GLOBAL SUB-PRIME CRISIS

BANKILEAKS

Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook
 

facebook3           facebook2 

BFCSA
MORTGAGE
DISTRESS SOS

What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.

Visitors

Articles View Hits
655850

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Lee Doyle

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

ANZ: Bankster CEO Mike Smith's $10.1m 'take home pay' highest ~ 2011/12

Posted by on in Bankers A Law Unto Themselves
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2923
  • 1 Comment
  • Print

ANZ chief "takes home" over $10m:~

 

"Mr Smith's --$10.1 million -- is likely to be the highest-paid bank chief executive in the 2011/12 fiscal year.

Preamble..."know thy bankster"

--- ANZ poached Mike Smith in 2007, then head of HSBC's Asian business, --Smith's departure from HSBC was unexpected, and was a contender for HSBC's group chief executive position [note: concurrent to 6yr period of systemic issues concerning HSBC's admitted 'executive' mis-deeds;

Did HSBC "executives" knowingly break the law concurrent to Smith's "time" as a HSBC "executive".

Answer: "YES" ...and such activities were carried out with "wilful negligence" --driven by greed, which underpinned the behaviour; however --"it will apologise, and insists --it wont happen again". 

HSBC chief executive officer Irene Dorner testifies before the US Senate about allegations of money laundering within HSBC, concurred --HSBC executives, in 2012, admitted to allowing Iran, terrorists and drug dealers to launder nearly USD$16 billion over a six-year period. Hearing such testimony would ordinarily make the "earth underneath you shake".

Moreover, in the case of HSBC, the difference is that it is not oversight or incompetence --but wilful negligence. Why was all this done? Obviously, greed underpinned the behaviour, and when the misdeeds get detected, outright denials are first made as a matter of routine.

Similarly, when responsibilities get pinned down, the buck gets passed on. And when everything fails, apologies are issued with a "promise that systems would be put in place" --so that "this doesn’t happen again". 

It is a common pattern. --haha, "I promise, really--and to take all my ill-gotten bonus"

The HSBC have now issued a statement that it will; "apologise, acknowledge these mistakes, answer for actions and give absolute commitment to fixing what went wrong".

 

ANZ chief takes home over $10m:

[Published 16 Nov 2012]

--ANZ Banking Group Ltd chief executive Mike Smith's annual pay has grown to $10.1 million on the back of larger cash bonuses, despite the lender's decision to freeze executive pay.

Mr Smith's base salary of $3.15 million in the year to September 30 was unchanged from the previous year, but short-term cash incentives rose to $1.9 million, from $1.75 million in the previous year.

ANZ's annual report, showed Mr Smith was paid $5.2 million in cash, and received $4.95 million worth of shares, taking his total remuneration up four per cent from the previous year's $9.7 million.

Mr Smith is likely to be the highest-paid bank chief executive in the 2011/12 fiscal year.

Westpac chief executive Gail Kelly was paid $9.6 million in the 12 months to September 30, of which $5.3 million was paid in cash.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd chief executive Ian Narev was paid $5.7 million in the year to June 30.

The details of National Australia Bank Ltd chief executive Cameron Clyne's pay will be released next week.

Mr Clyne was paid $5.3 million in the 2010/11 fiscal year, and the bank's profit dropped by 22 per cent in the 2011/12 year.

ANZ said Mr Smith's short-term incentives rose as the bank beat its targets for shareholder returns, and met its underlying profit target with an annual result of $6.01 billion.

ANZ's recently appointed chief financial officer Shayne Elliott also received a boost to his short-term incentives and long-term incentives, which took his total pay to $4.5 million, up from $2.8 million in the previous year.

Pay for ANZ's remaining executives was either steady or in line with recent promotions.

Read ANZ's full annual review below:

 

ANZ annual review.pdf

 
 

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ANZ-bosss-pay-tops-10m-247AP?OpenDocument&src=pm&utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=134399&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=news

 

ANZ Bankster: lured Mike Smith in 2007 - after 29 years within HSBC culture

Andy
Posted by Andy on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 in Banks Behaving Badly
 

Did HSBC break the law?

Yes.

ANZ poached Mr Mike Smith in 2007 as it's (former) head of HSBC's Asian business - a 29-year veteran of HSBC. However, did HSBC break the law during his time as HSBC executive. Unequivocally, "YES". HSBC executives, in 2012, admitted to allowing Iran, terrorists and drug dealers to launder nearly USD$16 billion over a six-year period would make earth underneath you shake..

In the case of HSBC, the difference is that it is not oversight or incompetence, but wilful negligence. Why was all this done? Obviously, greed underpinned the behaviour, and when the misdeeds get detected, outright denials are first made as a matter of routine.

Similarly, when responsibilities get pinned down, the buck gets passed on. And when everything fails, apologies are issued with a promise that systems would be put in place so that "this doesn’t happen again". It is common pattern. [ha ha promise!]

The HSBC have now issued a statement that it will apologise, acknowledge these mistakes, answer for actions and give absolute commitment to fixing what went wrong.

