Talk:Barings Bank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale. | |
What amount was paid by ING for the purchase of Barings Bank?
The article says that ING paid a nominal sum of one pound for Barings Bank. It seems like ING really just assumed the debts of Barings Bank in exchange for possession of its assets. Is this nominal buy-out a standard practice? - cogent, 15 Nov 2004
Contents |
[edit] It's a sub
The current material is OK, but isn't close to being a proper article. This is the bank once known as the Queen's Bank, that financed the British participation in the Napoleonic Wars and U.S. participation in the Industrial Revolution. Needs more than a couple of paragraphs.
One thing I'd really like to know: how did a British bank get away with helping Thomas Jefferson raise $15 million to buy the Louisiana Territories from Napoleon -- at a time when Britain and France were at war???!!! ---Isaac R
[edit] It's a small stub
This article does need a lot more material to be useful. Barings also went bankrupt in the 1890. The name was bought from the liquidators by a relative of the Barings and others, and a new bank was established. I have read several books about banking history, so I don't remember where I found that item. The oldest bank in England is Barclay's, which began in 1690.
[edit] Losses
Baring's losses were partly caused by an anti-volatility sale of put and call options.
The index had been at about 19,000 for a year. It then dropped to 17,000 under the influence of an earth quake. The main losses were made by buying into a falling futures market.
[edit] Text descrepency
When reading the text of this article, and that of Nick Leeson I noticed a small descrepency. The text in the article on Nick Leeson reads:
Leeson claims that this account was first used to hide an error made by one of his colleagues; rather than buy 20 contracts as the customer had ordered, she'd sold them, costing Barings £20,000.
While this article reads:
Leeson claims the losses started when one of his colleagues bought contracts when she should have sold them
I assume this refers to the same incident, so which one should it be? Crownsteler 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merged content from Barings Bank collapse
The article on collapse was longer than this one, and yet still too short to warrant a separate page, when both can sensibly be treated in one. So I've merged them. Wikidea 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. The two fit together in a nice tidy package. The Transhumanist 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
