ANZ shareholders keep in darkness
There is a long discussion about the reasons why, for the 2018 financial year, it was four cases from an existing or previous ANZ senior executive who is suffering a break in their various payments for reasons that are related to risk, behavior or compliance.
ANZ shareholders appear to have been kept in the dark for the details.
Elliott was one of the executives whose paid wage was. The other three executives had their various pay pay due to issues with risk management.
Elliot says that the charge is cut for the three executive officers in recognition of the fact that ANZ had not met the standards set for risk management, some of which had been discussed in public in the Royal Commission.
Elliott said: "So, for example, a failure to recover issues on time would be a good example, that was taken into account. As a result, those operators … less than their target charge … they were accept, I believe, 60 per cent of specific target. "
But the exact figures are subject to an announcement order – so we do not know what they are.
Elliott says they are in an ANZ remuneration report, but Orr said that's not the case.
Orr: "They are told they are not and that was the basis of the unreading application, Mr Elliott. I want to take that up with you. DDo you say that someone who reads the remuneration report in your annual report can see that all of those three people have reduced their various payment – not only is it reduced but reduced due to risk, compliance or behavior reasons?"
Elliott: "No, they can not do it."
Orr: "Why not?"
Elliott: "Well, that's a good question. I can say I'm not using the market. I'm not sure that's a great answer but it has not been."
After to update
The bonus scheme revealed an ANZ 300%
Not bad for year work
The Royal Commission is hearing about ANZ's operating remuneration system.
Its system includes a fixed remuneration component that is paid in cash and a different recognition element.
The variable component has planned to provide 200% of the fixed payment component for target performance (for senior executives).
That means that if a senior executor does what ANZ expects from them in carrying out their role, they will usually be entitled to receive their variable variable payment, which is twice their fixed charge.
And if the superintendent is performing above the target, they are entitled to up to 300% o & fixed charge.
Therefore, if the fixed recognition for a specific senior executive is $ 1 million, their target variable payment is an additional $ 2 million, but if they are performing above the target, they may get up to $ 3 million in various payments.
After to update
Elliott expresses frustration with the "two-strike rule".
It confers with individual shareholders very little to say in the way a large company is listed publicly, although it is theoretically part of the company's owners.
He says they have the opportunity to express opinions on the performance of a company, when asked to vote on active recognition, through the two-strike rule, as a result of them to have their views on the performance of a company. every issue of issues. .
Elliott said: "My chances are probably not being taught seriously. I have a view. I am concerned that shareholders do not have today, regardless of size, There are very few paths to express their views to a company. The remuneration report is one of the few places that are given to them. And understandably, I believe that we have seen shareholders using that to have a voice on other issues. "
Elliott: "Well, I am not sure that it is used for the purpose that could be edited. I believe that the purpose was to talk about recognition. People use it understandable to express opinions on all kinds of things that are related to the company because they do not have significant other significant ways or any powerful ways – I'm saying, the good thing about the two rules hit, it's inevitably it has a power. If you're a second strike, there is a result, rather than an opposition to general issues that they voted at the AGM.
"So, I am concerned that it is being used for incorrect purposes, if you. But I believe it is shareholders who express the need to be heard too."
After to update
Orr wants to know significantly that stakeholder expectations are to set remuneration structures for executive officers.
Elliott says they have a "significant" voice, given their ability to vote on specific issues that are about recognition.
They argue that they are the most significant voice.
Elliott: "I can not give it a number or a percentage, but it's a very substantial voice. It might be the strongest all. I find it hard to think about a stakeholder group that has somewhere close to the influence on recognition structures … about the absolute absolute amounts to some like myself as chief executive. "
Orr talks about the recognition regime for ANZ senior executives.
She wants to know if there was "wrong calibration" – to use Elliott's euphemism – from a higher executive charge.
Elliott says there was.
Orr: "In your submissions in response to the interim report you said, or ANZ said, as politics over a number of years, and because of various events, the financial services industry has developed a culture that has become too big focusing on revenue and sales?
Orr: "And this was a point that I took with you earlier today. And in those presentations, in cases where ANZ had been involved in problematic behavior, there was often a focus on achieving some short-term financial objectives, including objectives financial at the expense of longer-term issues?
Orr: "And ANZ recognizes that her Recognition and motivation structures are at times not sufficiently encouraged and may have even encouraged poor behavior. Is that right?
Orr moves on to recognition, and how it can encourage misconduct.
Orr: "Could all those actions be taken much earlier than following the Commission's inquiry into these issues in the fourth round of hearings?
Elliott: "Of course.
Orr: "And why did not they, Mr Elliott?
Elliot: "Because they did not get enough attention."
Orr: "Now, since that round of hearings, ANZ has taken a number of steps referred to helping Torres Island Tutors and Customers who live in regional and remote locations?
Orr: "You are now committed to working with indigenous leaders to reconfigure your security questions for customers who need to check their identity over the phone?
Elliott: "I think so, yes.
Orr: "Have you decided to offer a telephone service that is staffed by workers with special training to assist Toror Island Aboriginal and Customers customers?
Orr: "You have now decided not to provide informal overdraft facilities on transaction accounts that you find get specific Centerlink benefits? Will that be the effect of this month's end, some Centerlink recipients, as stated by your systems, will not be able to overwrite their transaction accounts unintentionally except in very limited circumstances?
Elliott: "That's my knowledge, yes.
Orr: "And why have you taken that step?
Elliott: "Well, I believe that it is recognition that our services have the potential to cause unintended harm to customers that they were not as familiar as they could be in how to use those products responsibly. And so even though there was no It is a bad intention as far as I can set it, we felt it was better to implement these security mitigation if you do to try to improve that risk.
Orr: "And also since that round of hearings you are committed to giving the best to unfortunate fees on pensioner benefits accounts?
Elliott had told his colleagues, before the fourth round of hearings, to tell you how many ANZ outlet services have communities of people who are most dependent on Centerlink payments.
About 40 stores meet that definition.
Elliot wanted to be underway for any restoration issues which could arise from the royal commission's inquiry into those communities.