As I explained the publication of individual submissions by banks - a measure that was originally intended to enhance transparency, has paradoxically facilitated manipulation. These details will remain available to the oversight committee, administrator, and the FSA for the purpose of oversight and scrutiny. I appreciate that this may be seen as a slight reduction in immediate transparency, but to rectify this, we have recommended the regular publication of a statistical bulletin, including trading volumes and values for the inter-bank funding market.
I am recommending that publication of individual submission is delayed by at least 3 months on a rolling basis, with the information remaining available to the oversight committee, the new rate administrator, and the FSA.
It is clear that there is a large gap between the number of banks which submit to the LIBOR process, and the number who use LIBOR as a reference rate, which has created a free rider problem. This is an issue which I consider should be quickly resolved.
Not only would an increased number of submissions help inform the LIBOR rate, which is supposed to represent the market as a whole, it would also discourage manipulation.
Subsequently I am recommending that relevant banks who do not currently submit, should be encouraged to participate as widely as possible in the LIBOR compilation process, including, if necessary, through new powers of regulatory compulsion. LIBOR requires collective responsibility if it is to work effectively.
Finally, market participants should be encouraged to consider and examine their present use of LIBOR as a reference rate. Is it the most appropriate reference rate for transactions that they undertake? Or are the other benchmark rates that are more appropriate?

(v.) Alternatives for LIBOR in the longer term
My report also considers the viability of alternatives to LIBOR in the longer term. Specifically, if there is a case for and environment where a variety of viable alternatives to LIBOR could exist simultaneously.
It also analyses the case for involvement of the authorities in any move towards either a replacement to LIBOR, or a plurality of alternatives. And finally, it sets out the most plausible candidate alternative benchmarks that were presented in my Discussion Paper, and examining each in more detail.
However it is clear that there is widespread debate ongoing in the international community, concerning the appropriate role of authorities around the globe in regard to a variety of benchmark rates. And several international organizations will be examining and recommending approaches to these issues.

©RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA