Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls andthe Collapse of Barings Bank

By Sam Bhugaloo

Page 1 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

Table of Content

Introduction.................................................................................................................................3
Background and Overview… ......................................................................………… ........ .....4
Barings Bank...............................................................................................................................5Internal Controls at Barings Bank.............................................................................................13
Lessons Learned and Steps Taken to Preclude Recurrences . ..................................................15
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................18
References.................................................................................................................................20

Page 2 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction
Even in an era where “cooking the books” and “Enronised” have entered the vernacular,
it seems unbelievable that a global institution with an unimpeachable reputation collapsed into
bankruptcy as the result of the ethical improprieties of a single employee, Nicholas (“Nick”)
Leeson. Leeson was directly responsible for causing the collapse of Britain's Barings Bank byconcealing $1.4 billion in losses in 1995 (Lemke, 2002). This paper provides an overview of theevents leading up to the collapse of Barings Bank in 1995, a discussion of Nick Leeson andcommodities trading, and an assessment of the adequacy of internal controls at Barings Bank.
An analysis of the lessons learned and steps taken to preclude recurrences of such events in the
future is followed by a summary of the research in the conclusion.

Page 3 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

Background and Overview
One meaning of globalization refers to "paper entrepreneurialism" and to the explosive
growth of international financial markets: “Dwarfing the growth of trade in manufactured goods,
these financial markets draw on the $20 trillion of swaps, options, and other derivatives thatcirculate around the world.” 1 In these markets, investors speculate on minute spreads in global
interest rates, as well as in foreign currency exchanges that currently trade $2.5 trillion a day.
According to Blau, technological innovations in banking have helped to fuel this growth inspeculative capacity. For example, when Chemical Bank purchased Chase Manhattan, it alsoacquired the $130 million centre in Bournemouth, England that Chase had built to processtransactions from around the world. A satellite network connected this 323,000-square footfacility to offices in New York, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, and Tokyo; the telecommunicationslines to London could transmit the equivalent of the city's telephone directory in 90 seconds. The
total value of all transactions it handled reached trillions of dollars a year and the money
naturally tended to go where more of it could be made in the fastest manner possible. “In
essence, the financial markets are now so interlocked it is estimated that political and economicchanges elsewhere account for 80 percent of the turbulence in a given market. As a result, a riseof interest rates in New York can easily spark a sell-off in Mexico.” 2This relentless quest for the highest rate of profit frequently deprives some countries offunds. For example, in the last decade of the 20th century, Sweden, Canada, Italy, and Spain
were deeply in debt and faced a capital shortage; however, U.S. investors were particularly
uninterested in these investment opportunities. Rather than seek out these investment venues,
from 1990 to the end of 1993, American investors absorbed a net total of $127 billion in the

1
2

Joel Blau, 1999, 24.
Blau, 1999, 24.

Page 4 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

then-robust Asian and Latin American markets. In 1993, the Philippine market increased 133
percent; at the same time, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Brazil roughly
doubled. Poland experienced the sharpest increase (718 percent), but Turkey managed to gain
214 percent, and Zimbabwe also increased 123 percent. According to Blau, “Countries that weredeeply in debt simply could not compete with speculative opportunities like these.” 3
As the ability to speculate increased in the last years of the 20th century, though, so did
the associated risks. Blau points out that some of the major financial downturns have affected
the once-great, including Hedge fund manager George Soros, who lost $600 million by betting
against a strong Japanese yen; Procter & Gamble, which lost $102 million on leveraged
derivatives purchased from Bankers Trust Co.; and Nick Leeson, an unsupervised 28-year-old
stock trader who wagered a total of $27 billion, primarily on differences in futures contracts
between Singapore and Osaka. “Leeson lost $1.4 billion and bankrupted his employer, Barings
P.L.C., a British investment firm that was 233 years old.” 4

Barings Bank
Founded in 1762, Barings Bank (previously known as Baring Brothers & Co.) was theoldest merchant banking company in England. Barings collapsed on February 26, 1995 as theresult of the activities of one of its traders, Nick Leeson, who lost $1.4 billion by investing in the
Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX) with primarily derivative securities. This
was actually the second time the bank had been faced with bankruptcy. 5

Following thecollapse, Barings was purchased by the Dutch bank/insurance company ING (for the nominal
3

Ibid.
Business Week, "The Lesson from Barings' Straits," March 13, 1995, 30.
5
The first being in 1890 when a significant amount of investment was lost in South America following theArgentinean revolution; however, at that time, they had been bailed out by the Bank of England and other Londonbanks. In Barings Bank, 2004, 1.
4Page 5 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

sum of one pound) and today no longer exists as a corporate entity; however, the Baring family’sname lives on in Baring Asset Management. 6 An autobiography of Leeson and the events
leading up to the collapse of Barings were dramatized in the movie “Rogue Trader.” 7 According
to Wolfgang H. Reinicke (1998), in view of recent developments in the derivatives markets, theBasle Committee recognized that its existing formula focused too much on credit risk and too
little on market and operational risks. As a result, a series of intense discussions took place
within the committee, as well as between regulators and the private sector over the next few
years. 8
This initiative resulted in what represented a dramatic shift in the global public policy
framework developed in the late 1980s. In an effort to accommodate the changes that had takenplace in the markets, the Basle Committee issued for comment a proposal on a capital standard
based on market risk in April 1993; however, the private sector responded with sharp criticismsthat the proposed reforms were too complex for smaller institutions to manage, and too difficult
for the public to understand, and still too primitive for banks that had already been active in thederivatives market by using much more sophisticated risk management techniques. 9
In the controversy that ensued, the future of global regulatory arrangements wasdetermined by regulators who soon came to realize that there was only one way they could hope
to control what, by 1994, had become a rapidly evolving and ever more complex industry:“They would have to not only engage the private sector to a much larger degree in the agenda
setting and formulation of global public policy, but also make extensive use of public-private

6

Barings Bank, 2004.
Ibid.
8
Wolfgang H. Reinicke, 1998, Global Public Policy: Governing without Government?
9
Reinicke, 1998.
7

Page 6 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

partnerships during implementation.” 10 This served as the catalyst for embracing a new
approach, a process that significantly accelerated following the collapse of the Barings Group, amajor U.K. bank, in February 1995.
According to Reincke, the collapse occurred with almost no warning and happened
quickly. The collapse itself involved the extensive proprietary use of derivatives to establish
large, highly leveraged positions in Nikkei 225 (Japanese equities) futures on the futures
exchanges in Singapore and Osaka. Reincke writes, “Barings' collapse came on the heels ofother financial crises involving derivatives, such as those of the government of Orange County,
California, and the German firm Metallgesellschaft.” 11
The collapse of the Barings Bank identified three fundamental shortcomings that had tobe addressed in order to establish a revised framework for global public policy:
1.

As late as the end of 1993 Barings had a capital ratio well in excess of the Basle

Agreement's 8 percent requirement, and in January 1995 it was still considered a safe bank; thefact that Barings found itself in receivership only two months later could not but raise serious
doubts about the adequacy of the regulatory system for capital requirements;
2.

The collapse showed that internal controls at Barings were totally inadequate tosupport the activities of its traders; and3.

