May 11, 2024

DealBook: Standard Chartered’s Shares Rally on Settlement

8:32 a.m. | Updated

LONDON – Investors in Standard Chartered breathed a collective sigh of relief on Wednesday.

The positive reaction came after the British bank agreed to a $340 million fine related to charges that it had laundered hundreds of billions of dollars in money with Iran and lied to regulators.

The agreement ends speculation that Standard Chartered might lose its New York State banking license. The bank’s top executives had been expected to defend its actions in a hearing on Wednesday, which was postponed after the settlement was announced.

Standard Chartered, which mainly operates in fast-growing emerging markets, has had a New York office since 1976. That office primarily operates a dollar-clearing business, processing around $190 billion a day for clients from around the world.

Standard Chartered may still face a combined fine from other American regulatory authorities of around $360 million, according to analysts’ estimates. Yet the agreement with the New York State Department of Financial Services has drawn a line under many of the accusations.

A Standard Chartered bank in London.Facundo Arrizabalaga/European Pressphoto AgencyA Standard Chartered bank in London.Peter Sands, the chief executive of Standard Chartered, flew to New York to negotiate over the weekend with state regulators.Shawn Thew/European Pressphoto AgencyPeter Sands, the chief executive of Standard Chartered, flew to New York to negotiate over the weekend with state regulators.

“We have sought to act in the best interests of our shareholders, clients, customers and staff,” Peter Sands, the bank’s chief executive, said in a memo to employees late on Tuesday, whose contents was confirmed by a company spokesman. “There are many reasons why firms settle such agreements.”

The British bank and the New York regulator had been at loggerheads over the level of money laundering activity at the firm.

New York authorities had claimed that Standard Chartered schemed for nearly a decade with Iran to hide 60,000 transactions worth $250 billion from regulators. The bank has maintained that the transaction value of the laundering activities had totaled only $14 million.

“Whilst disproportionate, the settlement protects shareholder and customer interests against the regulatory assault,” Ian Gordon, a banking analyst at Investec in London, said in a research note to investors. “In our view, Standard Chartered has acted with pragmatism and integrity in the face of extreme provocation.”

Shares in Standard Chartered rose around 5 percent, to £14.26, or $22.37, in afternoon trading in London on Wednesday, though the stock is still down 9 percent from when the money laundering charges were announced this month. Its shares had dropped as much as 25 percent — the sharpest one-day decline in more than two decades — a day after the charges were made public on Aug. 6.

By agreeing to a $340 million settlement, the British bank is also unlikely to experience an additional major decline in its share price, according to Cormac Leech, a banking analyst at Liberum Capital in London, who expects the stock to rise to £15.30 in the near term.

Mr. Leech said in a research note to investors on Wednesday that “the relatively small” $340 million settlement suggested a “significant moderation in attitude” by New York regulators.

Standard Chartered is not the first European bank to face money-laundering charges.

The British bank HSBC has set aside $700 million to cover the potential fines, settlements and other expenses related to charges by United States authorities. The Dutch bank ING also agreed to a $619 million fine in June for processing financial transactions for Cuban and Iranian companies.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/standard-chartereds-shares-rally-after-settlement/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Barclays Chief Faces Political Firestorm

Robert E. Diamond Jr., chief of Barclays, said the bank worked to fix problems and cooperated with the authorities.Jerome Favre/Bloomberg NewsRobert E. Diamond Jr., chief of Barclays, said the bank had worked to fix problems and cooperated with the authorities.

The Barclays chief executive, Robert E. Diamond Jr., faced a political backlash on Thursday, a day after the British bank agreed to pay more than $450 million to settle accusations that it had attempted to manipulate key interest rates.

Several current and former politicians took aim at Barclays over the matter on Thursday, with some calling for him to resign. The cacophony of criticism comes as Mr. Diamond deals with shareholder opposition about his pay.

“I think the whole management team have got some serious questions to answer,” said Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking at an event in Northern England. “Who was responsible? Who was going to take responsibility? How are they being held accountable?”

The bank’s shares fell 10.6 percent in afternoon trading in London on Thursday.

Barclays is under scrutiny for attempting to influence key benchmarks, including the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, to bolster its own bottom line. Such rates are used to determine the cost for a range of financial products, including mortgages, credit cards and student loans.

