preview

Nick Leeson Case

Decent Essays

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Why did Nick Leeson sell numerous short straddles for each long futures contract he bought?

When Nick Leeson was being promoted on the Singapore branch of the Barings bank, the strategy of the bank was to reduce the risk exposure by using a combination of one short straddle (combination of put / call) and for one long future. Since Nick Leeson used to be a specialist on Future contracts on Nikkei 225 and Japanese 10 years bond and was sure this market would arise.

So he decided to sell disproportionate numbers of short straddles for each long futures position he took to pay the required initial margin deposits and new trades and also to meet the mounting margin calls on his existing futures positions, he used …show more content…

He also increased the risk exposure of the bank and had hidden it from its superiors. By using his reputation and the trust from the bank he speculated while he should not have been able to do so.

But after all, the bank had given Nick Leeson virtually free rein and let him do both the back and front office work which was not relevant. The controlling at Barings had failed because the “88888 account” Nick Leeson did not appear on trader reports. So the Barings should given so much responsibility to one single man.

4. Was the Barings board of directors culpable for the losses of Nick Leeson? What is a fair way to evaluate the performance of Barings’ board of directors?

The board of directors is not directly but indirectly culpable because of the lack of control on Leeson’s activity. None of Nick Leeson’s supervisor realized the risks he was taking and the way it could damage to the Bank.

The biggest mistake the board of directors made was to trust a single man only because of his reputation. Just because Nick Leeson was reporting large profits, he was given virtually free rein and nobody had knowledge of his activity, when a trader on arbitrage strategies should not report such profits. The fact that Nick Leeson was reporting such profits should have been interpreted by the board of directors as a warning bell.

The board of directors also ignored Nick Leeson’s growing cash demand he

Get Access