It was evidence that regulators in different countries had failed to communicate

with each other to a degree sufficient to reduce at least in part the information asymmetry that
globalization had created. 12
Against the background of these events and the shortcomings they revealed, the Basle
Committee accelerated its efforts and in April 1995 issued for comment a proposal for an
10

Ibid., 119.
Ibid.
12
Reincke, 1998.
11

Page 7 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

entirely new approach toward the regulation and calculation of banks' capital requirements. For
the first time in their history, banks would be allowed to use their own internal risk management
models, which they use for their routine day-to-day trading and risk management, to determine
their capital requirements. 13
Regulators would no longer impose or enforce strict, uniform, quantitative limits on theactivities of banks. Rather, in recognition of the growing complexity and innovative dynamismof the global financial services industry, the Basle Committee acknowledged that, provided
certain qualitative and quantitative safeguards were present, the banks' own control and risk
management mechanisms would prove superior to any that regulators could impose. The
committee proposed to allow banks to use their own in-house risk models, also called value-atrisk (VAR) models, which are designed to assess and monitor market risk (the form of risk
perceived to be the greatest threat arising from the emergence of the derivatives markets) and, on
the basis of these models, to calculate their own capital charges. 14 At the same time, however,banks would be required to use a common approach to measure risk, the so-called “value-at-risk”
approach. Reincke notes that value-at-risk is an estimate, to a certain level of confidence, of the
maximum possible loss in value of a portfolio or financial position over a given period of time;
the Group of Thirty had recommended such an approach in the past. 15

Nick Leeson and Commodities Trading.
Beyond their usefulness in risk management or hedging applications, derivatives are also
powerful tools for cross-border speculation. According to Reicke, as an example, currency
options allow large investors to place large bets on the movement of a currency for a fraction of
13

Ibid.
Reincke, 1998.
15
Ibid.
14

Page 8 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

the cost of holding a comparable position in dollars or yen. Likewise, stock index derivatives
enable speculators to take positions on the movement of foreign equity markets withoutacquiring any foreign stock. Although all of these parallel markets are linked to a stock market
in some country, or to a national currency, their geographic location is simply a function ofwhere a demand emerges, or where a conciliatory regulatory environment can be found,irrespective of national borders. As a result, the largest market for options on German
government bonds was in London, as the activities of Barings’ trader Nick Leeson
demonstrated. 16
A significant amount of speculation also takes place on the Nikkei 225 (an index ofJapanese equities), as well as in Singapore; trading in Japanese bond futures takes place inChicago. According to Reincke, “Ultimately, the proliferation of these instruments and markets
has had a powerful arbitraging effect, bringing both prices and regulations across borders closer
together. 17
While there were a number of other factors that contributed to the $1.4-billion trading
fraud, business journalist John Plender reports that a number of those who were involved ininvestigating and picking up the pieces after the Barings fiasco “. . . believe that the competitive
nature of the relationship between the Osaka Stock Exchange in Japan and the SIMEX exchange
in Singapore prevented a sharing of information about Barings' exposures that would have led toearlier curbs on Leeson's activities." 18 Leeson's superiors in London maintained that he wasmost likely involved in some type of scheme that was designed to profit from Barings' collapse.
An increasing amount of evidence, however, suggests a different series of events contributed tothe bank’s demise. For example, Reincke reports that investigators sent to Singapore by the
16

Ibid.
Ibid., 38.
18John Dalla Costa, 1998.
17

Page 9 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

Bank of England discovered no evidence of anyone building a single, large short position against
the bank. “In fact, it was discovered that the former Barings’ employee had traded with anumber of parties. A more reasonable explanation was that Leeson might have been selling calland put options on the Nikkei, betting that the Japanese equities market would fluctuate within astable range.” 19
Following the January 1995 Kobe earthquake, however, the Nikkei moved out of its
ordinary trading range, compelling Leeson to buy contracts to support the market. As a result,
his exposure increased from less than 5,000 contracts on January 13 to 20,000 by February 17,
1995. “When Leeson's scheme collapsed, Barings accounted for nearly 20 percent of the open
interest in the contract on the exchange and exceeded the level of holdings of the next largest
market participant by almost eightfold.” 20
Leeson’s manipulations took place during a period in time when such practices werelargely recognized for what they were: product marketers intentionally or intuitively apply
framing principles to successfully manipulate consumers' preferences, including those for risk.
Studies have shown that using framing techniques, traders such as Leeson could fool a majorityof auditors. In a technique that anyone who has purchased a used car from a high-pressure
salesmen would recognize, “By convincing investors, even intelligent and educated ones, thatthey are losing the opportunity for wealth that others are enjoying, industry professionals can
induce excessive risk-taking by investors.” These are certainly powerful emotional forces atplay, but equally compelling are other primal human forces that seem to make people act in acertain way: “What in hindsight appears to be greed is simply the natural human tendency to

19
20

Reincke, 1998.
Ibid, 268.

