sharetrader
Page 44 of 46 FirstFirst ... 3440414243444546 LastLast
Results 646 to 660 of 680
  1. #646
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kerikeri
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    Odd isn't it? Teflon John always seems to be making deals which are clean but somehow have a whiff of fish (probably flounder from Omaha), but nothing obviously illegal. I do suspect one day he will be smoked out.
    Never had smoked flounder.....probably OK.

  2. #647
    The Kid
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Rotorua
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    Odd isn't it? Teflon John always seems to be making deals which are clean but somehow have a whiff of fish (probably flounder from Omaha), but nothing obviously illegal. I do suspect one day he will be smoked out.
    Maybe the teflon has worn off? https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/06/1...is-biggest-hit

  3. #648
    Guru peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IAK View Post
    that article doesn't really show that it has. not really any super hard questions being asked.
    Maybe they should've sent Hisco on his way due to the reserve issue as well.
    Looking forward to any developments <grabs popcorn>
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  4. #649
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Nothing has changed in banking circles, at the highest levels at least

    ANZ issues and then we’ll never know why the newly appointed CFO for BNZ never turned up for work.
    We do know!

    She was CFO for 6 years at Ambank (Malaysian bank then partially owned by ANZ) which was at the heart of the biggest corruption case in history, Malaysia's 1MDB. Former Prime Minister Najib's personal account at Ambank recieved $US681m in overseas funds. This she would have had to have known about.

    https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ca...as-court-told/

    She could have and should have resigned, once she knew what was going on. Good on the RBNZ for blocking her appointment. We don't want yes people in charge of NZ banks.

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/indus...that-never-was
    Last edited by Jaa; 18-06-2019 at 04:50 PM.

  5. #650
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kerikeri
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaa View Post
    We do know!

    She was CFO for 6 years at Ambank (Malaysian bank then owned partially owned by ANZ) which was at the heart of the biggest corruption case in history, Malaysia's 1MDB. Former Prime Minister Najib's personal account at Ambank recieved $US681m in overseas funds. This she would have had to have known about.

    https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ca...as-court-told/

    She could have and should have resigned, once she knew what was going on. Good on the RBNZ for blocking her appointment. We don't want yes people in charge of NZ banks.

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/indus...that-never-was
    Wow...thankyou !

  6. #651
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bolivia.
    Posts
    1,600

  7. #652
    Aspiring to be an Awesome Bear
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    In the Woods
    Posts
    907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sideshow Bob View Post
    $450k a year in expenses! Holy S**t! Time for the real story to come out and why does he not have to pay any of it back?! WOW!

  8. #653
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bolivia.
    Posts
    1,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
    $450k a year in expenses! Holy S**t! Time for the real story to come out and why does he not have to pay any of it back?! WOW!
    Over $1,200 per day. Wonder how long that was going on for....

  9. #654
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    5,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sideshow Bob View Post
    Over $1,200 per day. Wonder how long that was going on for....
    Apparently it was A$357000 in 2011 (expenses, this is ...) and it must have stayed on that level (or slightly grown).

    More concerning than the greediness of the CEO is that ANZ does not seem to have systems to catch such wrong doing of their executives. Well, one could obviously argue - 8 years and roughly 3.2 million dollars later (extrapolating the stated expenses from 2011 and 2018) they noticed ... but still - are they the right bank we should trust to look after our money?
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  10. #655
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kerikeri
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Apparently it was A$357000 in 2011 (expenses, this is ...) and it must have stayed on that level (or slightly grown).

    More concerning than the greediness of the CEO is that ANZ does not seem to have systems to catch such wrong doing of their executives. Well, one could obviously argue - 8 years and roughly 3.2 million dollars later (extrapolating the stated expenses from 2011 and 2018) they noticed ... but still - are they the right bank we should trust to look after our money?
    It’s really quite sad. It’s not as tho he was poorly paid. We can do with out that kind of greed in our top company executives.

  11. #656
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    2,763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTM View Post
    It’s really quite sad. It’s not as tho he was poorly paid. We can do with out that kind of greed in our top company executives.
    Put two & two together getting five, he was the highest sign-off authority for NZ expenses, so above the law, and had a 'verbal agreement' with the Aus bank boss, so he felt that he was protected from the protocols of 'actual and reasonable expenses' like every other corporate executive. And that was condoned for years by the Board.

    It's been brushed over by the Board and diluted and opaque in statutory shareholder reporting for donkeys years so they've been covering him, but it fell apart only recently. So that's not the real reason he's been shafted, something else must've happened.

    Oh, yes the bank has serially under reported risk exposure, for many years. Now that's the CEO's problem, not the Board but it's embarrassing, especially when currently fighting the RBNZ about risk coverage (and a backdrop of the Aus malfeasance reports).

    It's probably something like this .. "Sorry Mr Hisco, despite having covered your butt for many years on expenses, you've embarrassed the bank with these revelations about risk exposure which is going to cost us (and the shareholders) a fortune to make right, so in order to save the Boards' arse and the banks reputation, we suggest you take a years salary, forfeit your options and resign. We'll look after it from here. All good with that?"

    Hey John, go fix this mess with the media and for god's sakes don't let it get out of control with the media. Please make sure you deflect to Mr Hisco's misgivings and keep the bank's risk coverage and war with the RBNZ off the radar. There's a good chap.

  12. #657
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    Put two & two together getting five, he was the highest sign-off authority for NZ expenses, so above the law, and had a 'verbal agreement' with the Aus bank boss, so he felt that he was protected from the protocols of 'actual and reasonable expenses' like every other corporate executive. And that was condoned for years by the Board.

    It's been brushed over by the Board and diluted and opaque in statutory shareholder reporting for donkeys years so they've been covering him, but it fell apart only recently. So that's not the real reason he's been shafted, something else must've happened.
    This is a ridiculous situation, I thought governance 101 was that the Board needed to keep their eye on the CEO's expense claims. This is almost by definition because no one else can really wield authority over the CE. Yes a complicating factor is that there is a group CEO and a NZ CEO. However the NZ board should have their eye on the ball with regard to their CEO, surely?

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    Oh, yes the bank has serially under reported risk exposure, for many years. Now that's the CEO's problem, not the Board but it's embarrassing, especially when currently fighting the RBNZ about risk coverage (and a backdrop of the Aus malfeasance reports).
    Again back to governance 101 - Boards need to implement risk reporting and management protocols and ensure they are followed. That's a massive part of their oversight function. For a bank capital adequacy is a huge source of risk - there's no way on earth the board should be just delegating everything to the CEO and assuming he has it under control. They need to be aware of the risk exposure and be sure it's being calculated correctly. In listed firms I've worked at, for example, the risk officers (at the request of the board's risk committee) are normally required to get external risk audits performed and demonstrate compliance with these risk policies. The relevant risks differ from business to business, but the idea is that there is a risk register that the board is across and they ensure that these risks are managed, with the big hairy ones getting regular board airtime.
    Last edited by Airw0lf; 19-06-2019 at 09:25 PM.

  13. #658
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    LA/ChCh/AKL
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Airw0lf View Post
    This is a ridiculous situation, I thought governance 101 was that the Board needed to keep their eye on the CEO's expense claims. This is almost by definition because no one else can really wield authority over the CE. Yes a complicating factor is that there is a group CEO and a NZ CEO. However the NZ board should have their eye on the ball with regard to their CEO, surely?



    Again back to governance 101 - Boards need to implement risk reporting and management protocols and ensure they are followed. That's a massive part of their oversight function. For a bank capital adequacy is a huge source of risk - there's no way on earth the board should be just delegating everything to the CEO and assuming he has it under control. They need to be aware of the risk exposure and be sure it's being calculated correctly. In listed firms I've worked at, for example, the risk officers (at the request of the board's risk committee) are normally required to get external risk audits performed and demonstrate compliance with these risk policies. The relevant risks differ from business to business, but the idea is that there is a risk register that the board is across and they ensure that these risks are managed, with the big hairy ones getting regular board airtime.

    They would have know, just time to use it...

  14. #659
    An Awesome Cool Cat winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    24,305

    Default

    Obviously dodgy as the ANZ ....but probably most banks are anyway

    Managed to keep a lot of things out of the public / shareholders eyes eh

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12243118
    “In a roaring bull market, knowledge is superfluous and experience is a handicap.”

    –Benjamin Graham”

  15. #660
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kerikeri
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Obviously dodgy as the ANZ ....but probably most banks are anyway

    Managed to keep a lot of things out of the public / shareholders eyes eh

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12243118
    I can remember many comments from contributors to the forum saying they avoid companies with ex-politicians on the Board of Directors.
    Disc: Holding

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •