Editing Libor (section)

==Reliability and scandal==
{{Main|Libor scandal}}

On Thursday, 29 May 2008, ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' (WSJ) released a controversial study suggesting that banks might have understated borrowing costs they reported for Libor during the 2008 credit crunch.<ref name="wsj-study">{{Cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121200703762027135 |title=Study Casts Doubt on Key Rate |work= The Wall Street Journal | date=29 May 2008 | first1=Carrick | last1=Mollenkamp | first2=Mark | last2=Whitehouse|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529143302/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121200703762027135.html?mod=fpa_whatsnews|archive-date=29 May 2008 }}</ref> Such under-reporting could have created an impression that banks could borrow from other banks more cheaply than they could in reality. It could also have made the banking system or specific contributing bank appear healthier than it was during the 2008 credit crunch. For example, the study found that rates at which one major bank ([[Citigroup]]) "said it could borrow dollars for three months were about 0.87 percentage points lower than the rate calculated using default-insurance data."

In September 2008, a former member of the [[Bank of England]]'s [[Monetary Policy Committee (United Kingdom)|Monetary Policy Committee]], [[Willem Buiter]], described Libor as "the rate at which banks don't lend to each other", and called for its replacement.<ref>{{cite news |last= Osborne |first= Alistair |date= 11 September 2008 |title= Former MPC man calls for Libor to be replaced |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2795962/Former-MPC-man-calls-for-Libor-to-be-replaced.html |work= [[The Daily Telegraph]] |access-date= 10 August 2012 |location= London |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140409174914/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2795962/Former-MPC-man-calls-for-Libor-to-be-replaced.html |archive-date= 9 April 2014 |df= dmy-all }}</ref> The former [[Governor of the Bank of England]], [[Mervyn King, Baron King of Lothbury|Mervyn King]], later used the same description before the [[Treasury Select Committee]].<ref>{{cite news |last= Flanders |first= Stephanie |author-link= Stephanie Flanders |date= 4 July 2012 |title= Inconvenient truths about Libor |url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-your-money-18701623 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |quote= It is in many ways the rate at which banks do not lend to each other, ... it is not a rate at which anyone is actually borrowing. |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120709002717/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-your-money-18701623 |archive-date= 9 July 2012 |df= dmy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtreasy/1210/8112503.htm |title=House of Commons - Treasury - Minutes of Evidence |access-date=2017-09-03 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170316215029/https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtreasy/1210/8112503.htm |archive-date=16 March 2017 |df=dmy-all }} Q34</ref>

To further bring this case to light, ''The Wall Street Journal'' reported in March 2011 that regulators were focusing on [[Bank of America]], Citigroup, and [[UBS]].<ref>{{cite news |author1=Enrich, David |author2=Mollenkamp, Carrick |author3=Eaglesham, Jean |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703818204576205991698548286 |title=U.S. Libor Probe Includes BofA, Citi, UBS |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=18 March 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170710035719/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703818204576205991698548286 |archive-date=10 July 2017 |df=dmy-all }}</ref> Making a case would be very difficult, because the Libor rate was not determined on an open exchange. According to people familiar with the situation, subpoenas were issued to the three banks.

In response to the study released by the WSJ, the British Bankers' Association announced that Libor continued to be reliable even in times of financial crisis. According to the British Bankers' Association, other proxies for financial health, such as the default-credit-insurance market, are not necessarily more sound than Libor at times of financial crisis, though they are more widely used in Latin America, especially the Ecuadorian and Bolivian markets.

Additionally, some other authorities contradicted the Wall Street Journal article. In its March 2008 Quarterly Review, The [[Bank for International Settlements]] stated that "available data do not support the hypothesis that contributor banks manipulated their quotes to profit from positions based on fixings."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Gyntelberg|first=Jacob|author2=Wooldridge, Philip|title=Interbank rate fixings during the recent turmoil|journal=BIS Quarterly Review|date=March 2008|url=http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt0803.pdf|access-date=10 July 2012|page=70|publisher=[[Bank for International Settlements]]|issn=1683-0121| df=dmy-all}}</ref>
In October 2008, the [[International Monetary Fund]] published its regular ''Global Financial Stability Review'', which also found that, "although the integrity of the U.S. dollar Libor-fixing process has been questioned by some market participants and the financial press, it appears that U.S. dollar Libor remains an accurate measure of a typical creditworthy bank's marginal cost of unsecured U.S. dollar term funding."<ref>{{cite journal|title=Global Financial Stability Report|journal=World Economic and Financial Surveys|date=October 2008|url=http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfsr/2008/02/pdf/text.pdf|access-date=11 July 2012|page=76|publisher=[[International Monetary Fund]]|issn=1729-701X|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

On 27 July 2012, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' published an article by a former trader that stated Libor manipulation had been common since at least 1991.<ref>Keenan, Douglas (27 July 2012), "[http://www.informath.org/media/a72/b1.pdf My thwarted attempt to tell of Libor shenanigans]". ''Financial Times''.  (An [http://www.informath.org/media/a72/b3.htm extended version] of this article is on the author's web site.)</ref> Further reports followed from the BBC<ref>[[BBC News]] (10 August 2012), "[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19212801 Libor scandal: Review finds system 'no longer viable']".</ref><ref>[[BBC News Online]] (10 August 2012), "[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19203103 Libor review: Wheatley says system must change]".</ref> and Reuters.<ref>[[Reuters]] (7 August 2012), "Libor collusion was rife, culture went right to the top".</ref> On 28 November 2012, the Finance Committee of the [[Bundestag]] held a hearing to learn more about the issue.<ref>[http://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/2012_11/2012_555/01.html "Britischer Finanzexperte berichtet von langjährigen Zinssatz-Manipulationen"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130104143917/http://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/2012_11/2012_555/01.html|date=4 January 2013}} – in German. More information, in English, is on the trader's web site.[http://www.informath.org/media/a72/b3.htm#Official_responses]</ref>

In late September 2012, Barclays was fined £290m because of its attempts to manipulate the Libor, and other banks were under investigation of having acted similarly. [[Financial Services Authority]] (FSA) managing director [[Martin Wheatley]] called for the British Bankers' Association to lose its power to determine Libor and for the FSA to be able to impose criminal sanctions as well as other changes in a ten-point overhaul plan.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/sep/28/libor-government-urged-implement-reforms | location=London | work=The Guardian | first=Jill | last=Treanor | title=Libor: government urged to implement reforms | date=28 September 2012 | df=dmy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748613 | publisher=BBC News | title=Libor interest rate riggers 'should face prosecution' | date=28 September 2012 | df=dmy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://in.reuters.com/article/britain-fsa-libor-idINL1E8KS27L20120928 | work=Reuters | title=UPDATE 4-UK seeks to mend "broken" Libor, not end it | date=28 September 2012 | df=dmy-all | access-date=5 July 2021 | archive-date=1 June 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190601194407/https://in.reuters.com/article/britain-fsa-libor-idINL1E8KS27L20120928 | url-status=dead }}</ref>

The British Bankers' Association said on 25 September that it would transfer oversight of LIBOR to UK regulators, as proposed by Wheatley and CEO-designate of the new [[Financial Conduct Authority]].<ref name=BloombergMain>{{cite news | url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-26/libor-spurned-credit-score-review-germany-s-audit-compliance.html | title=Libor Spurned, Credit Score Review, Germany's Audit: Compliance | work=Bloomberg | date=26 September 2012 | access-date=26 September 2012 | author=Main, Carla | df=dmy-all }}</ref>

On 28 September, Wheatley's independent review was published, recommending that an independent organisation with government and regulator representation, called the [[Tender Committee]], manage the process of setting LIBOR under a new external oversight process for transparency and accountability. Banks that made submissions to LIBOR would be required to base them on actual inter-bank deposit market transactions and keep records of their transactions supporting those submissions. The review also recommended that individual banks' LIBOR submissions be published, but only after three months, to reduce the risk that they would be used as a measure of the submitting banks' creditworthiness. The review left open the possibility that regulators might compel additional banks to participate in submissions if an insufficient number do voluntarily. The review recommended criminal sanctions specifically for manipulation of benchmark interest rates such as the LIBOR, saying that existing criminal regulations for manipulation of financial instruments were inadequate.<ref name=Blakes>Alexis Levine and Michael Harquail (5 October 2012) [http://www.blakes.com/english/view.asp?ID=5541 "Wheatley Review May Mean Big Changes for LIBOR"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121115083157/http://www.blakes.com/english/view.asp?ID=5541 |date=15 November 2012 }} ''Blakes Business'' (Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP)</ref> LIBOR rates could have become higher and more volatile after implementation of these reforms, so financial institution customers could have faced higher and more volatile borrowing and hedging costs.<ref name=Brettell>Karen Brettell (28 September 2012) [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-money-idUSBRE88R1C720120928 "Libor reform may add volatility, increase some funding costs"] Reuters</ref> The UK government agreed to accept all of the Wheatley Review's recommendations and press for legislation implementing them.<ref name="Thomson" />

[[Bloomberg LP]] CEO [[Dan Doctoroff]] told the [[European Parliament]] that [[Bloomberg LP]] could develop an alternative index called the Bloomberg Interbank Offered Rate that would use data from transactions such as market-based quotes for [[credit default swap]] transactions and [[Corporate bond|corporate bonds]].<ref>Michelle Price [http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-09-28/libor-tender-puts-data-providers-in-spotlight "Libor tender puts focus on data providers"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121101111652/http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-09-28/libor-tender-puts-data-providers-in-spotlight |date=1 November 2012 }}, "Financial News", 28 September 2012</ref><ref>Ben Moshinsky and Lindsay Fortado [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/u-k-lawmakers-seek-speedy-overhaul-of-libor-following-review.html "U.K. Lawmakers Seek Speedy Overhaul of Libor Following Review"], "Bloomberg News", 28 September 2012</ref>

===Criminal investigations===
On 28 February 2012, it was revealed that the [[US Department of Justice]] was conducting a criminal investigation into Libor abuse.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libor-probe-idUSTRE81R1ZG20120228|title=U.S. conducting criminal Libor probe|date=28 February 2012|work=Reuters| df=dmy-all}}</ref> Among the abuses being investigated were the possibility that traders were in direct communication with bankers before the rates were set, thus allowing them an advantage in predicting that day's fixing. Libor underpinned approximately $350&nbsp;trillion in [[derivative (finance)|derivative]]s. One trader's messages indicated that for each basis point (0.01%) that Libor was moved, those involved could net "about a couple of million dollars".<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/21557772|title=Libor: Eagle fried|newspaper=The Economist|date=30 June 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120724205601/http://www.economist.com/node/21557772|archive-date=24 July 2012|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

On 27 June 2012, [[Barclays Bank]] was fined $200m by the [[Commodity Futures Trading Commission]],<ref name="cftc">{{Cite news|url=http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6289-12|title=CFTC Orders Barclays to pay $200 Million Penalty for Attempted Manipulation of and False Reporting concerning LIBOR and Euribor Benchmark Interest Rates| df=dmy-all}}</ref> $160m by the [[United States Department of Justice]]<ref name="usdoj">{{Cite news|url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/June/12-crm-815.html|title=Barclays Bank PLC Admits Misconduct Related to Submissions for the London Interbank Offered Rate and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate and Agrees to Pay $160 Million Penalty|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120713233752/http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/June/12-crm-815.html|archive-date=13 July 2012|df=dmy-all}}</ref> and £59.5m by the [[Financial Services Authority]]<ref name="fsa">{{Cite news|url=http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2012/070.shtml|title=Barclays fined £59.5&nbsp;million for significant failings in relation to LIBOR and EURIBOR|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120628104925/http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2012/070.shtml|archive-date=28 June 2012|df=dmy-all}}</ref> for attempted manipulation of the Libor and Euribor rates.<ref>{{cite news|first=Ian|last=Pollock|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18622907|title=Libor scandal: Who might have lost?|publisher=BBC News|date=28 June 2012|access-date=28 June 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120628183415/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18622907|archive-date=28 June 2012|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The United States Department of Justice and Barclays officially agreed that "the manipulation of the submissions affected the fixed rates on some occasions".<ref name="usdoj statement of facts">{{cite web | url=https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/9312012710173426365941.pdf | title=Statement of Facts | publisher=United States Department of Justice | date=26 June 2012 | access-date=11 July 2012 | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120715064327/http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/9312012710173426365941.pdf | archive-date=15 July 2012 | df=dmy-all }}</ref><ref>Taibbi, Matt, [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-is-nobody-freaking-out-about-the-libor-banking-scandal-20120703 Why is Nobody Freaking Out About the LIBOR Banking Scandal?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120707005012/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-is-nobody-freaking-out-about-the-libor-banking-scandal-20120703 |date=7 July 2012 }}, [[Rolling Stone]], 3 July 2012</ref> On 2 July 2012, [[Marcus Agius]], chairman of Barclays, resigned from the position following the interest rate rigging scandal.<ref>{{cite news|agency=Reuters |title=Barclays chairman resigns over interest rate rigging scandal |url=http://profit.ndtv.com/News/Article/barclays-chairman-to-resign-over-interest-rate-rigging-scandal-307175 |access-date=2 July 2012 |newspaper=NDTV profit |date=2 July 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120704215734/http://profit.ndtv.com/News/Article/barclays-chairman-to-resign-over-interest-rate-rigging-scandal-307175 |archive-date= 4 July 2012 }}</ref> [[Bob Diamond (banker)|Bob Diamond]], the chief executive officer of Barclays, resigned on 3 July 2012. Marcus Agius was to fill his post until a replacement was found.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18685040|title=Barclays boss Bob Diamond resigns amid Libor scandal|date=3 July 2012 |publisher=BBC News|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170422222236/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18685040|archive-date=22 April 2017|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/banking/article3598091.ece?homepage=true |title=Bob Diamond |date=4 July 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130210195646/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/banking/article3598091.ece?homepage=true |archive-date=10 February 2013 }}</ref> Jerry del Missier, chief operating officer of Barclays, also resigned. Del Missier subsequently admitted that he had instructed his subordinates to submit falsified LIBORs to the British Bankers Association.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/former-senior-barclays-executive-faces-scrutiny-in-parliament/ | work=The New York Times | first=Mark | last=Scott | title=Former Senior Barclays Executive Faces Scrutiny in Parliament | date=16 July 2012 | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709105939/https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/former-senior-barclays-executive-faces-scrutiny-in-parliament/ | archive-date=9 July 2017 | df=dmy-all }}</ref>