Page 10 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

avoid a loss, especially relative to others. What appears in hindsight to be gullibility is simply
the strong human need to trust.” 21
As a result, Leeson was simply playing off human nature, both of his investors and hisown, wherein potential investors could be convinced to invest in a risky new venture to attempt
to recoup the losses from the first venture, just as gamblers who have lost more than they
expected can be induced to "double up" in an attempt to recoup their losses. “Even corporate
executives and sophisticated investors are subject to this tendency. Nick Leeson sank Barings’
Bank by losing money and then doubling up in an attempt to make back the bank's money.” 22
Securities professionals (and savvy investors) are well aware of this tendency of investors andmanage to take advantage of it. For instance, citing Procter & Gamble, Dell Computer, Mead
Corporation, and other firms' announcement of large losses from trading derivatives, Frank
Partnoy, a former employee of Morgan Stanley, reported:
Soon after the first losses were announced [Morgan Stanley's
President John] Mack told a group of managing directors, ‘There's
blood in the water. Let's go kill someone.’ The idea was that if
our derivatives customers were in trouble, and we could convince
them that they needed us--perhaps to "double-down" on theirlosses--we could make even more money off their hardship.
Management salivated at these potential victims, known
euphemistically as distressed buyers. As my bosses told me
repeatedly during this period, ‘We love distressed buyers.’ 23

21

Robert Prentice, 2002, 1398.
Ibid.
23
Prentice, 2002, 1399.
22

Page 11 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

There were plenty of distressed buyers to go around during the last decade of the 20th
century in the United Kingdom as well. According to Taylor, the following represent just someof the major reported frauds in the British market during this period:
Table 1. Some major reported frauds in market Britain, 1988-1998.
Individual
case

Loss (to company/
Summary
investors)
Four senior executives eventually foundguilty in 1992 of complex and fraudulent
1986 Guinness affair'share-support' arrangement facilitating£2.35 billion take-over of Distillers
17,000 elderly small investors defrauded by
1988 Barlow Clowes £190 millionPeter Clowes
Eleven executives charged with 'deliberate
deception' of investors with respect toBlue Arrow£65 million
1989
progress of sale of a £837 million sharesaffair(1987 only)offer: County Natwest failed to disclose
its own share in Blue Arrow shares£760 million
Monies laundered out of BCCI HQ bank inBank of Credit (£100 million lost
London through subsidiaries in fifteen
1991 and Commerce by UK local
countries by eight senior executives;
International
authorities)
BCCI shut down by Bank of England1991 Polly Peck£450 million

Maxwell
1991 pensions
affair£450 million

1995 Barings£800 million

MorganGrenfell£438 million

1996

1997 Natwest£89 million

Asil Nadir 'jumped bail' May 1993 to Northern
Cyprus, charged with misappropriation of money
belonging to creditors of Polly Peck International
Fraudulent investment of occupational
pension funds belonging to 32,000 Daily Mirror
employees
Revelations that trading by Nick Leeson in
the futures market had led to collapse of Barings,
Britain's oldest bank
Monies belonging to Deutsche Bank andthree investment funds defrauded by Peter Youngand five senior managers within Morgan Grenfell
Natwest invests £89 million in vastly overrated
options on advice of own trader, Kyriacos Papouris,with a view to personal gain

