One phrase I heard of the reform to move away from LIBOR is that it would create winners and losers. Can someone explain how this might happen?


The reason that LIBOR is going away is because it was susceptible to manipulation by its member banks. So whether you're a "winner" or a "loser" depends on what the banks actually did and how it affected you.

If the banks artificially kept LIBOR rates low, then borrowers won (because they paid less interest) and lenders/investors lost (because they received less return on their investments). So the shift would be a "win" for investors/lenders (higher returns) and a "loss" for borrowers (higher interest rates).

The opposite would be true if banks artificially inflated rates.

It's hard to say if either actually happened, since there's not a good way to know what rates should have been to know if they were being manipulated.

| improve this answer | |
  • Good answer, but it seems a bit silly as they can still manipulate rates. LIBOR was just the conduit that will just be something else from now go forward. – Pete B. Dec 11 '19 at 14:14
  • 2
    @PeteB. The "something else" that is currently proposed is based off of market transactions (repos) versus a "committee" of 16 banks. So yes, there may be some room for manipulation, but I would argue that the market (in theory) will make that much harder (or expensive). – D Stanley Dec 11 '19 at 14:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.