Talk:Nick Leeson

Profit from crime

So was he allowed to keep the royalties from the book/film?

Take a look at this snipet from a related Press Complaints Commission Case:

2.1

Profits from crime. It is a distasteful fact that some criminals can, and do, profit from their crimes and do so in a number of different ways. Some have been known straightforwardly to exploit their misdemeanours by conducting guided tours of the location of their crimes. Others write books: only recently it became clear that the serial killer Dennis Nilsen is writing a book, for which interested publishers are said to be offering up to 100,000 (reported in The Sunday Telegraph, 31st May 1998).

Full link - http://www.pcc.org.uk/reports/details.asp?id=121

Yes Leeson would've got cash from both the book and film. In fact the PCC turned down a complaint made against the Mail on Sunday that Leeson was profiting from his crime (the PCC has a code of conduct more stringent than the law in this case) - so he even indirectly profited from newspaper serialization. See the same link for more. I wonder if the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has changed the law in this area. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More direct evidence that he profited : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1406528.stm. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copyright revert

I reverted this morning's edit, as it's C&P'd from this website [1]. Text is copyright. - Pete C ^(talk) 13:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Profit

Earning profits from crime seems to be a unique law only enacted in the UK, which I believe has recently changed. Nick Leeson was ordered to recinder around 50% of all monies earned towards the debt he created. By writing the book, he made a little money (nothing like JK Rowling by any stretch of the imagination, BBC reports only 50,000 pounds).. half of this had to go towards repayment. So if he had not written the book, the debt would stand approximately 25,000 less. I don't think it's accurate to simply call it "profiteering from crime" as he is not the only one who profits in this regard.

Huh, are you kidding me here? You think the creditors are profiting from Leeson??? Hello, Leeson owes them money! The creditors experienced a gigantic loss. Not to mention the thousands of people whose livelihood was negatively affected by Leeson. And here you are trying to say that Leeson didn't profit from his crime. Repulsive. -- 66.171.76.139 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Educational excellence

The article asserts that Leeson excelled at his school, however I heard that he failed 'A' level mathematics. I am of the same age group as Leeson, and I can state that at good universities a majority of students had passed all A levels attempted with good grades. So there is no justification for a statement of excellence here. So I am removing that part 87.86.125.114 (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK so if he got grade D in A level Maths that is no where even near 'good', also we are told he got grade A in GCE level maths which is common place for someone going on to do 'A' level, but no mention of other grades, I went to a comprehensive where the best pupils got 10 GCE's with 8,9,10 of them at grade A.

Was this article written by Leeson? You'd think the people he put out of work would edit some of his nonsense out, but given what they let him get away with, I'm not surprised they lack the cajunes to do that! 87.86.125.114 (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Bare butt

The Nick Leeson indecent exposure incident is well known in Singapore — basically, he got drunk and pulled down his pants to moon somebody, who called the cops — but I'm having trouble finding a more authoritative link than this. Anybody have a copy of Rogue Trader? Jpatokal 07:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, watching it now and it mentions the mooning and that the bank would have sacked him if he hadn't been generating such profits but does a film count as authorative... but then again its based on his book isn't it? Murray.booth 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, there was a stunned silence in Baring's board room in London when the incident was mentioned. If they had sacked

him then, they would never have gone bust.

This is now in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I bet he's on the sex offenders register for that dumb frat boy stunt. He was just a frat boy living in a far eastern version of Animal House. (Chris Henniker (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

The BBC also mention a punching incident and a racialist remark, which caused an expulsion from the Singapore cricket club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.15.120 (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The remark about the incident was taken out of the article as allegedly irrelevant gossip by 82.8.163.110.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4288271.stm .

Contradiction in the short straddle story?

There seems to be a contradiction between this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Leeson) and the explanation of a short straddle at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_straddle.

In the article about Leeson it is stated that:

"The beginning of the downward spiral occurred on January 16, 1995, when Leeson placed a short straddle (a type of short selling) for derivatives in the Singapore and Tokyo stock exchanges, essentially betting that the markets would not move overnight. However, the Kobe earthquake hit early in the morning on January 17, sending Asian markets into a tailspin and Leeson's investments along with them. Leeson attempted to recoup his losses by making a series of increasingly risky new investments, this time betting that the Nikkei would make a rapid recovery, but this failed to materialize and he only succeeded in digging a deeper hole"

However, in the article about short straddles it is said that Leeson took the short straddle positions after the Kobe earthquake had already hit:

"He had initially invested in futures on the Nikkei 225 stock index. Following a dramatic fall in the market, largely due to the Kobe earthquake, Leeson lost millions. He tried to re-coup these losses by investing in the higher risk, but potentially more rewarding, straddles. He bet that the Nikkei would stabilise and stay in a range around 19,000."

The first explanation sounds more closer to the real events, right? Or, am I getting something completely wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Short straddle story may not be substantiated

I am unable to find an authoritative source that supports the "short straddle" theory. According to a very extensive research paper published by New York University (NYU), Mr. Leeson was trading (slight paraphrase) "Futures on the Nikki (225 Index)...futures on the Japanese 10-year government bond and Euroyen futures" (page 17)

According to his own Biography, Mr. Lesson also cites that he was trading futures contracts, and does not indicate anything specifically to using a "short straddle" that caused his financial demise. "Over three months he (Nick Leeson) bought more than 20,000 futures contracts worth about $180,000 each in a vain attempt to move the market. Some three quarters of the $1.3 billion he lost Barrings resulted from these trades. When Barings executives discovered what had happened, they informed the Bank of England that Barings was effectively bust."

Here is a decent educational link on what are short straddles.

From January 1994, the position in Nikkei options increased significantly when Leeson set up a large series of short straddle positions. ... The highest value was reached by the end of December 1994, when the total value of the options was approximately US$178 million. Mainly due to the Kobe Earthquake, this reversed to a loss of approximately US$108 million by the end of February 1995 (SR App. 3K, p.179).

Is this authoritative enough for you? So while the article currently may simplify things a bit too much (short straddles were just one of Leeson's many techniques), it appears that it's basically quite accurate. Jpatokal (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Lessons

The following "lessons" might make an interesting essay, but they are not encyclopedic. Jpatokal 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The Leeson débâcle is an almost inevitable consequence of a system which rewards an individual very highly for success (with bonuses, promotion, etc.), but, under normal circumstances, does not punish him or her proportionately for failure—but for the scale of the disaster, Leeson would initially have faced nothing worse than the loss of his job, probably with acceptable references.

2. In gambling with reasonable odds, it is always possible to have a very high probability of making a modest profit, but always with the requirement of risking a much larger sum, with a small probability of losing the lot. There is a small risk of a large loss on each bet; anyone who makes many such bets is statistically increasingly likely to suffer a big loss. The entire Leeson affair illustrates this; more particularly, Leeson's bet that the market would not move overnight just before the catastrophic Kobe earthquake was an apparently safe bet of a large sum for a modest return.

After a dew days for thought, I remain of the opinion that the "Lessons" I added are appropriate. An encyclopaedia is not restricted to strict listing of events, but will discuss them; in particular, causes and consequences of events are relevant. I'll revert to the version including the lessons. I suggest that Jpatokal (who deleted this section) should refrain from deleting again for now, and we should see what others have to say. If the consensus is against the section, so be it, of course. Pol098 06:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Jpatokal. Although they are interesting, and most probably correct, I don't think they should be in wikipedia in this form. Perhaps if they were conclusions (and by the title 'lessons', they are effectively conclusions) drawn by someone else and published, and then cited as 'JoeBloggs commented that...', then they might be more appropriate, but I'm still not sure.

Ultimately, this is meant to be a page about Nick Leeson, and essentially a biography of him, rather than an essay into the rights and wrongs of his profession. I'm in favour of reverting to a lesson-less page. Imran 11:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Imran. The statements above could be worked into, say, an article on Investment or corporate fraud or something, but not a biography of Leeson the man. Alternatively, the "lessons" could be phrases as actual hard consequences from the affair (tightened legislation etc), which would fit under Barings Bank... but, again, not here. Jpatokal 16:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Big Book of Losers

Would it be worth mentioning that Leeson's story appeard in the Big Book of Losers? --JOK3R 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Unless I am misreading, there is a contradiction re: the publication of his first book. The article states that he was convicted and sentenced in 1995 in Singapore, and sent to jail until 1999, at which point he returned to the UK. The next paragraph states that his book was published after he returned to the UK. However, according to the ref section, the book was published in 1996. Where is the discrepancy? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fixed it.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

After learning of Barings' collapse (and realizing he was certain to be jailed for his actions), Leeson booked a flight to London where he intended to surrender to British police in hopes of serving prison time in the United Kingdom as opposed to Singapore. However, he was apprehended by German authorities when he landed in Frankfurt. Leeson spent the next several months in German custody unsuccessfully fighting extradition back to Singapore. British authorities declined to pursue extradition of Leeson back to the United Kingdom. Leeson was eventually sentenced to six and a half years in prison in Singapore, but was released early in 1999 after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Despite grim forecasts at the time, he did not succumb to the disease. <ref wikipedia "Barings Bank"> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.102.96 (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

First wife

What about his wife? She stuck by him when he went to prison and took a job as an air hostess to be near him. Shouldn't she be mentioned. 145.253.108.22 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reason

Leeson had debts in England, which was the reason he moved to Singapore.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.206.96 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

This is now mentioned, rather vaguely, in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Labuan visit

After Nick Leeson fled Singapore he stopped off in Labuan for a "holiday". What many people outside of SE Asia don't know is that Labuan Island is an offshore tax and money haven. I often wondered if there was more to his trip than just a holiday...? --PeterMarkSmith 09:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the article does say $35 million was recovered from accounts tied to him. There could be more on the otherhand it would seem more likely he would have maintained a lower profile if he still had large chunks of cash somewhere. Of course, perhaps he's using the high profile to hide where most of his money is coming from... Nil Einne 01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ego? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.190.201 (talk) 17:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be clearer

I have a feeling that someone with little knowledge of financial terminology will not understand the offence that Leeson committed. It's described solely as "unauthorized speculative trades", but this term requires background knowledge to understand that isn't provided in the article. I know what it means, whoever was responsible for writing it knows what it means, but the article has to be written with a layman in mind and this would undoubtedly confuse people. We have to outline what a speculative trade is and why Leeson's actions were illegal. Blankfrackis 05:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fugitive

Is it appropriate to include him in the category 'Fugitive Financiers' when he's no longer a fugitive?217.43.227.121 (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the forgeries and his own massive profits?

I am puzzled that the article does not mention the documents he forged. It positions his actions as entirely a matter of making trades beyond his authority, and not for personal gain, but to fix other's mistakes, or make profit for the bank -- something which makes it pretty borderline as to whether a crime has occurred, or merely an internal disciplinary matter. Reading this line, many people would end up quite sympathetic and see Leeson as a naïve victim.

But in fact, many reports refer to the fact that he directly made a large commission from every rogue trade, and that he actively forged documents to get away with it, e.g [2]. The guy was a criminal who lined his own pockets by plain and outright fraud, and put thousands on the dole queue through his crimes! Instead he is portrayed as a cheerful duffer who made a blunder but has learned his lesson and is now available for speaking tours - -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the source you cite saying anything like that, but this one does [3], so I've changed the article. I believe there's still some dispute about how much, if any, money he got away with. Jpatokal (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The current version does not mention the forgeries clearly. Leeson sent himself a fax from his home fax machine to

his office machine. He also made a composite document with a copying machine. These were thrown in his face in the trial

in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.169.42 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The amount lost is said to be £860,000,000 by some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Santa Claus is said to be real by anonymous "some", your point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.126.98 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The amount given in the article is a slightly smaller £827,000,000. I don't suppose that the exact amount will ever be known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.3.183 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to give me £33,000,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.3.183 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sent to Hong Kong?

Sent to Hong Kong to troubleshoot a problem in Jakarta? Is this sentence correct? 86.179.205.163 (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)