David Meister, the commission's enforcement director.Dave Cross PhotographyDavid Meister, the commission’s enforcement director.

On Wednesday, Barclays struck a deal with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Justice Department and the Financial Services Authority in London, in the first settlement in a sprawling investigation into whether big banks improperly set key interest rates. Mr. Diamond, in a statement on Wednesday, underscored the changes at Barclays, saying “today’s resolutions relate to past actions which fell well short of the standards to which Barclays aspires in the conduct of its business.”

The settlement is also likely to spur reform. As part of the settlement, Barclays agreed to adopt new measures and controls.

On Thursday, the British Bankers’ Association, the trade body that oversees Libor, said it had asked the authorities to review how the interbank rate was set. Until now, the organization had avoided government involvement by conducting its own review into the process, which mainly relies on the world’s largest banks to provide the figures that underpin Libor.

Politicians are pushing for accountability at Barclays. Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the treasury committee for Britain’s House of Commons, said it would summon Mr. Diamond as well as the heads of the Financial Services Authority, the British regulator, to answer questions on the issue sometime in the next four weeks. George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, similarly wanted answers.

Mr. Diamond, said Mr. Osborne, “has some very serious questions to answer. What did he know, and when did he know it? And who of the Barclays executives knew what was going on?”

“We all want to hear his answers,” Mr. Osborne told Parliament on Thursday. “The story of irresponsibility is not over yet. What happened at Barclays and at other banks is completely unacceptable. It is systemic of the financial industry that put greed above other interests.”

The fallout from the regulatory mess follows an earlier firestorm over executive compensation. Amid mounting criticism from shareholders about excessive pay, Mr. Diamond and other Barclays executives said in April that they would give up some of their annual bonuses if certain profit goals were not met.

Mr. Diamond will now forgo his entire annual payout, announcing on Wednesday that he and others would give up their bonuses in light of the legal issues.

The problems may continue to mount for Barclays. Mr. Osborne, in his speech, said the authorities would continue to look into the matter and were pursuing every avenue open to them. The Labour leader Ed Miliband echoed the need for justice.

“This cannot be about a slap on the wrist, a fine and the forgoing of bonuses. To believe that is the end of the matter would be totally wrong,” Mr. Miliband said in a speech. “When ordinary people break the law, they face charges, prosecution and punishment. We need to know who knew what when, and criminal prosecutions should follow against those who broke the law.”

Some even argued that Mr. Diamond should step down — or that the board should take action.

“If Bob Diamond had a scintilla of shame he would resign,” a former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, Lord Oakeshott, said in an interview with the BBC. “If Barclays’ board had an inch of backbone between them they would sack him.”

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/barclays-chief-faces-political-firestorm/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Swiss Central Bank Chief Resigns After Uproar

FRANKFURT  — The head of the Swiss central bank unexpectedly resigned Monday, saying that doubts about currency trades he and his wife made last year threatened to undermine his ability to focus solely on steering the bank through a global financial crisis.

The resignation of Philipp M. Hildebrand, who had an international reputation as an advocate for tougher bank regulation, came as a surprise. Just last week, he offered a detailed defense of his conduct and appeared to have the support of the council that oversees the Swiss National Bank.

Speaking at a news conference in Bern, Mr. Hildebrand said he still does not believe he did anything wrong. “I stand by my word that I never lied,” he said.

But, he said, he came to the conclusion that he could not prove to doubters that he had not known about a $500,000 currency transaction his wife made days before the S.N.B. stepped up its intervention in currency markets. “I can’t once and for all prove that it was the way I said it was,” he said.

“Credibility is a central banker’s most valuable asset,” Mr. Hildebrand said. The accusations might have been a burden “during a time when total focus is needed on the duties” of the office, he said.

Mr. Hildebrand wil be replaced at least temporarily by Thomas Jordan, vice president of the S.N.B. He could face market challenges to the bank’s attempt to enforce a limit on the value of the franc against the euro.

“We do not expect any change in the conduct of the Swiss monetary policy,” Julien Manceaux, an analyst at ING Bank, said in a note to clients. The exchange rate floor “is here to stay, with or without Philipp Hildebrand.”

For much of the last three years, the S.N.B. has been engaged in a battle to keep investors from bidding up the value of the Swiss franc, which is seen as a haven from global turmoil. The rise of the franc against the euro and other currencies threatened to make Swiss exports too costly on world markets.

Mr. Hildebrand said he would also step down from several other posts that have made him an influential voice in the debate about how to limit risk-taking by banks and avert future financial crises.

He is vice president of the Financial Stability Board, a group of central bankers and regulators who advise the Group of 20 nations on measures to make the global banking system safer.

Mr. Hildebrand said he would also step down as a member of the board of the Bank for International Settlements, an institution based in Basel, Switzerland, that acts as a clearinghouse for national central banks.

He said he would also resign as one of two Swiss representatives on the board of governors of the International Monetary Fund.

“This is a step which saddens me greatly,” Mr. Hildebrand said. “I depart on good terms and I would like to think I have been a damn good central banker.”

Mr. Hildebrand faced accusations that he or his wife bought and sold large amounts of dollars last year at the same time that the S.N.B. was intervening in currency markets.

The accusations came to light in late December after a former information technology worker at Bank Sarasin, a Swiss private bank, gave information from Mr. Hildebrand’s personal account to the right-wing Swiss People’s Party.

The party, which has substantial popular support, has been sharply critical of the monetary policy pursued by Mr. Hildebrand, as well as his efforts to constrain risk-taking by Swiss banks.

Mr. Hildebrand’s stands on banking regulation have made him some enemies in the industry, something he alluded to Monday. He said he received an e-mail from a friend quoting Woodrow Wilson: “If you want to make enemies, change some things.”

The Bank Sarasin employee who passed on the information about Mr. Hildebrand’s accounts faces criminal charges for violating bank secrecy laws. The 39-year-old man, who has not been identified, is in a psychiatric clinic after attempting suicide, the newspaper Sonntagszeitung and other Swiss media reported.

 

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a647f1d01f9626b667f306803d0c7992

Insider Trading Accusations Against Swiss Banking Head

The report by Weltwoche, a weekly magazine seen as having ties to the rightist Swiss People’s Party, which has been a critic of Mr. Hildebrand, said that in October he made 75,000 francs, or $79,600, from dollar trades. Mr. Hildebrand, the magazine said, acquired dollars before the Swiss National Bank, the central bank, announced measures in September to check the rise of the franc and protect Swiss exporters. The magazine cited copies of statements provided by an employee of a private bank where Mr. Hildebrand had an account.

Mr. Hildebrand did not immediately respond in detail to the report, but planned to make a statement Thursday.

Late last month the council that oversees the central bank said it had examined “rumors” about transactions made by Mr. Hildebrand or members of his family and found no wrongdoing. A report prepared for the council by PricewaterhouseCoopers, released by the central bank Wednesday, said the transactions — amounting to more than $2 million — were made in connection with family financial transactions like ones involving the purchase of real estate. The Pricewaterhouse Coopers report found no violations of central bank rules.

The accusations came as a shock in Switzerland and in central banking circles worldwide. Mr. Hildebrand is a familiar and respected figure in his home country, though some of his policy moves have drawn intense criticism.

Mr. Hildebrand, who spent part of his career at a New York hedge fund, is known internationally for his work drafting regulations, known as Basel III, that would oblige banks worldwide to limit their use of leverage to strengthen risk management.

The disclosure of the transactions immediately took on political overtones because of the involvement of the Swiss People’s Party in bringing the matter to light. The party, which campaigns on a platform of limiting immigration and keeping Switzerland out of the European Union, has been among Mr. Hildebrand’s most vocal critics.

“There have been disputes about monetary policy, but so far no one has questioned his integrity,” said Daniel Kübler, a professor of political science at the University of Zurich.

Noting that Mr. Hildebrand had pushed for more financial disclosure by top officials of the central bank, Mr. Kübler said he found it difficult to believe that the accusations were true. But he added, “If it is confirmed, then he must resign.”

Accountants from PricewaterhouseCoopers who examined records of the transactions said that some were profitable for Mr. Hildebrand but others lost money. The report did not calculate the total profit or loss, but its findings raise the question of why Mr. Hildebrand, who is wealthy, would risk his reputation for relatively little return.

