@@TerrySmith-s1i no I didn’t - but transferring 75% of your entire capital into the hands of one employee (which is what they done) says it all. The titles and headlines always state things like “bank collapses” etc but they wasn’t a bank. A bank manages money. With those decisions I’m surprised they even got to trade that long to be honest
@@leebedford7750 It was British upper class inbreed incompetence, combined with simple greed at it's very best.....or worst! I do feel sorry for all those small investors that lost their life savings.
@ 26.50 So, Barings gave to Leeson $800M when a bank could lend only 20% of it's capital to a subsidiary. Barings capital at that time was about £250M. My understanding is that $800M wasn't some investors money or the bank depositors. $800M came straight out off Barings money printing machine.
@@dakota-rt8kd like the greek ancient story of the Ikarus what was flying to close to the sun. in the finacial scene there are more examples like the FTX guy, or Maddoff.
"In the Land of The Blind A ONE Eyed Man Is KING 😅 👑 😮 As it's OFTEN the case... The Covered up its always WORSE than the "Sin"... The unhealthy Ego, Itself IS the, CULPRIT 🎉😮🥤
Very true, I've always read that Coutts was her main bank --- that said I'm sure she has money in a couple and likely something in Barings. I'd guess that Coutts is the main bank as (please correct me if I'm wrong) there was something about them writing off the Queen Mother's multi-million overdraft after her death (I'd imagine putting a lien on Clarence House would be seen as a bit much). But yes, always heard the Royal Family use Coutts as their main bank.
In fairness, he isn't simply put on screen to tell his story - the documentary also incorporates very critical voices from a former boss and a financial journalist. Leeson actually seems to be pretty frank about admitting his actions, and he doesn't seem to defend or justify them. It's possible he might not be entirely honest abut the strange egotistical motives that drove him to do it, I guess. On the whole, the story about this bank's collapse must surely be better for hearing from the man who caused it? One point in his favour is that he wasn't stealing or siphoning off the money and putting it into his own pockets, rather it was getting blown to the winds through massive recklessness and incompetence on his part. The deception and fraud arose from his hiding up the fact. Ultimately he did also pay a price for what he did inasmuch that he was sentenced to a number of years in a pretty grim and crowded Singapore prison.
They are all culpable and greedy. The CEO should never hold another position that high as he failed to do his job. More should have gone to prison over it.
What he did was merely amateur compared to the bankers that came after him.
such as? Madoff was using his own company, totally different situation. Jordan Belfort didn't even come close to Nick Leeson.
Leeson didn't bankrupt Barings bank, the bank did that by itself. The management in London was shocking.
Did you work there?
@@TerrySmith-s1i no I didn’t - but transferring 75% of your entire capital into the hands of one employee (which is what they done) says it all. The titles and headlines always state things like “bank collapses” etc but they wasn’t a bank. A bank manages money. With those decisions I’m surprised they even got to trade that long to be honest
@@leebedford7750 I do wonder where the money went?
I mean...was it all actually used for trading? He says himself....they just kept giving him money!
@@leebedford7750
It was British upper class inbreed incompetence, combined with simple greed at it's very best.....or worst!
I do feel sorry for all those small investors that lost their life savings.
Not a word about the people who lost their life savings when the bank went under.
That's because customers didnt lose any money, the Bank bore the trading losses and the Bank was bought out by ING.
@ 26.50
So, Barings gave to Leeson $800M when a bank could lend only 20% of it's capital to a subsidiary.
Barings capital at that time was about £250M.
My understanding is that $800M wasn't some investors money or the bank depositors.
$800M came straight out off Barings money printing machine.
He strikes me as a man with strong narcissistic tendencies.
His Ego drove him against the wall. A trader what is not humble is a losing trader
Indeed 😮
Pride before the fall 😮🎉🤑🎉🤥🎉
@@dakota-rt8kd like the greek ancient story of the Ikarus what was flying to close to the sun. in the finacial scene there are more examples like the FTX guy, or Maddoff.
It's funny how peoples heads just seem to inflate as they get older...
"In the Land of The Blind A ONE Eyed Man Is KING 😅 👑 😮
As it's OFTEN the case...
The Covered up its always WORSE than the "Sin"...
The unhealthy Ego, Itself IS the, CULPRIT 🎉😮🥤
ive watched the movie:The Rouge Trader based on his story
Rouge?
The Queens bank is Coutts Bank not Barings
Very true, I've always read that Coutts was her main bank --- that said I'm sure she has money in a couple and likely something in Barings. I'd guess that Coutts is the main bank as (please correct me if I'm wrong) there was something about them writing off the Queen Mother's multi-million overdraft after her death (I'd imagine putting a lien on Clarence House would be seen as a bit much).
But yes, always heard the Royal Family use Coutts as their main bank.
Leeson truly was a massive berk.
I think 🤔 I would have 💩 my pants 😮
Wrong music
It's ironic
😅
It's like an horror film music!
It was posible to make that kind of money if the volumes are high enough and alot more !
Narrator ruins it
Arogance , selfish as we say in the real world , Wanchor
Too bad the docuentary gives a voice to this crook. Do we allow criminals to come to TV show speak about their crime ? Murderer, rapist etc.
In fairness, he isn't simply put on screen to tell his story - the documentary also incorporates very critical voices from a former boss and a financial journalist. Leeson actually seems to be pretty frank about admitting his actions, and he doesn't seem to defend or justify them. It's possible he might not be entirely honest abut the strange egotistical motives that drove him to do it, I guess. On the whole, the story about this bank's collapse must surely be better for hearing from the man who caused it? One point in his favour is that he wasn't stealing or siphoning off the money and putting it into his own pockets, rather it was getting blown to the winds through massive recklessness and incompetence on his part. The deception and fraud arose from his hiding up the fact. Ultimately he did also pay a price for what he did inasmuch that he was sentenced to a number of years in a pretty grim and crowded Singapore prison.
In America he'd be president 😅
They are all culpable and greedy. The CEO should never hold another position that high as he failed to do his job. More should have gone to prison over it.