An older story but one that needs exposing. The bank claims it had no knowledge that an extra 0.06% had been added to the price/spread on FX payments between 2010-2014. Nonsense. The price/spread would've been signed off by senior managers and subject to all manner of oversight
Indeed, EVERY FX deal ticket, no matter how small will feature the amount of 'mark up' taken. It was a key performance metric of employees, departments and senior managers running those departments. Let's be clear, even a discrepancy of 0.06% would have been noticeable.....
However, how do we know that the extent of the additional 'mark up' was just 0.06%? Marking their own homework again. We only have RBS word for that, and that has proven to be 'less than reliable/credible/honest (delete as appropriate)' in recent years.....
And, let's be clear here, they are admitting to an amount of extra mark up, over and above, the mark up already applied. Importantly, however, RBS also refer to the amount as a % of transaction amount. Herein lies the biggest scam and concealment by banks......
All FX mark up is applied as a % of transaction, and as per a pre-defined price matrix. HOWEVER, despite knowing to the nearest penny how much they will therefore 'charge' the customer for every FX transaction, they NEVER disclose this to the customer, before or post trade...
This enables them to conceal the true fees being applied. WHEREAS, they could be easily and automatically include the precise cost to customer (over the prevailing interbank rate) in the pre-trade/transaction process, and with zero burden or cost for the bank to do so.....
Indeed, all it requires is to publish the mark up figure that will automatically appear on the deal ticket and be applied to the P&L of the person and department in question, to the customer pre-trade and enable the customer to confirm that they accept this charge?
The bigger question and concern is; Why does the @TheFCA continue to fight against this FX price transparency that could be so easily provided without cost or burden to the bank? And, to be clear, they are actively fighting such disclosure on behalf of the banks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
611 incoming calls about LC&F and Bailey had no idea of the existence of LC&F until it's collapse? Really?
Bailey blames the call handling for failures to escalate reports of LC&F. This is false. I reported the same issues concerning the Blackmore Bond to the FCA whistleblower team. Dodd of the whistleblower team confirms he escalated to the relevant team AND STILL NO ACTION TAKEN....
'Build to rent' aka opposite of fair distribution of wealth, returning property ownership to the top 1%, and one of the biggest dangers to growth in the UK. @graingerplc heavily involved despite their role in destruction of property firms by Lloyds BSU... propertyinvestortoday.co.uk/breaking-news/…
Home ownership by individuals generates substantial inheritance annually. Inheritance and wealth that is re-distributed to multiple members of families and invariably generating significant consumption and help to younger family members to own their own property......
'Build to rent' is seeing substantial & ever growing numbers of properties being built by large 'funds', and with Government funding to do it. These funds own the completed properties which will never be available for the public to buy, and receive the lucrative rents from them
Grant Thornton partner Kevin Hellard, represented by @MoonBeever acting as 'independent' Trustee in bankruptcy for the owner of this company & formerly owner of the Canary Wharf site, has sold the 50% stake in these strips of land owned by the bankrupt individual for £300,000...
Call me old fashioned, but if nobody can enjoy the £300mio or any profit that would be achieved upon completion of this development, then the strips of land are worth a minimum of £50mio. Pay £50mio and enjoy a net £250mio profit. Don't acquire the strips of land, make £0 profit.
Disturbing early signs that Robin Budenberg will seek to continue concealment and the furtherance of false representations made by LBG and @HSFlegal in respect to BSU. Out with the old, in with the new. Nothing changes. @APPGbanking@TV_PCC@andyverity@jameshurley@_MODwyer
Should we be surprised? Mr Budenberg was "heavily involved in the recruitment of António Horta-Osório to the top job at Lloyds in 2011" according to an article by @KGriffithsTimes . The SFO and Dame Linda Dobbs are about to shed further light on Mr Horta Osorio's tenure....
That light will not be positively illuminating. It will cast a significant shadow over those that advocated for his appointment, including the new LBG Chairman. A business takes it lead from the top down. Dishonesty and concealment travel downhill very quickly.....
BBRS break promise to answer ALL questions put to Roundtable (avoiding some, re-engineering others, providing answers that are contrary to fact). I challenge BBRS, @JohnGlenUK@CommonsTreasury . BBRS ignore, @CommonsTreasury ignore. Glen had someone produce this. Seriously?.....
I know what the BBRS is supposed to do. I know why it has been setup. Why does @JohnGlenUK think a letter with zero relevance to the substantial & significant concerns that I raised in respect to the BBRS itself and their Q&A, is adequate, and not an insult?
FCA were provided with a report & supporting evidence that proved LBG were guilty of money laundering by diverting monies belonging to Angel Group to an internal LBG Wash Account in 2012, concealing the monies from the company balance sheet, cashflow & not offsetting against debt
The evidence proves the diversion of funds was in breach of LBG own rules, UK Law and AML rules. The evidence further proves that LBG knew the monies should have been credited to the Business Account of Angel Group (AG) & further proves that LBG & @HSFlegal have lied to deny this