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.