26.12.2013 Views

Salz Review - Wall Street Journal

Salz Review - Wall Street Journal

Salz Review - Wall Street Journal

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Salz</strong> <strong>Review</strong><br />

An Independent <strong>Review</strong> of Barclays’ Business Practices<br />

54<br />

Regulatory Authority, a securities regulator, imposed approximately twenty times as<br />

many fines as the FSA. Similarly, financial institutions face significantly higher<br />

regulatory fines and settlements in the US than in the UK. For example, for its role<br />

in the LIBOR scandal, Barclays was fined $200 million by the Commodity Futures<br />

Trading Commission (CFTC) and $160 million by the US Department of Justice<br />

(against £59.5 million by the FSA). RBS’s equivalent fines in February 2013 were<br />

$325 million by the CFTC, and $150 million by the US Department of Justice (DoJ).<br />

6.6 The quantum of fines also seems to be increasing in the US. In the second half of<br />

2012, Standard Chartered incurred a civil penalty charge of $340 million and a<br />

forfeiture of $100 million to the New York Department of Financial Services for<br />

transactions with Iranian clients. HSBC was fined $1.9 billion by the DoJ, the Office<br />

of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve after allegations<br />

of money laundering through the US by Mexican drug cartels and certain other<br />

transactions with sanctioned countries.<br />

6.7 UBS has been fined a total of $1.2 billion by the DoJ and the CFTC for its part in<br />

the LIBOR events, as well as being ordered to pay a disgorgement of profits of<br />

CHF59 million to the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). 88<br />

6.8 The UK and US regulatory environments have become much more challenging for<br />

all banks. And in addition to the cost of fines, banks face substantially increased<br />

compliance costs of their own in their efforts to ensure their operations do not<br />

breach the various regulatory rules. The most obvious cost relates to the need for<br />

banks to employ more compliance staff. 89 The costs for regulators have also<br />

increased (see Figure 6.3 on the FSA budget).<br />

Figure 6.3 – FSA (and predecessors) Budget Evolution (1998-2013)<br />

£m<br />

600<br />

Actual<br />

Estimate<br />

400<br />

+11%<br />

200<br />

156<br />

163<br />

170<br />

182<br />

195<br />

+6%<br />

203<br />

211<br />

241<br />

267<br />

269<br />

298<br />

335<br />

392<br />

451<br />

475<br />

544<br />

0<br />

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013<br />

% CAGR (in %)<br />

Notes: Care is needed with these figures due to increases in the scope of the FSA’s activities during the period; 2013 represents the budgeted costs<br />

Source: Financial Services Practitioner Panel, FSA annual reports and business plans<br />

88 FINMA, “LIBOR: FINMA concludes proceedings against UBS and orders disgorgement of profits”,<br />

press release, 19 December 2012.<br />

89 See Section 3 for Barclays’ compliance staff numbers.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!