Page 12 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: Ian Taylor, 1999, 144.
Internal Controls at Barings Bank
The Barings collapse confirmed that internal controls at Barings were clearly insufficient
to detect what was taking place with Leeson’s derivatives trades. “Look at what happened toBaring Brothers Bank when they turned loose that idiot, Nick Leeson, to do his own thing in the
Far East financial markets. He lost so much money speculating in yen that he brought down thewhole bank before the top command even knew what was happening.” 24 While initial accounts
cantered on the fraudulent activities of Leeson, and evidence suggests that Leeson was in fact
engaged in highly speculative transactions and deliberately tried to deceive his superiors, his
actions were not the only reason for the group's failure. Totally inadequate internal
communications, controls, and channels of accountability, as well as insufficient regulatory
oversight, compounded these findings by UK regulators as did a lack of communication between
regulators in the United Kingdom, Japan, and Singapore. 25
The most glaring aspect of the lack of internal communication is that it was common
knowledge on the futures markets that Barings was building an increasingly risky position. As
one U.S. fund manager put it, "The futures community [had] known of this mega-position forabout the last three months." 26 In New York the manager of one of the biggest hedge funds said
that "news of Barings' purchase of contracts had been the subject of 'intense discussion' in thefinancial markets for at least two weeks," and short of completely inadequate in-house

24

William Mcdonald Wallace, 1998, 56.
Reincke, 1998.
26
Ibid., 269.
25

Page 13 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

communications, it is inconceivable that senior management was unaware of thesedevelopments. 27
The failure of Barings’ management to prevent the collapse of Barings also resulted from
Barings' flawed internal controls and channels of accountability. “Leeson was responsible forboth the trading and the settlement sides of the Singapore operations, which made it easier for
him to conceal his contracts from his superiors.” 28 Nevertheless, senior management officials at
Barings had been made aware of this situation as early as 1992. At that time the head ofBarings’ Securities operations in Singapore alerted the firm's management in London to thepotential dangers of having Leeson manage both trading and settlement. In March 1992 he wrote
to the head of equities in London, "My concern is that we are in danger of setting up a structure
which will subsequently prove disastrous and with which we will succeed in losing either a lot ofmoney or client goodwill or probably both." 29 According to Nikki Tait, the fact that Leeson had
no gross position limits on proprietary trading operations made the potentially dangerous
management structure even worse. 30
From the evidence available to date, it appears that such concerns were notcommunicated to Barings' external auditors, who almost certainly would have included them in
the annual report on management systems and controls, based on UK banking regulations thatwere submitted to the Bank of England. Senior executives at Barings conceded that they did not
really understand the esoteric business of derivatives, so their guidance for Nick Leeson was not
strategic in nature but was rather quantitative: “Rather than set long-term vision, with controls

27

John Gapper, Nicholas Denton, and Peter Marsh, "The Barings Crisis: Chairman's Fraud Allegations Challenged,"
Financial Times, March 1, 1995, 2.
28
Reincke, 1998
29
Ibid.
30
Nikki Tait, March 6, 1995, "The Barings Crisis: Failure Is Blamed on Management in London," Financial Times,
2.

Page 14 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

and attention to relationships, they simply asked Leeson to deliver more of the profits to which
they had become accustomed. Was Leeson wrong? Yes. But so was the strategy, or the lack ofit.” 31
Lessons Learned and Steps Taken to Preclude Recurrences
Barings has not been the only such financial institution so effected by insufficient internal
controls, although every situation is unique. For example, in spite of the notoriety and infamy of
the Leeson case, over a year later Sumitomo Bank faced an estimated $1.8 billion loss also
attributable to a single rogue trader. 32 Likewise, Tim Lemke of The Washington Times, reportsthat John Rusnak, a currency trader from Baltimore and seven-year veteran of the company, wasaccused of losing $750 million through fraudulent transactions over the past year. Allfirst said
Rusnak placed a large number of trades that bet on currency movements, and then createdphoney contracts to offset those trades after they went sour. The $750 million loss is the sixthlargest "rogue trader" loss since 1987. Already, comparisons are being made between Mr.
Rusnak, 37, and Nick Leeson. 33 "From our initial investigation, it is clear that the foreignexchange deals were transacted in the normal manner. However, the offsetting currency option
contracts were fictitious," Allied Irish Banks PLC, the parent company of Allfirst, reported in astatement. Allied Irish also noted that the contracts were entered artificially into Allfirst systems,
and went undetected by internal controls that were specifically designed to prevent such activity.
"The established control procedures in Allfirst Treasury should have identified these fictitioustransactions," the company said. 34

31

John Dalla Costa, 1998.
P. Christopher Earley, 1997, 185.
33
Lemke, 2002, CO9.
34
Ibid.
32

Page 15 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

At a press briefing, Allfirst Chairman Frank Bramble said it is unlikely just one employee
knew about the losses. "There was collusion here because it would have been impossible for thisindividual to have done these transactions without the operations area not doing its job," Mr.
Bramble said. Analysts and the company cautioned against comparing the $750 million loss to
the Leeson case, because Allfirst generated a comparatively small amount as an investment
house; by contrast, commercial and retail banking accounted for 90 percent of the company's
profits at this point in time. "It's not like the Barings situation at all in terms of the magnitude ofwhat went on apart from the fact there was a trader involved," added Nigel Bolton, chief ofEuropean Equities at Citigroup Asset Management told Bloomberg News. 35
In the wake of Leeson and the Barings Bank episode, the growth of global financialtransactions, insider trading, executive remuneration, and misuse of pension funds, has been
added to the list of corporate shenanigans that have fuelled changes in the regulatoryenvironment. For example, Broadhurst and Ledgerwood report that in 1993, the Caux Round
Table, based in Switzerland, adopted an international code for multinational firms in Europe,
North America and Japan; this international code identifies five basic principles that go wellbeyond the earlier codes that focused on more restricted abuses. Those principles are:

35
36

1)

Stakeholder responsibility;

2)

Social justice;3)

Mutual support;

4)

Environmental concern; and,5)

Avoidance of illicit operations and corrupt practices. 36

Ibid.
Arlene Idol Broadhurst & Grant Ledgerwood, 2000, 217.

Page 16 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

Subsequent to the collapse of Barings, SIMEX also reviewed its regulatory rules,
auditing, surveillance, and clearing practices, as well as exchange-wide systems to strengthen
safeguards against settlement risks. According to Lall and Liu, SIMEX appointed aninternational advisory panel comprised of distinguished professionals and regulators from theinternational futures industry to seek advice on the best practices in global futures exchanges andto identify areas for cooperation with other futures exchanges. As Leeson had been based in
Singapore, officials there attempted to improve supervisory coordination for futures trading in an
increasingly global environment. As a result, SIMEX appointed Dr. Roger Rutz as its consultant
on risk management. 37
The international advisory panel recommended:(1)

The enhancement of customer protection rules;(2)

An upgrading of the clearing system and procedures to incorporate real-time

settlement and critical risk management systems;(3)

The promotion of information sharing among exchanges;(4)

The imposition of a requirement that clearing firms register senior officers with

SIMEX;(5)

The strengthening of SIMEX's Market Surveillance Department; and,(6)

Enhancements to the large trade reporting system.

Dr. Rutz's recommendations addressed all areas of SIMEX's operations, with an emphasis
on risk management, capital requirements, and the clearing system; his major suggestions
included:•

Devising comprehensive internal risk analysis procedures to identify high risk accounts
and members in need of closer monitoring. These procedures would include stress

37

Ashish Lall & Ming-Hua Liu, 1997, 640.

Page 17 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

testing of positions, analysis of daily settlements and margin calls, as well as analysis of
position and market concentration.
•

Enhancing SIMEX's monitoring ability, including notification by member firms when amargin call is issued for any account in excess of their adjusted net capital, reporting
large positions, aggregation of accounts, and reconciliation of reported positions.

•

Increasing SIMEX's power to control or direct the operations of member firms in highly
vulnerable positions.