By 4 July 2012, the breadth of the scandal was evident and became the topic of analysis on news and financial programs that attempted to explain the importance of the scandal.<ref>[http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2012/07/matt-taibbi-eliott-spitzer-and-dennis.html Capitalism Without Failure] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120711131836/http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2012/07/matt-taibbi-eliott-spitzer-and-dennis.html |date=11 July 2012 }} coverage of a discussion among [[Matt Taibbi]], [[Eliot Spitzer]], and Dennis Kelleher on [[Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer]] on 4 July 2012 regarding the emerging LIBOR Scandal</ref> On 6 July, it was announced that the UK [[Serious Fraud Office (United Kingdom)|Serious Fraud Office]] had also opened a criminal investigation into the attempted manipulation of interest rates.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-09/libor-criminal-probe-cftc-bank-exemptions-canada-compliance|title=Bloomberg Business|publisher=Bloomberg L.P.|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120712095510/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-09/libor-criminal-probe-cftc-bank-exemptions-canada-compliance|archive-date=12 July 2012|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

On 4 October 2012, Republican [[United States Senate|US Senators]] [[Chuck Grassley]] and [[Mark Kirk]] announced that they were investigating [[United States Treasury Secretary|Treasury Secretary]] [[Timothy Geithner]] for complicity with the rate manipulation scandal. They accused Geithner of knowledge of the rate-fixing, and inaction which contributed to litigation that "threatens to clog our courts with multi-billion dollar class action lawsuits" alleging that the manipulated rates harmed state, municipal, and local governments. The senators said that an American-based interest rate index would be a better alternative and that they would take steps towards creating one.<ref>HITC Business (4 October 2012) [http://hereisthecity.com/2012/10/04/fox-business-networks-charlie-gasparino-reports-sen-grassley-and/ "Senators Launch Investigation Into Treasury Secretary Geithner’s Involvement In Libor Manipulation"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130117114250/http://hereisthecity.com/2012/10/04/fox-business-networks-charlie-gasparino-reports-sen-grassley-and/ |date=17 January 2013 }} (''FOX Business'')</ref>

===Aftermath===
Early estimates are that the rate manipulation scandal cost US states, counties, and local governments at least $6&nbsp;billion in fraudulent interest payments, above the $4&nbsp;billion that state and local governments spent to unwind their positions exposed to rate manipulation.<ref>Darrell Preston (10 October 2012) [http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121011/BUSINESS05/310110056/Rigged-LIBOR-costs-states-localities-6-billion "Rigged LIBOR costs states, localities $6 billion"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140823030344/http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121011/BUSINESS05/310110056/Rigged-LIBOR-costs-states-localities-6-billion |date=23 August 2014 }} ''Bloomberg''</ref>

=== Reforms ===
The administration of Libor itself became a regulated activity overseen by the UK's [[Financial Conduct Authority]].<ref name=regactivity>{{cite press release|url=http://www.bbalibor.com/news/libor-becomes-a-regulated-activity|title=LIBOR becomes a regulated activity|date=2 April 2013|access-date=25 July 2013|publisher=The British Bankers' Association|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130622081925/http://www.bbalibor.com/news/libor-becomes-a-regulated-activity|archive-date=22 June 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Furthermore, knowingly or deliberately making false or misleading statements in relation to benchmark-setting was made a criminal offence in UK law under the [[Financial Services Act 2012]].<ref name="reforms" /><ref name="UK Policy" /><ref name="FSBillPR" />

The Danish, Swedish, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Libor rates were terminated.<ref name="reforms" /><ref name="regactivity" />

