Can Bob Diamond Hang on After Barclays Libor Scandal ?

Let's phrase it in the lingo of a Barclays derivatives trader: dude, this is serious shit.

Barclays tried to manipulate a $550tn market for almost half a decade. Internal controls and risk management functions were inadequate. The compliance department failed to do its job. The bank's actions created the risk that the stability of the UK financial system would be threatened.

Add up that collection of misdemeanours and even £290m of fines, plus a voluntary waiving of boardroom bonuses, is woefully inadequate. The outside world will want to know why no director of Barclays has offered his resignation.

OK, John Varley, chief executive during the saga described in devastating detail by regulators in the UK and the US, has already left the bank. But Bob Diamond, today's chief executive, was running Barclays Capital, the division housing the derivatives dudes seeking to profit by manipulating the Libor rate.

None of the various regulators' reports suggest that Diamond or any other executive director at Barclays knew what was going on – they, we must assume, are not the "senior management" referred to in the FSA report who gave instructions to reduce Libor submissions. But should the top brass have known what was going on? Why doesn't the buck stop at the top when the reputation of the bank has been so badly damaged?

Barclays seems to hope that expressions of "the utmost regret" plus the sacrifice of bonuses by Diamond and three others to reflect "collective responsibilty" will suffice. It may also be hoping that, as this is an industry-wide investigation, revelations elsewhere will show Barclays not to be unique in its dishonesty.

Can Diamond tough this one out? At the moment, that looks a tight call. As for 12-1 odds on Varley being the next governor of the Bank of England, don't risk a penny.

This article was written by Nils Pratley, for guardian.co.uk on Wednesday 27th June 2012 16.37 Europe/London