17th Aug 2016
CBA chief Ian Narev’s $12.3 million pay packet

Commonwealth Bank chief Ian Narev collected $12.3 million for the financial year, soaring from last year's $8 million pay day.

The CBA’s annual report revealed this inflated figure, which included bonuses from stocks resulting from the bank’s profitability and customer service success in previous years. During the 2016 financial year, the bank reported paying a total of $44.8 million to its executives – about half of that in cash.

Mr Narev’s pay day makes him the highest-paid big four banker in Australia this year, however, Macquarie Group chief executive Nicholas Moore raked in $16 million last year. Still, the CBA chief is ahead of rival bosses, such as ANZ chief executive Mike Smith, who was paid $7.6 million in his final full year. Westpac chief executive Brian Hartzer received $5.7 million (for a part-year in the position).

This news comes in the wake of a series of scandals at the CBA that have led to calls for a Royal Commission into the nation’s whole banking sector. Earlier in August, the CBA, along with most of the banking sector, was criticised for withholding the RBA’s 25-point cash rate reduction, while pushing through higher rates on new term deposits.

This sparked an outcry, with the Government and the Opposition turning a critical gaze on the banking industry. Prime Minister Turnbull has since made it a requirement for the bank chiefs to attend an annual committee hearing in Canberra. However, opposition MPs are pushing for greater action, calling for parliamentary support to force Mr Turnbull to launch a Royal Commission into the sector’s activities.

Read more at theaustralian.com.au
Read more at businessinsider.com.au

Opinion: Banks not making any friends

While wage growth for the rest of Australia’s occupants has dropped to its slowest pace in 18 years, the news of bank chiefs’ fattening pay packets can only add more fuel to the fire of resentment among Australians.

In May, the Australia Bureau of Statistics recorded that the wage price index, which measures salary and wage movements among Australian workers, increased by a measly 0.4 per cent during the March quarter, leaving the annual growth rate at just 2.07 per cent, after seasonal adjustments. This is the slowest pace seen since the wage price index began in 1998 and is suggestive of the ongoing struggle heralded by the 1990s recession.

With financial independence practically a pipedream for many Australians, they are left with few options when it comes to paying their way in life; many find themselves in line at the bank, applying for loans or yet more credit. And when it comes to the banks, we’ve just learned precisely where the buck stops.

Mr Narev’s $12.3 million salary is an almost unfathomable amount on the page, but if we look at it in a different light, we start to understand how ludicrous a sum it really is. When we consider that the current rate of a single full Age Pension (including Pension Supplement) is $873.90 per fortnight, we find that $12.3 million could cover the pensions of 519 retirees for a whole year. This is one man’s salary.

Amid calls for a Royal Commission into the banking sector, as Australians facing ever-growing financial dependence on banks, there’s a palpable feeling of unrest. On the one hand, bank chiefs such as Ian Narev claim to work hard in favour of Australians’ interests. On the other, they’re failing to pass on much-needed savings to customers. Until Mr Turnbull establishes a Royal Commission so that the Government and the public can learn all the facts, this feeling of uncertainty will continue.

What do you think about this amount? Does it seem reasonable considering the current climate?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    OlderandWiser
    17th Aug 2016
    10:08am
    I'm quite sure many will find ways to justify it, but it's a disgrace. No wonder our economy is in such a mess! I'd love to see his tax bill. I'll bet he uses every trick in the book to minimize!
    OlderandWiser
    17th Aug 2016
    10:09am
    And no doubt he agrees with those who applaud tax minimization. Funny how the same greedy pigs condemn people who think they should get a small part aged-pension given that their meagre wage didn't allow them to save enough to earn the equivalent of the pension!
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    10:51am
    Justify it or not those were the conditions of his contract. That said I really can't understand why anyone would need that sort of money but if it's the going rate then why not take it.
    jackie
    17th Aug 2016
    12:03pm
    It's about time a cap was put on the highest salary. The bank's customers will pay dearly for the creep.
    GeorgeM
    17th Aug 2016
    1:10pm
    Agree, Rainey and jackie. This disgraceful situation can be easily changed if the Politicians want to - especially disgusting that the so-called "Labor" party never tried to change it. As Gerry Harvey correctly said, no one person deserves to get over $1Mil salary.
    The solution is really simple - impose a super tax on excessive incomes, say a 95% tax rate on the $iMil+ tax bracket (5% remaining to keep accountants employed). Then, there may be enough revenue for the Govt to also pay Age Pensions to all who have paid taxes without the Assets & Income tests.
    Anonymous
    17th Aug 2016
    1:37pm
    Trouble is George - the market for good operators of big businesses is a global one.

