also be fixed as this is tantamount to deception of individual investors.
Owing to this rigging, some one has suffered a loss. Forex is a zero sum game. One man's loss is another man's gain. So profiteering through cheating and deception has a criminal intent.
Can big banks escape merely because they are too big and powerful enough to negotiate and to arrive at settlements? Justice has to be fair to the small and the large. There is the principle of equity. There is also the principle of accountability for misdemanour by the players both individually and as an institution. There is the doctrine of indoor management which expects that the bank is responsible for the action of its individual employees to its customers unless there is collusion between the customer and the bank.
There has been financial misconduct and impropriety. Even provided that there are no individual complaints against the banks, regulators and supervisors have to proceed on public interest against these banks and any other institutions involved. As these banks had large, voluminous share in the markets, they swayed the markets unfairly to the detriment of the individual consumer. This calls for accountability of the dealers, the chief dealers, the back offices risk managers and the foreign exchange managers. There has to be top management owning up managerial moral accountability. As risk limits are set by the Top management, they should have monitored.
The investor would expect that fines can only be part of the proceedings. All those who bought and sold forex during the days of the rigging have a say and are an aggrieved party. It cannot be that if you are a big bank you can pay off fines from earnings and be let off the hook. Justice must travel its course.
