MovieChat Forums > Rogue Trader (1999) Discussion > ONE SIDED VIEW OF COLLAPSE!

ONE SIDED VIEW OF COLLAPSE!

posted 17 years ago by dirt_is_temporary
17 replies | jump to latest

I thought this was a so-so film. It was at times blandly shot, but I found the story relatively captivating. The only thing I think people should be aware of when they watch this, is that Nick Leeson's action affected thousands of real people. Not just a few rich old farts who lost their money, but all the employees for Barings bank who lossed their jobs. It is shown in a very sympathetic light - yes Leeson was unfortunate and naive but he also *beep* over alot of poor people.

eh just thought I'd point that out

[–] welshNick 17 years ago

I was one of them ..... I ended up working under the jackboot of Deutsche Bank - got made redundant !!!!

[–] alexlarge 17 years ago

Oh please. "Poor people"? Do you know how much those posh f'uckers earn?!!

[–] dan-1353 16 years ago

i worked for them in i.t and i lost my job....not all workers in the city are posh *beep* you w**ker

[–] ubcool 16 years ago

yeah but hey, it made a good film

[–] sunhelen 16 years ago

Remember, many ordinary people lost their savings.

[–] devilbot 16 years ago

I find it fascinating that people connect the idea of the real losses of innocent people after the collapse of Barings with a sympathetic portrayal of Nick Leeson. It seems people demand a scapegoat and nothing more. This movie makes it clear that it was Leeson and his ego that led to the actual downfall of the Bank, but it was really an extremely flawed corporate structure that was the real problem. Essentially a corporate culture based on long term thinking was quickly replaced by one that rewarded (handsomely) short term gains and these gains were not questioned. Barings was ready to fall, Leeson who I really don't think should be considered evil just facilitated the inevitable.

[–] DavidInAustin 16 years ago

And it is important to note that Leeson never personally stole or benefited from the trades, other than his annual bonuses. He has repaid several hundred thousand pounds back to the B of E, and owes much more.

[–] noluckbuck 16 years ago

He was a greedy douche...I did a report on him in risk management, but haven't seen this movie yet.

Spoilers

Do they show him leaving an "Im sorry" note and fleeing to Singapore in the movie?

[–] controlclerk 14 years ago

Actually, he and his wife went to Kuala Lampur and told their family they were going to Thailand.

[–] SipteaHighTea 15 years ago

Nick's bosses in both Singapore and London did a very, very, very poor job of superving him. They just sat on their butts and rake in the money. The only tme they got serious is when they found the big hole, but it was too late by them too do anything.

[–] kdk7 15 years ago

and it seems no one has learned from barings' mistakes. first enron, and now with the near failure and pseudo-socialization of several u.s. banks.

it seems everyone got the message of oliver stone's wall street-- that greed is NOT good-- 100% wrong.

leeson was a stupid young cocky fool, but the world of banking is chock full of people just like him, but who are also inhumanly, absolutely greedy .

[–] Romulus99 14 years ago

thats the thing the way it was set up he was his own boss in singapore there should have been another guy who he reported to but his bosses saw it as ok to give nick both jobs on the floor and the guy who would have had access to all the info for such smart people the bank made some stupid mistakes

the bank was not some innocent party in this they were as much responible for this

[–] Sassy-34 15 years ago

I really didn't know anything of this story until I saw the film and it was an interesting film. I do find it hard to believe that actions of one man could collapse a huge bank like that. They must have had quite a flawed system for running things if that were the case! And I did think of the many ordinary (not wealthy) people who lost jobs and money as a result of it all.

[–] dave1033a 13 years ago

And why is it that no-one of recent times in the financial system is serving any prison time???

Banks take our money and gamble with it everyday, we allow this yet when they go bust or have to be bailed out by a government they say it is a "global crisis" and nothing could have been done to prevent it!!!!

Bollox, we set the market trends whether its property, crude oil or anything else!!

Yet when one man tries to cover his teams arse and fucxks up, the bank use him as a fall guy for their own mistakes.

Yes Leeson ballsed up but the bank, as usual only saw the ££££ signs so turned a blind eye till it was too late.

"Every day above ground is a good day!"

[–] rwsmith29456 12 years ago

JP Morgan just lost $2 billion dealing in shaky derivatives but instead of one rogue trader with poor supervision like at Barings, JPs problem was company policy. Lay off employees and and vote the executives a raise! I don't despise and loathe a whole lot in the world, but I think banks are completely evil.

[–] beierfilms 12 years ago

I remember reading that Nick had actually been banned from trading in London for committing fraud. It sounds like he was a good deal sleezier than the movie makes out and there's no doubt that he cost a lot of people their jobs and did A LOT of damage.

That said, I think it makes for a more interesting film when we portray someone as flawed yet still sympathetic. A movie about a guy who is just a total SOB is kinda tedious.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]