    Big companies like the banks, BHP, etc, employ from a global pool of skilled and competent CEOs.

    Australia would only attract a low level of management expertise if your solution was adopted - which might not be in our country's interest.
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:16pm
    You can bet on that. Unfortunately Turnbull managed to have the top end of town hide the amount of tax they pay a couple of years ago. The crooks are very touchy about being exposed.
    OlderandWiser
    17th Aug 2016
    6:37pm
    Frankly, I wonder if these high salaries actually do attract top talent. We sure don't have top talent in Parliament, and we've seen some bad eggs in top positions in some big companies. In the workforce, I always found the WORST employees were those with big egos and big salary expectations. The modest and humble ALWAYS delivered far better.
    Old Man
    17th Aug 2016
    10:26am
    Before we jump to decry the obscene payments, perhaps we should be given a copy of the contract under which these people are employed. There are sure to be KPI's that will dictate what payments are made after reaching certain agreed targets. It's the people who signed off on those contracts that are the ones who are to blame. And to put this into perspective, he received 0.12% of the pre-tax profits. My last year of working I received a bonus of 7.14% of my salary but the actual dollars were quite small.
    Rae
    17th Aug 2016
    10:43am
    That is a valid point Old Man. The board and shareholders are obviously quite okay with this salary.

    My only problem is that I believe these extra ordinary salaries should not be included in the formula that is used to work out mean and average incomes.

    As prices, insurance etc are based on the average wage these very large salaries skew the results.

    We all pay more than we should because 0.01% of income earners earn outstanding amounts.
    Renny
    17th Aug 2016
    12:36pm
    From what I've seen ver the years they get their disgusting salaries and bonuses regardless of meeting KPI's. The clever buggers are having a lend of every customer. 0 sympathy.
    KSS
    17th Aug 2016
    12:51pm
    Renny are you privy to the CEO's KPIs? I would suggest they are probably structured around the bank's market share and profitability. Given CBA increased profitability 2% last year and made over $9 billion after tax profit, I'd suggest Mr Narev probably met them don't you?
    Old Man
    17th Aug 2016
    12:58pm
    I agree Renny and this says a lot about those supposed clever people who make up the Boards of the companies which sign off on the contracts. The applicants for the positions of CEO are way smarter than those who employ them. It may well be a case of very low KPI's.
    Anonymous
    17th Aug 2016
    1:23pm
    I think the root problem with CEO's and boards are the associated unintended consequences of KPIs.

    Chasing higher profits and/or higher share price as a KPI means that is a very strong driver (CEO share options are set higher as a target - and is a high driver if the CEO wants to eventually maximise his profit) . The lower ranks usually have their KPIs set accordingly to ensure the CEO makes his target - can't easily otherwise.

    However, that means they consequently cause corporate distortions and lack of customer focus and often then corrupt their wealth management, insurance, mortgage products, etc as we have seen.
    TREBOR
    17th Aug 2016
    1:57pm
    So there is a need to reduce the banks' profit shares by abolishing their fees and forcing them to operate on their earned interest?

    Long-term results, anyone? De-regulated banks are like governments - they come up with all the fancy ideas and if there is a shortfall, then there's always plenty out there to be taken from the ordinary person as fees or taxes.

    Plenty of spare cash floating around out there in the hands of pensioners and unemployed people.......
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:18pm
    Come on guys? Who do you think controls what goes into contracts? Ordinary shareholders?
    The reality is that CEO pay is a casino. Read my full account further down the page which discusses the scam by which CEOs can set their own pay.
    Jurassicgeek
    17th Aug 2016
    10:28am
    Banks are parasites and teh CEOs are also parasites and prolly pay sweet FA tax....and all the while we pay high fees and charges they are all gouging ..doesnt matter what bank they are all doing it...
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:19pm
    Banks are no more than reflections of the greed of CEOs and their Boards.
    fordyoot
    17th Aug 2016
    10:59am
    An obscene amount of money paid to a person who produces nothing apart from hot air . Australian banks are very profitable but largely useless
    , sometimes corrupt and definitely not to be trusted or relied upon. All Hail the mighty dollar!!!!
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    2:13pm
    "Hail Seizure !! Rome is on its Knees ! :-(
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:20pm
    And caused by ordinary Australians who do nothing to change this and ordinary shareholders who wonder why their dividends are often so poor.
    Hairy
    17th Aug 2016
    11:30am
    More rip offs from the top but will turdbull do anything other than bleat shake his stick and threaten,no he will do exactly nothing same as it ever was same as it ever was
    Anonymous
    17th Aug 2016
    11:56am
    What"s it got to do with Turnbull Hairy he"s not paying his wage the shareholders are. This is after all a public company and not run by the government.
    Old Man
    17th Aug 2016
    1:07pm
    I agree Robbo, some contributors in this forum take every opportunity to blame Turnbull and the government for everything that happens. They are most predictable in that they mainly stray off topic and immediately revert to personal abuse of other posters who don't support Labor.
    TREBOR
    17th Aug 2016
    1:59pm
    Well, Turnbull did sink the Titanic and start the Cold War and rob babies in cradles .... or was that Julia Gillard?

    Every incumbent politician gets - and deserves - to be held accountable for the ills foisted upon the people... politicians do, after all, have the opportunity to respond to those ills by fixing them.... something the ordinary person elects them to do, BTW.
    TREBOR
    17th Aug 2016
    2:00pm
    The alternative is the concept explained to me by a former career bank robber - the banks are insured, the banks and insurance companies are all thieves - stealing from them while they steal from you is not a crime.

    Now that's what happens when elected representatives fail in their duty to the people first and suck up to their mates in the fancy cars.
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:23pm
    You troll Old Man. Never changes.
    Turnbull has shaken his finger at the big banks a few times now. WHERE IS THE LEGISLATION? And why did Abbott tear up legislation left by Gillard to introduce accountability into the banking system? The answer is very clear: this coalition government is working for the banks because they, just like the coal industry, provide funding for the re-election of coalition candidates.
    Tell me about bank bashing.
    Old Man
    17th Aug 2016
    4:34pm
    Here you are Mick, Gillard's answer to the problem with banks. As you can see, it's all words and very little substance. I see no mention of a Royal Commission here.

    "Today the Gillard Government is announcing it will take further action to promote a competitive and sustainable banking system to give every Australian a fairer go.

    We're introducing three broad streams of reform to empower consumers to get a better deal, to help smaller lenders put more competitive pressure on the big banks, and to secure our financial system so it can continue to provide a sustainable flow of credit to households and businesses.

    We've worked carefully and methodically with our financial regulators to develop a package of reforms that will be effective and enduring, and won't let the big banks off the hook.

    There's no silver bullet here – the challenges flowing from the global financial crisis can't be solved overnight – but we'll keep working hard to give all Australians a fighting chance.

    Vigorous competition is the best way to keep interest rates for borrowers lower over time and create a system that offers real choice.

    To empower consumers to get a better deal, we will:

    Ban exit fees outright on new home loans from 1 July 2011
    Boost consumer flexibility to transfer deposits and mortgages
    Introduce a mandatory key fact sheet for new home loan customers
    Empower the ACCC to prosecute anti-competitive price signalling
    Fast-track legislation to get a better deal for Australians with credit cards
    Launch a national community awareness campaign to empower consumers in banking
    Set up a taskforce with the Reserve Bank of Australia to enhance ATM competition reforms

    To support smaller lenders so they can put more competitive pressure on the big banks, we will:

    Build a new pillar in the banking system based on the combined competitive power of our mutual credit unions and building societies
    Confirm the Financial Claims Scheme as a permanent feature of our financial system, to secure critical deposit funding for smaller lenders
    Introduce a further $4 billion investment to support the Residential Mortgage Backed Securities market which many of our smaller lenders rely on to make cheaper loans
    Accelerate the development of a 'bullet bond' structure for RMBS issuance to strengthen and diversify RMBS funding for smaller lenders

    To secure the long-term safety and sustainability of our financial system, we will:

    Allow all banks, credit unions and building societies to issue covered bonds to broaden access to cheaper, more stable and longer-term funding, and harness our national superannuation savings to domestically fund more productive investment in our economy
    Develop a deep and liquid corporate bond market by launching the trading of Commonwealth Government Securities on a securities exchange, to reduce our reliance on offshore wholesale funding markets

    These reforms build on the Government's decisive action during the global financial crisis to secure our financial system and preserve the competitive foundations of Australia's banking sector.

    The Gillard Government has worked hard to help smaller lenders compete with the big banks by supporting their access to vital funding sources including our deposit and wholesale funding guarantees and our $16 billion investment in AAA-rated RMBS.

    We've also introduced tough new laws to crack down on unfair mortgage exit fees – to ensure that customers can walk down the road and get a better deal. Together with our measures making it easier for customers to switch their deposit accounts, this critical reform has been part of our broad agenda to promote choice for consumers.

    A competitive and sustainable banking system is central to the Gillard Government's broad economic agenda, and continues our record of strong and responsible economic management."
    Radish
    17th Aug 2016
    8:35pm
    Keating privatised the banks.......blame him if you want to blame anyone.

    This is a private company...whether we like it or not and how many have super and this would be one of the companies you are deriving your profits from.
    Stan
    17th Aug 2016
    11:47am
    In my bank there are six cashier points, most time two are open,at the very best three,and the queue stretches to the door,this is even on a Friday afternoon when banks are busy. If they had more Casheres on instead of cutting staff may be their profits won't be so big.
    TREBOR
    17th Aug 2016
    2:01pm
    Indeed - they don't sink much into employment at the lower end, and they certainly don't bother much with counter service - once their mainstay as part of the community (perhaps a sign they've forsaken the community?)....
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:25pm
    Better to shovel large amounts of money into CEO pay Trebor. That is one of the things which leave such a bad taste. Australia used to be a fairer place where the top end could do well and the bottom end could survive. In the last 2 decades the top end has been trying to take it all. Do we really want to become like our dirt poor American cousins?
    ex PS
    17th Aug 2016
    11:53am
    I would like to see executive salary's linked to the average wage of the people employed in the organisation, it should be no more than X times that salary.
    If a company wants to reward the attainment of KPI's, this can be done through a bonus system based on the percentage above KPI's realised.
    Share Holders should sack boards that sign Senior Executives up to unrealistic salary's.
    TREBOR
    17th Aug 2016
    2:06pm
    To be fair - I have long argued that negotiated salaries are outside the purview of such arguments as 'wage gaps' etc - for the simple reason that they are a negotiated income and not a wage.

    Problem with Shareholders sacking these people is that the ordinary shareholders generally don't control the majority of stock but are just useful cannon fodder. That's how business works, and as I've said before - an extension of that is that the ordinary shareholder is the one, due to minimal returns on shares, who finds him/her self in the position of not earning much after a few years into retirement, due to rising costs and inflation, hidden and otherwise.

    Hidden inflation is the actual diminution in the value of your dollar due to the fact that, regardless of the 'official' rate - it buys much less every day. It is achieved by rising power, road use, etc costs... and rising bank fees.....
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:26pm
    Not a bad idea. But read my (long) post below as the real scam needs to be fixed, and it never is.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    4:00pm
    Trebour I think the term you want is discounted cashflow. This allows for inflation in the prices of future goods and services.
    OlderandWiser
    17th Aug 2016
    6:43pm
    I recently took a course in social justice and it was reported that several European and Scandinavian countries are considering passing a law that nobody can be paid more than 6 times the wage paid to the lowest paid full time employee in their organization. In the case of government, that means no more than 6 times the wage of the lowest-paid public servant. Interesting concept. I believe it has been successfully implemented in at least one country, and is credited with dramatically improving both economic and social conditions.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    9:31pm
    Rainey that sounds like a good recipe for our already welfare dependant economy where nobody wants to do anything to me. It is like saying people should have a job no matter if they need one or not.
    ex PS
    18th Aug 2016
    5:51pm
    Rainey, I think that this system is used by several Japanese companies. This system would encourage the company to reward good work practices in order to increase their own earning capacity. Win win situation if you ask me.
    OlderandWiser
    18th Aug 2016
    10:23pm
    Absolutely it's a win-win. It would greatly improve our society and our economy. Many experts are now recognizing that excessive inequality is the major cause of our social and economic ills. The 6x restriction is a great way to address inequality, restore incentives, and reduce welfare dependence. It creates jobs because CEOs can't drive huge increases in their own wages by sacking hundreds of workers and forcing the remaining workers to work harder to compensate.
    floss
    17th Aug 2016
    11:58am
    Great to see one of Turnbulls mates doing well, perhaps a loan next year when we loose our pension may be in order.
    Florgan
    17th Aug 2016
    12:08pm
    Disgusting greed
    FrankC
    17th Aug 2016
    12:34pm
    I wonder just how much the CEOs of banks in other countries around the world are getting..I'm sure it will not be anywhere near that figure, since we pay here the highest figures on credit cards percentage, and they boast the biggest profits. But $12 million can never be justified, especially when they don't pass on rate cuts in full, and when they get round to it, but when the rate goes up, it's on your account within 24 hours, in full.
    KSS
    17th Aug 2016
    1:25pm
    FrankC:

    "Barclays Plc said it will pay incoming CEO Jes Staley up to $12.6 million a year". Oct 2015

    " Lloyds Banking Group has handed its chief executive an £8.5m pay" Feb 2016 note this is pounds about $16m AUD

    For others see here:
    https://ig.ft.com/sites/bank-ceo-compensation/2016/

    Looks like Australia is not the highest payer of bank CEOs after all.
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:28pm
    It is indeed unabated greed Florgan. And when things go wrong they all get their golden parachutes as their move on.
    Not Senile Yet!
    17th Aug 2016
    12:24pm
    Our Banks are supposed to be regulated bt Govt!
    But they simply refuse to do so....and the end result is this man'S ABSURD SALARY...CONTRACT!
    But in the end.....we the customer pay for it!
    The Government says...if your not happy...change Banks!
    NOW MIGHT BE THE RIGHT TIME TO DO JUST THAT!
    Simply put.....they cannot do this to you.....if you refuse to allow them to....so change what you do and then they will be forced to change what they do!
    But the fact is.....we are either too lazy.....or we are on the train ride of greed with them as Shareholders!
    FrankC
    17th Aug 2016
    12:39pm
    The problem there is that some of the other banks are owned by one or other of the 4. Bankwest is owned by CBA, Suncorp is owned by Westpac. I went to Bankwest when I wanted a credit card for a cruise. But knowing they're owned by CBA now, I wouldn't touch them.Sad state of affairs when a new bank is swallowed up by one of the greedy bastards
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:30pm
    The current government is a player....for the banks, not society. Read my longer post below for a description of how banks and all large corporations get away with it.
    KSS
    17th Aug 2016
    12:29pm
    Nice to see we can rely on YLC to wind up the perpetually outraged on this site by linking the salary of the CEO of a private company to pensioner welfare paid by the tax-payer. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

    How many times does it need to be pointed out that the Government does NOT run the banks? The ONLY people the banks are beholden to are their shareholders and those shareholders are doing nicely at the moment. It is those same shareholders who approve the CEO salary NOT the Government. And I'd also remind readers that just about anyone who has a super account is also likely to be a bank shareholder.

    We can all sit around tut-tutting about the level of the executive remuneration but it will have absolutely no bearing on the amount of the age pension or indeed customer service at the banks. If people really are concerned about banks why has there not been similar invective about the imposition of targets on bank Managers which pays the Manager extra bonuses if they manage to force bank customers to use electronic banking even within the branches as was reported just a couple of days ago?

