Has Nick Leeson drawn too much of the blame for what went wrong at Barings Bank? Who else bears some of the responsibility? Why?
What will be an ideal response?
Nick Leeson's supervisors, Barings' board of directors, and bank regulators also deserve a portion of the blame. Barings' managers are culpable for not controlling the limits on Leeson's exposures and requiring documentation that would have shown the source and cause of Leeson's large cash needs. It appears as if Barings' top management did not have a clear idea of how Leeson's profits were earned and the risks he was taking.
Barings' management and its board of directors can also be criticized for ignoring the warnings of internal auditors, external auditors, and regulators.
Barings' board of directors and the Bank of England can be criticized for not requiring Barings' management to have reporting systems in place that would have exposed risks
of the nature and magnitude Leeson was taking.
You might also like to view...
Translation exposure measures:
A) changes in the value of outstanding financial obligations incurred prior to a change in exchange rates. B) the potential for an increase or decrease in the parent company's net worth and reported net income caused by a change in exchange rates since the last consolidation of international operations. C) an unexpected change in exchange rates impact on short run expected cash flows. D) none of the above
When a dimension participates in a hierarchy, the database designer can normalize the dimension into a nested set of tables with 1:M relationships between them
Indicate whether the statement is true or false