Smith's departure from HSBC was unexpected. Smith, 50, is a 29-year veteran of the bank and was a contender for group chief executive when the post was last filled in 2005.

links with al Qaeda.

Top executives of HSBC also over-ruled warnings from its own officers that the bank should severe links with Al Rajhi - which had links to al Qaeda.

5w7hqm4f-1342590780HSBC chief executive officer Irene Dorner testifies before the US Senate about allegations of money laundering within HSBC. AAP

Recent news that HSBC executives admitted to allowing Iran, terrorists and drug dealers to launder nearly USD$16 billionover a six-year period would make earth underneath you shake.

How is that the bank’s risk management system could not detect such sensitive transactions? Was the bank’s risk management system inadequate, or did the bank’s management knowingly turn a Nelson’s eye? What were the regulators doing? Were appropriate laws/mechanisms in place to detect and deter such activities? These and other questions would cloud the mind of ordinary tax payers the world over.

Interestingly, the above scandal has taken place although elaborate arrangements exist at national and international levels to detect and deter money laundering and terrorism financing activities.

In 1989, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international body, was set up not only to define standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing (MLTF) but also to carry out mutual evaluation studies to ensure that the legislative arrangements made by a country comply with the standards. Over 180 countries around the world are members of FATF and follow the global standards. All member countries have passed suitable legislation to counter money laundering and terrorism financing.

Specialised financial intelligence units (such as AUSTRAC in Australia) have been set and detailed reporting and compliance standards have been prescribed. One can’t say standards / legislations were not in place.

Did HSBC break the law? 

Yes.

Interestingly, the FATF particularly warned about doing transactions with countries that pose high money laundering and terrorism financing risk such as “Uzbekistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and São Tomé and Principe, and the northern part of Cyprus”.

Yet the HSBC not only threw all caution overboard and allowed transactions from high-risk countries such as Iran to flow through its system, but engaged in fraudulent conduct (hiding the country name) as transactions were passing through the system.

As though this was not enough, as stated in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security Report, it engaged in transactions with Al Rajhi – the Saudi Arabian bank – which had links with al Qaeda.

Top executives of HSBC also over-ruled warnings from its own officers that the bank should severe links with Al Rajhi.

Why was all this done? Obviously, greed underpinned the behaviour.

The HSBC have now issued a statement that it will apologise, acknowledge these mistakes, answer for actions and give absolute commitment to fixing what went wrong.

But will it provide solace to ordinary law-abiding citizens across the world?

One can see a repeat of behaviour on the part of banks. The US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), for example, stated: “we clearly believe the crisis was a result of human mistakes, misjudgements, and misdeeds that resulted in systemic failures for which our nation has paid dearly”.

When the misdeeds get detected, outright denials are first made as a matter of routine. Similarly, when responsibilities get pinned down, the buck gets passed on. And when everything fails, apologies are issued with a promise that systems would be put in place so that this doesn’t happen again. It is common pattern. It was seen when the USD$7 billion Societe Generale scandal broke, or when the recent USD$2 billion Adoboli scandal came to light. Someone down the line is made a scapegoat. Nick Leeson, who brought the century-old Barings Bank down, wrote: “I completely recognise my fault in what happened, but it was clear Barings were incompetent, and their lack of oversight was appalling”.

In the case of HSBC, the difference is that it is not oversight or incompetence, but wilful negligence.

What were the regulators doing?

As found by the FCIC, once again regulators were sleeping at the wheel.

What do we need to do?

The actions of HSBC are beyond negligent. The bank appears to be knowingly involved in assisting MLTF activities. One would expect that criminal proceedings be brought against HSBC board and CEO, with whom the buck stops. In the early 1990s, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, started by a Pakistani financier, was found guilty of involvement in money laundering activities and was closed down.

Simultaneously, the US authorities need to take the regulators to task.

Could we expect the authorities to show the required responsibility? Or do we expect a repeat of the Indian epic Mahabharata (400 BCE) where the Druapadi, the princess, was disrobed in public eye and the King and the court were sitting with blindfolds over their eyes?

In his book, The Difficulty of Being Good: The Subtle Art of Dharma, Gurcharan Das writes: “there will always be nasty types – Shakuni, Duryodhana, Duhshasana — but good institutions are designed to punish them and to reward decent behaviour”.

It remains to be seen if this hope is rooted in reality.

AUTHOR

  1. Milind Sathye

    Head of Accounting, Banking and Finance at University of Canberra

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Milind Sathye does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:

Comments

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 16 November 2012

    “there will always be nasty types .... but good institutions are designed to punish them and to reward decent behaviour”.
    Unfortunately accessing the good institutions who will punish bad behaviour presupposes the financial wherewithall to be able to take the ratbags to court, enforce society's expectations as to conduct and extract appropriate damages.
    Without that those most deserving of a fair result even in cases of proven misconduct may wait many years for justice or just walk away with their injuries.
    Justice delayed is justice denied.

    ROYAL COMMISSION INTO BANKING - WIDE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Leave your comment

Guest Sunday, 08 December 2019