•

Regulating higher position limits through explicit hedging, arbitrage, risk management,
and other qualitative and financial exposure criteria.

•

Establishing procedures to manage high risk situations including improved informationgathering to help evaluate challenging situations, and improved default procedures totransfer to other clearing members, in bulk, those positions carried by defaulting brokers
who threaten the system's integrity. 38
According to Brennan, Figueira, Heskel, and Sternberg, the elder Cato (234-149 B.C.)

wrote a treatise on agriculture that provides an early checklist of the qualities of the good"agent"; in essence, Cato said the overseer of an estate should be efficient, deferential, loyal, andcapable of sticking to his authorized budget. “Imagine: If Barings Bank had taken a page from
Cato, and limited self-confessed "rogue trader" Nick Leeson to financial dealings with two or
three households, that once-venerable institution might still be with us today.” 39
Conclusion
The research showed that the now-infamous Singapore-based derivatives trader, Nicholas
Leeson, drove Britain’s venerable Barings Bank to bankruptcy. Although the evidence to date38
39

Lall & Liu, 1997, 641.
T. Corey Brennan, Thomas J. Figueira, Julia Heskel & Rachel Hall Sternberg, 2001, 192.

Page 18 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

suggests that Leeson was in fact involved in shady deals, it appears that other factors were also
involved in the bank’s collapse. Leeson’s superior knew, or should have known, what the trader
was up to, and had been provided with advance notice concerning his activities. Furthermore,
Leeson was not the only trader engaged in such activities, and the philosophy of many financial
institutions of the day appeared to encourage the sorts of techniques employed by Leeson. In the
final analysis, the Leeson case demonstrates what can happen when one individual is entrustedwith too much power, and only time will tell if the remedial steps taken since then will preclude
such recurrences in the future.

Page 19 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

References
Barings Bank. 2004. Wikipedia. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank.
Blau, Joel. 1999. Illusions of Prosperity: America's Working Families in an Age of Economic
Insecurity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brennan, T. Corey, Thomas J. Figueira, Julia Heskel, and Rachel Hall Sternberg. 2001. Wisdomfrom the Ancients: Enduring Business Lessons from Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar,
and the Illustrious Leaders of Ancient Greece and Rome. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Books.
Broadhurst, Arlene Idol and Grant Ledgerwood. 2000. Environment Ethics and the
Corporation. Houndsmills: Macmillan.
Costa, John Dalla. 1998. The Ethical Imperative: Why Moral Leadership Is Good Business.
Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
Earley, P. Christopher. 1997. Face, Harmony, and Social Structure: An Analysis of
Organizational Behaviour across Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gapper, John, Nicholas Denton, and Peter Marsh. 1995. The Barings Crisis: Chairman's Fraud
Allegations Challenged. Financial Times, 1 March, 2.
Lall, Ashish and Ming-Hua Liu. 1997. Liberalization of Financial and Capital Markets Singapore Is Almost There. Law and Policy in International Business, 28(3), 619-647.
Lemke, Tim. 2002. Allfirst Cites Trading Fraud; Says Fired Employee Lost $750 Million in
Past Year. The Washington Times, 7 February, C09.
"The Lesson from Barings' Straits." 1995. Business Week, 13 March, 30.
Prentice, Robert. 2002. Whither Securities Regulation? Some Behavioural Observations
regarding Proposals for Its Future. Duke Law Journal, 51(5), 1397.

Page 20 of 21

Commodities Trading: Nick Leeson, Internal Controls and the Collapse of Barings Bank__________________________________________________________________________________________

Reinicke, Wolfgang H. 1998. Public Policy: Governing without Government? Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution.
Tait, Nikki. 1995. The Barings Crisis: Failure Is Blamed on Management in London.
Financial Times, 6 March, 2.
Taylor, Ian. 1999. Crime in Context: A Critical Criminology of Market Societies. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.

Page 21 of 21