Mr. Hildebrand has made enemies at home and abroad by pushing to impose rules on the country’s two biggest banks, UBS and Credit Suisse, that were tougher than those in other countries. He has also annoyed his former financial industry colleagues with his criticism of banker compensation and his advocacy of regulations to limit bank risk and prevent future financial crises. The rules have been endorsed by leaders of the Group of 20 largest economies.

In Switzerland, one of Mr. Hildebrand’s most vocal antagonists has been Christoph Blocher, a businessman who is perhaps the best-known figure in the Swiss People’s Party. In the past Mr. Blocher has accused the Swiss National Bank of squandering the country’s wealth with costly currency interventions and has demanded that Mr. Hildebrand resign.

The criticism has been muted since the bank announced in September that it would set a limit on the currency of 1.20 francs to the euro. The policy has been successful in keeping the franc, favored by investors as a haven from global financial turmoil, from rising to levels that would be ruinous for Swiss export companies.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/business/global/05iht-snb05.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bankers Named Who Doubted Madoff

Those executives are John J. Hogan, the bank’s chief risk officer for investment banking; Matthew E. Zames, who oversees several important bank trading operations; and Carlos M. Hernandez, the head of global equities at the bank’s investment banking unit.

The identity of those executives is the latest bit of news produced by the bitter courthouse fight between the global banking giant and Irving H. Picard, the bankruptcy trustee gathering assets for victims of Mr. Madoff’s fraud, which wiped out investor accounts valued at almost $65 billion when it collapsed in December 2008.

Mr. Madoff operated his fraud primarily through an account he maintained at JPMorgan Chase. In addition, the bank created and sold its clients derivatives that were linked to various feeder funds that invested with Mr. Madoff, and it invested in those funds to hedge its risks on those derivatives.

In December, Mr. Picard filed a lawsuit seeking $6.4 billion in damages, fees and profits from the bank, asserting that its high-level doubts about Mr. Madoff’s honesty and its failure to act on those doubts to protect investors made it complicit in Mr. Madoff’s fraud.

That lawsuit did not disclose the identity of the bank executives who were involved in the bank’s assessment of Mr. Madoff, but a federal bankruptcy judge ruled earlier this week that the names had to be disclosed, and a new version of the case was filed on Thursday.

In response to the new filing, Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman for the bank, again denied the trustee’s assertions that the bank was complicit in Mr. Madoff’s fraud, calling such accusations “patently false.”

The bank “complied fully with all applicable laws and regulations” in its dealings with Mr. Madoff and has “strong defenses to the claims brought by the Madoff trustee.”

The bank had opposed releasing the names of the senior executives on the grounds that it would violate their personal privacy and embarrass them needlessly.

The new filing by the trustee cleared up one of the mysteries in the redacted lawsuit: the executive who told a senior executive in June 2007 that Mr. Madoff’s returns “are speculated to be part of a Ponzi scheme” was Mr. Zames, a member of the bank’s executive committee who is often cited as a young star who could snag the bank’s top job someday.

His warning was given over lunch to Mr. Hogan, who is also a member of the executive committee. The new filing also showed that Brian Sankey, Mr. Hogan’s deputy, was the executive who, after Mr. Madoff’s arrest, advised that it would be best if the agenda of the meeting at which Mr. Zames’s doubts were discussed “never sees the light of day again.”

Mr. Hernandez was among the other bank executives who learned about Mr. Zames’s doubts that summer, according to the newly filed lawsuit.

The new filing also identified the bank executive who refused to put his private banking clients’ money in Madoff-related funds. It was Michael Cembalest, a chief investment officer at the bank’s private banking unit. His team investigated Mr. Madoff and, “after seeing all of the red flags, chose not to invest” in any of the feeder funds, the lawsuit noted.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=11008b71129f2dca34ea1573bf50f01b

Regrets and Resentment in Microsoft Partnership

In a memoir due out next month that is tinged with bitterness and regret, Mr. Allen accuses Mr. Gates of whittling down his ownership in the company and taking credit for some of his contributions.

The accusations surprised some in the small circle of early Microsoft alumni, as Mr. Gates and Mr. Allen have known each other since high school and have remained on friendly terms until recently. What’s more, Mr. Allen’s wealth soared largely because of Microsoft successes that came well after he left the company in 1983.

