I'm not sure what comes out of all the testimonies and lawsuits associated with BBA submissions but "Not a big deal" is not my conclusion. (The view was expressed on CNBC today) The outside observer says that because the attempted manipulation was toward lower rates, its a victimless crime. Taking the logic a step further - and I feel you may hear this tomorrow - the lower submissions were at the behest of the Central Banks accelerating their policies.
What about any player, futures maybe, that had bet sets should be higher? What of the 100s of thousands of contracts that settled higher (implied yield lower) than the market determined rate? What if the timeline of corruption starts prior to the financial crisis? Certain testimony appears to suggest the games started on the way up in rates. Once the meltdown occurred an already operational ruse merely shifted focus lower. Here's a bigger issue for me: What about today's submissions? Even Barclay's has not adjusted their submission as they paid the biggest fine ever and their top management exits. Can we not assume that the submissions are still phoney then? Let's go back and review the dates. There should be a noticeable day when a manipulating bank ceased the activity and submitted a "real" offering.
Here's a little test for "no big deal." Take today's submissions and ask the bank who offered it to them. It's the offer. That's what the "O" is for.
Investigations are on going in Euros and Yen but the dollar was settled first. If nothing else comes of this I still say its a Big Deal. When the biggest banks on the globe opt to "attempt" a ruse rather than uphold the integrity of the system, its says something about the institutions and the men and women that work for them. It says they've got to go.