I need help with the questions 1 to 5. Thanks. Please see the attached file.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 24, 2018, 10:27 pm ad1c9bdddf
Question 1: what would have your reaction be?
My reaction to this act of withdrawing the application to the SFA is unsatisfactory on the part of Baring. What Baring should have done was to have sacked Leeson or at least taken a strong disciplinary action against him. On the other hand what Baring did was to avoid taking disciplinary action against Leeson. From the perspective of deontological ethics it was the duty of Baring to take disciplinary action against Leeson, but it failed to perform its duty.
In reality what happened was that Leeson had performed well in Jakarta and had saved Baring about $100 million. He was perceived as a star performer and the Bank did not want to take any action against him.
Question 2: what does that mean?
This means that instead of taking punitive action against Leeson, Baring decided to post him in Barings Futures Singapore. This was an inappropriate action because a person whose integrity has been questioned by the SFA ...
This explanation provides you a comprehensive argument relating to Baring Bank - Nick Leeson
Moral Hazard in Baring PLC
Barings PLC, a British merchant bank, was bankrupted in 1995 by Nick Leeson's (a derivatives trader for the bank) futile bets against the future level of the Nikkei index. In October 2010, Jerome Kerviel, a rogue derivatives trader for Societe Generale, a French Bank, was sentenced to prison for five years for causing the bank a 4.9 billion euro loss by betting on futures linked to European stock markets. Do you think the banking system can take steps to insure itself against the risk associated with the implicit moral hazard in these type of situations?View Full Posting Details