“I find the argument that you were cheated financially difficult to make when you ended up being so wealthy,” said Vern Raburn, who worked at Microsoft from 1978 to 2001 and ran its consumer products division. Mr. Raburn said he was friends with both founders and had not read the book or an excerpt from it that was published on Vanity Fair’s Web site Wednesday.

Mr. Raburn added that Mr. Allen played an integral role in the company’s early days, and that “Bill has gone out of his way to acknowledge that.”

In the excerpt, Mr. Allen also takes swipes at Steven A. Ballmer, whom Mr. Gates recruited as Microsoft’s first business manager in 1980 and who replaced Mr. Gates as chief executive in 2000.

Mr. Allen writes that in December 1982, after he learned he had Hodgkin’s lymphoma, he overheard Mr. Gates and Mr. Ballmer plotting to rob him of his due.

“They were bemoaning my recent lack of production and discussing how they might dilute my Microsoft equity by issuing options to themselves and other shareholders,” Mr. Allen said.

Mr. Allen said he burst into the room and confronted the two men, shouting: “This is unbelievable! It shows your true character, once and for all.”

Mr. Allen said that they later apologized, but that he had already decided to leave the company. The book, “Idea Man: A Memoir by the Co-Founder of Microsoft,” is to be published by Portfolio/Penguin, an imprint of Penguin Group USA.

In a statement, Mr. Gates said: “While my recollection of many of these events may differ from Paul’s, I value his friendship and the important contributions he made to the world of technology and at Microsoft.” A Microsoft spokesman said Mr. Ballmer declined to comment.

Mr. Allen, through a spokesman, declined to comment. The spokesman, David Postman, said the memoir was not meant to be an attack on Mr. Gates. “We are going to let the excerpt that is out there stand, and hope that people take the time to read the book and get the full picture,” he said.

The bitterness and sense of betrayal echo more recent complaints against Mark Zuckerberg, the youthful founder of Facebook, by Eduardo Saverin, a Facebook co-founder and Mr. Zuckerberg’s Harvard roommate, over Mr. Saverin’s reduced role and diminished stake in the company.

In a series of recollections that paint Mr. Gates in an unflattering light, Mr. Allen said that after he decided to leave, Mr. Gates made a “lowball” offer of $5 a share for Mr. Allen’s stake in Microsoft. Mr. Allen asked for at least $10 a share, and Mr. Gates refused. That decision eventually turned Mr. Allen into a billionaire.

“From the time we’d started together in Massachusetts, I’d assumed that our partnership would be a 50-50 proposition,” Mr. Allen wrote earlier in the excerpt. “But Bill had another idea.”

During Microsoft’s early years, Mr. Gates pressured Mr. Allen to reduce his stake to 40 percent and later 36 percent as Mr. Gates’s own stake rose to 60 and then 64 percent, Mr. Allen wrote. “Bill knew that I would balk at a two-to-one split, and that 64 percent was as far as he could go,” he wrote.

Stephen Manes, co-author of the book “Gates: How Microsoft’s Mogul Reinvented an Industry — and Made Himself the Richest Man in America,” said that much of what Mr. Allen recounts in the excerpt, including the fact that his ownership of Microsoft was reduced significantly, was reported in his book and others. He also said that while Mr. Gates and Mr. Allen collaborated closely, the two often argued vociferously.

“People told us about shouting matches,” Mr. Manes said. “There was an epic one that began in the office, continued in the elevator and went on in the parking lot for half an hour.”

After leaving Microsoft, Mr. Allen, who is 58, became known as one of the most aggressive investors in technology, though his record has been mixed. He is also the owner of the Seattle Seahawks and the Portland Trail Blazers.

People who know the two men said that they had remained friends until recently, and that Mr. Gates visited Mr. Allen frequently two years ago, when he was recovering from chemotherapy to treat non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

“Paul is a creative, charming and likable person,” said Carl Stork, who worked at Microsoft from 1981 to 2002 and held several executive positions. “I don’t know what Paul is trying to accomplish by trying to take something away from Bill. I am puzzled and disappointed.”

Christine Hauser contributed reporting from New York.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=deba4d637c1204695f18c7d47cdac0eb