From the end of July 2013, only five currencies and seven maturities were quoted every day (35 rates), reduced from 150 different Libor rates – 15 maturities for each of ten currencies, making it more likely that the rates submitted were underpinned by real trades.<ref name="reforms" /><ref name="regactivity" />

From the beginning of July 2013, each individual submission that came in from the banks was embargoed for three months to reduce the motivation to submit a false rate to portray a flattering picture of creditworthiness.<ref name="reforms" /><ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.bbalibor.com/news/announcement-of-libor-changes|title=Announcement of LIBOR changes|date=12 June 2013|access-date=25 July 2013|publisher=The British Bankers' Association|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130623051004/http://www.bbalibor.com/news/announcement-of-libor-changes|archive-date=23 June 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

A new code of conduct, introduced by a new interim oversight committee, built on this by outlining the systems and controls firms had to have in place around Libor. For example, each bank had to have a named person responsible for Libor, accountable if there is any wrongdoing. The banks had to keep records so that they could be audited by the regulators if necessary.<ref name="reforms" /><ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.bbalibor.com/news/code-of-conduct-for-contributing-banks-becomes-industry-guidance-and-whistl|title=Code of Conduct for Contributing Banks becomes Industry Guidance and Whistleblowing policy issued|date=15 July 2013|access-date=25 July 2013|publisher=The British Bankers' Association|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130813000507/http://www.bbalibor.com/news/code-of-conduct-for-contributing-banks-becomes-industry-guidance-and-whistl|archive-date=13 August 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.bbalibor.com/news/bba-libor-limited-has-established-the-interim-libor-oversight-committee-ilo|title=BBA Libor Limited has established the Interim LIBOR Oversight Committee (ILOC)|date=5 July 2013|access-date=25 July 2013|publisher=The British Bankers' Association|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130715232415/http://www.bbalibor.com/news/bba-libor-limited-has-established-the-interim-libor-oversight-committee-ilo|archive-date=15 July 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

In early 2014, [[NYSE Euronext]] took over the administration of Libor from the [[British Bankers Association]].<ref>{{cite press release|url=https://www.nyse.com/press/1373365567815.html |title=NYSE EURONEXT SUBSIDIARY TO BECOME NEW ADMINISTRATOR OF LIBOR |publisher=NYSE Euronext |date=9 July 2013 |access-date=21 July 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130718141355/http://www.nyse.com/press/1373365567815.html |archive-date=18 July 2013 }}</ref> The new administrator was NYSE Euronext Rates Administration Limited,<ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/bba-to-hand-over-administration-of-libor-to-nyse-euronext-rate-administrati|title=BBA to hand over administration of LIBOR to NYSE Euronext Rate Administration Limited|publisher=The British Bankers' Association|date=9 July 2013|access-date=20 July 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130713075451/http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/bba-to-hand-over-administration-of-libor-to-nyse-euronext-rate-administrati|archive-date=13 July 2013|df=dmy-all}}</ref> a London-based, UK registered company, regulated by the UK's [[Financial Conduct Authority]].<ref name="reforms" />

On 13 November 2013, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) Group announced the successful completion of its acquisition of NYSE Euronext. As a result of this acquisition, NYSE Euronext Rate Administration Limited was renamed ICE Benchmark Administration Limited. The appointment of a new administrator was a major step forward in the reform of LIBOR.<ref name="ICE Benchmark Administration Ltd take responsibility for administrating LIBOR.">[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-day-of-business-for-new-libor-administrator ICE Benchmark Administration Ltd take responsibility for administrating LIBOR] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325230816/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-day-of-business-for-new-libor-administrator |date=25 March 2014 }},</ref>

The scandal also led to the [[European Commission]] proposal of EU-wide benchmark regulation.<ref>{{cite press release |title=New measures to restore confidence in benchmarks following LIBOR and EURIBOR scandals |date=18 September 2013 |publisher=European Commission |url=http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-841_en.htm?locale=en |access-date=18 December 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131219031456/http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-841_en.htm?locale=en |archive-date=19 December 2013 |df=dmy-all}}</ref>

Following its cessation, industry publication ''[[Financial News]]'' noted there were "an army of bankers, lawyers and traders" devoted to working on the transition that would need to change their focus given the switch to a new benchmark, even as there would be other jurisdictions and currencies moving off other inter-bank lending rates in years ahead.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chan |first=Jeremy |title=Libor is dead. Now hundreds of experts must reinvent themselves |url=https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/libor-is-dead-now-100s-of-experts-must-reinvent-themselves-20230710 |access-date=2023-07-11 |website=www.fnlondon.com |language=en-GB}}</ref>