
Explanation:
A key lesson from the Barings Bank collapse is that outsize or consistently high profits generated by a single trader or desk should be treated with skepticism and subjected to independent investigation and rigorous monitoring. Nick Leeson's unverified "profits" hid massive unauthorized speculation. Option A relates more to liquidity crises like Northern Rock or Continental Illinois. While B is a good general principle, C directly targets the specific warning signs ignored in the Barings case.
Ultimate access to all questions.
Q.95 The Baring's case revolves around Nick Leeson, a British trader, who was later appointed as the general manager and head trader of Barings Futures Singapore. He could place orders on his own. He was also in charge of accounting and settlements, and there was no direct oversight over his trading book. This allowed him to create a dummy account where he would dump all losing trades. As far as the London office was concerned, Leeson was reporting profits after profits on his trades. By the time his dealings came to light, Barings had lost approximately $1.25 billion. Which of the following is a lesson learned from the Barings downfall?
A
Reliance on the so-called hot money (short-term loans from the money market) is perilous.
B
Management, and boards, should endeavor to establish areas of the business where risks may hide and also seek to establish the circumstances which can result in a loss.
C
Outsize or strangely consistent profits should be independently investigated and rigorously monitored to verify that they are real.
D
All of the above.
No comments yet.