    If you really want a say in how a private company pays its senior staff, then buy shares, attend the shareholders meeting and make your views known. Bleating from the cheap seats achieves nothing.
    Renny
    17th Aug 2016
    12:39pm
    Beyond blaming the government for selling CBA in the first place (yes I know it was Labor), I've never understood how anyone can be worth so much money. I'm sure shareholders are none to happy with it. People are generally quite stupid and ignorant (Turnbull for reelected with NO policies after all). and often just say yes to things that are against their own interests. His salary is obscene.
    KSS
    17th Aug 2016
    12:49pm
    Renny given that CBA made over $9 billion full year profit to 30 June 2016, I'd say the shareholders are just fine with Mr Narev's salary package that they agreed to!
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    12:57pm
    As a CBA shareholder I have no problem with paying someone to make money and pay me a good dividend.
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:34pm
    WInd up? This is what you call staying with the perpetual festering problem? But then you KSS are already known well for being a coalition rusted on wit withs identical to your fuhrer.
    As a shareholder of a company which has done very very nicely (better than CBA!!) I am not comfortable with my CEO's $3 deal given that CEOs get share deals on top of their salaries.
    By all means be greedy be greedy yourself KSS but please do not insult the collective intelligence of readers here. Read by full response about this problem below.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    2:48pm
    Yes I have some shareholders better than the CBA too. At least the CBA makes a profit and pays it's CEO out of profits unlike Aust Post.
    KSS
    17th Aug 2016
    8:32pm
    Mick If you are uncomfortable with the payment package for YOUR CEO then take action there with other shareholders and take out your petty complaints on them. Then stop with your personal insults to me and others with whom you may disagree. They are uncalled for, rude and belittle you far more than the intended target of your trolling.
    in2sunset
    17th Aug 2016
    12:32pm
    One word only - OBSCENE
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:35pm
    Unashamedly obscene.
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    2:39pm
    Incomprehensively Obscene.
    Polly Esther
    17th Aug 2016
    3:10pm
    Indigestibly obscene!!
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    12:34pm
    Big difference here is that Mr Narev earns a salary for a job he does whereas the pension is welfare paid to those who do nothing to earn it.
    Renny
    17th Aug 2016
    12:43pm
    Geezus. I worked all my damned lfe, from 15, paid tax to support everyone else's kids, schools etc without getting anything much back, and like most women didn't retire with huge super. The Age Pension is an entitlement, albeit means tested, not welfare. Super was meant to top it up not replace it. I'm self funded but far from comfortably off. Go get a lfe misery.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    12:55pm
    The pension has nothing to do with how long you worked or even if you worked. It is welfare designed to do nothing more than stop older people living in poverty.
    GeorgeM
    17th Aug 2016
    1:15pm
    Totally disagree with everything you write, OG. You are clearly a Liberal party mouthpiece with crazy extreme right-wing views. Pension was never welfare, always an entitlement - it should be paid in full to all who paid taxes for a certain period but should be then taxed by adding it to other income to get the overall balance right.
    KSS
    17th Aug 2016
    1:29pm
    George like it or not, agree or disagree, given you can apply for a pension whether you ever worked or paid taxes or not, Old Geezer is correct.
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    1:57pm
    To Carry On with what "Geezus" said there! Some of you Clowns have got it BAD !! You would have Old People Begging in Rags without a doubt :-( :-( I'll bet your some Brand of Cretin that came to this Country and Ripped Off anything you could get your hands on !! :-(Do any Manual work did ya ?? :-( Probably NOT !! Just joined the Liberal Party and Trolled ever since :-) :-) "Cash for Comment" !!:-(
    The Net is saturated with it ! And I can Smell a Moth Eaten Rat anywhere !! :-) :-) :-)
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    2:30pm
    Most people I see begging in the streets are young people not old ones. Why? Because they are not looked after like the pensioners in our society.
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:39pm
    What a lowlife thing to say Geezer. Even for you.
    Some people on a pension may have not earned that pension but many have. Most folk have worked hard all their lives and many not been fairly paid over a lifetime. Tell me about deserving a $12.3 million a year salary + BONUS SHARES + PARTLY PAID SHARES AND PERFORMANCE RIGHTS ISSUED AT A LOW (SMALL) AMOUNT AND CASHED IN ON MARKET WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO PAY FOR THEM AND HOLD THEM FOR A SUBSTANTIAL LENGTH OF TIME.
    You must be a real cretin to write such a demeaning thing, but what else would one expect from rusted on well to do people.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    2:42pm
    I disagree Mick people on welfare are on welfare for the very reason that they have no other means of support. It is not linked to anything other than that.
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    2:43pm
    Mick.. Id lake to take him back to 10 Years of Shovelling Coal into Hungry Steam Engines !! That'll make him sit up and Beg for Mercy and a DECENT Pension when he Retires !! :-) :-)
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    2:47pm
    Is there a TAFE Corse to get that S**T Drummed into your Skulls !! :-)
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    2:55pm
    I am starting to think the same myself as people really need to get back to reality.
    Anonymous
    17th Aug 2016
    2:56pm
    According to the Australian Parliament - a pension is defined as welfare...

    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/WelfareSpend
    TREBOR
    17th Aug 2016
    3:24pm
    That's because pensioners have already contributed 50 years or so into the pot....

    Thanks for coming...
    TREBOR
    17th Aug 2016
    3:26pm
    KSS - does that mean all those women who left jobs when they married and raised kids have contributed nothing into the pot?

    Just asking here... so we starve the grand-mothers and feed the grand-fathers?
    TREBOR
    17th Aug 2016
    3:29pm
    As before Reasons - welfare is the intent or policy or structure in place to ensure a degree of social security - Social Security is the disbursing of funds.

    Parliament can strive as mightily as it likes to make Pensions into Welfare (note the difference), and thus somehow an infinitely malleable payout subject to the whim of any passing parasite politician who can't add up and who has no morals or conscience - but the Pension - and Unemployment Benefits for that matter - remains Social Security drawn from a pot assembled over fifty years of contribution to society.
    jeffr
    17th Aug 2016
    3:32pm
    Thank you Reasons, I have just read ä pension is defined as welfare"and I now realise that a lot of people on this forum should change their names to Antagonist 1,ANTAGONIST 2 etc:etc:

    Deliberately causing angst does not achieve anything but more angst.
    Anonymous
    17th Aug 2016
    3:36pm
    Interestingly historically when you go looking - nothing much has changed with the aged pension from 1908 when the Federal Government implemented it nationally based on NSW's model.

    The aged pension has always been means tested and is designed to ensure no-one should live in poverty - and is one part of a range of retirement streams including superannuation and savings.

    http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-14_u-127_t-352_c-1220/invalid-and-old-age-pension-schemes/nsw/history/australia-to-1914/social-legislation-1901-1914
    Anonymous
    17th Aug 2016
    3:44pm
    Sorry jeffr - no offence meant - it's just that lots on this site argue about the definition - and that seems to be how the Aust. Gov. officially defines the aged pension.

    TREBOR - there is no pot of pension money - the aged pension is just an annual budget expenditure line - and has been forever if you read about its history. Hence why they are always trying to control its expansion, thus keeping their budgets under control.
    Rae
    18th Aug 2016
    8:49am
    Reasons that "budget under control" excuse doesn't cut it. There is currently $125 billion going off shore every year more than coming in. The government could print the few billion to give an aged pension to every retiree and boost growth and jobs that way without any fear of inflation.
    Anonymous
    18th Aug 2016
    2:43pm
    I have no problem with the budget getting worse if the money is spent usefully - not sure if welfare comes into that category - and certainly not giving money to everyone un-means tested. If you can fund your own retirement, you should.

    And it always depends on what the money is actually spent on - no help to the economy if you go OS and spend it - or it gets saved.

    Better off building or repairing infrastructure and borrowing for these as they improve Australians quality of life and increase productivity.
    ex PS
    18th Aug 2016
    5:56pm
    Interesting to see Og changing the subject to his pet winge. Who really cares if individuals want to call the pension welfare, most of us know what it is and will not be convinced by silly, illogical rhetoric.
    OlderandWiser
    20th Aug 2016
    12:26pm
    Reasons, I absolutely agree that if you can fund your own retirement, you should. What I take issue with is the irrational, illogical, and just plain WRONG methods used to determine who can and can't fund their own retirement. On the one hand people with multi-million dollar homes ''can't'', but people living in $200 shacks or home units with a few hundred grand in the bank ''can''. Couples earning $70,000 a year ''can't'', but couples earning $25000 a year ''can'' by draining hard-won savings acquired by going without the luxuries people who are on full pensions enjoyed.

    There is no incentive for sensible, responsible planning and management. People who plan and sacrifice to save are punished harshly and the irresponsible spendthrifts are rewarded generously. There is no consideration for age - i.e how long a modest savings nest egg might have to last; nor for special needs that generate heavy expenses (e.g. disability aids, home help, home care, expensive medications, high specialists costs, physiotherapy, etc.)

    The entire system should be thrown out and restructured. Every ill-conceived, sloppy ''bandaid'' makes it more unfair, harder to administer, and far less economically sustainable.
    Happily retired early
    17th Aug 2016
    1:11pm
    And we don't need a Royal Commission? When is Malcolm Wafflebull going stop looking after the big end of town ....... Oh that's right, got to keep Liberal donations rolling in or he will have to top up the Liberal's accounts himself!! ..... again!!
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    1:30pm
    Welcome to the "Blue" Planet !! Where the Privileged Elitist Entitled. PEE for short, live in Luxury ! :-)
    HarrysOpinion
    17th Aug 2016
    1:33pm
    The problem such high salaries create is an immense domino affect where corporate executives of other commerce industries, once seeing what a person in similar position earns, will demand equivalent remunerations. In the end it's the consumer who pays with a higher cost of living and shareholders get smaller dividends. That's Capitalism.
    Scrivener
    17th Aug 2016
    2:00pm
    That's America!
    HarrysOpinion
    17th Aug 2016
    4:25pm
    That's Australia !
    TREBOR
    17th Aug 2016
    1:53pm
    .. and all on the backs of the often unwarranted fees.... Trebor Party Policy is that Pension recipients and Social Security dependents pay no fees on bank accounts other than default fees on accounts at a reasonable rate.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    1:56pm
    From what I know most banks don't charge seniors fees now.
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    2:00pm
    The Commonwealth doesn't charge Oldies now, is all I can tell you ! :-) Quiet a long time now !! :-)
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    2:12pm
    Agree CBA has a good senior/pensioner account that pays a good interest and has all the bells and whistles as well with no fees. I've even got one myself so I can use all it's bells and whistles for free.

    My kids tell me NAB doesn't charge them fees either.

    Be aware however that most banks will allow you to overdraw you accounts unless you tell them not to.
    KSS
    17th Aug 2016
    8:41pm
    And in fact people could avoid fees on almost all accounts IF they played by the rules of that account. But many are just lazy, don't take responsibility for their finances and end up paying bank and other fees. Fees are unfair if they cannot be avoided. With a bit of planning most could never pay bank fees again. I haven't paid any bank or credit card fees in over twenty years. Its not hard.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    8:53pm
    I haven't paid bank fees either for more years than I can remember. I did have a problem a couple of weeks ago but I rang the bank about it before it happened and they fixed it all up for me so that I wouldn't be charged a fee. So you need to act and not just let things happen.
    Scrivener
    17th Aug 2016
    1:59pm
    Think I'm about to vomit.
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    2:09pm
    The Barf Bag is on the back of the seat if you Flying now !! :-)
    MICK
    17th Aug 2016
    2:14pm
    Great story. The usual defence from the big end of town and the Liberal Party.
    The wider story is how the CEO pay cartel can exist. How it works:

    1. shares in large companies are beneficially held. That is other large companies buy shares in each other.
    2. when CEOs put up their outrageous pay deals (every year) other companies rarely if never vote against a pay rise for CEOs and Boards. The reason why is that companies which hold shares of the company proposing pay increases for CEOs play leap frog and when their turn comes their CEO also gets a similar deal. In effect it is pyramid pay rises and no amount is ever too much.
    Governments have let this cartel operate for far too long. The way to fix it is to,
    1. dilute the voting power of large shareholders. For every 10 shares held large corporation should get one vote, not ten.
    2. limit how much of companies institutional investors can own. 80% might be a good figure.
    Unlikely that our governments will do anything other than complain both sides are owned and/or controlled by big business. That is the tragedy of allowing fraud at the top end of town.
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    2:25pm
    I've noticed that Caper for Years now Mick ! Wages and Sundries Perks come off before the taxable profits. What a Winner :-) :-)
    BUT You have to be a Big Corporation or Company to do it !
    Bad luck Mr Milk Bar Owner you cant pay Yourself $500,000 a year Wages !! :-( :-(
    Alex
    17th Aug 2016
    4:15pm
    Yes Mick. Ordinary shareholders have no say against the block voting power of large corporate shareholders. Financial managers who invest people's superannuation capital in company shares also tend to vote along company lines and approve unjustifiable remuneration packages.
    musicveg
    17th Aug 2016
    2:44pm
    Divest your money from the big 4 banks, support a bank that is more community minded and does not support the coal industry and you will feel better. Better still don't leave too much money in the bank, invest or spend. The whole banking system is always been a money spinner for the rich who keep getting richer. We need a fairer system and CEO wages should be capped. Look at what the Aust. Post CEO gets and why we now have to pay more for postage!
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    2:52pm
    There is nothing wrong with the coal industry. Without the coal industry we would not have steel to build the infrastructure needed for the renewal industry or many other things we use made out of steel.

    I feel much safe with big 4 banks than those community ones especially credit unions.
    ex PS
    19th Aug 2016
    9:52am
    Nothing wrong with the asbestos industry either, without asbestos we would all be cold in winter and would have nothing to line the inside of our homes with.
    I am sure this argument was used by those who were making a fortune out of the asbestos industry, just because people are making money out of something it does not make it right.
    I switched from a bank to a credit union forty years ago and have never had a problem, they are far superior to any bank I have dealt with.
    OlderandWiser
    20th Aug 2016
    12:27pm
    I agree on Credit Unions, PS. Always found them to be brilliant. Far better to deal with than banks.
    GregB
    17th Aug 2016
    3:19pm
    Such high salaries are a disgrace. No one is worth that much, especially when so many Australians are battling. I don't know how the man can sleep at night being part of such inequity. While I tend to support the liberals I am starting to think that Labors policy of a Royal Commission into the banks may not be a bad thing. At least it would bring out into the open what the banks are up to and how they are doing it.
    Dan
    17th Aug 2016
    3:33pm
    these salaries are outrageous and over the top The bank executives , Chairmen and board members are all in it , and it is now well overdue to have a Royal Commission into the Banks Shares in all four Aus banks , other than from the CBA dividend returns , are not that fantastic and every share offer floated to raise more capital comes around the share values drop each time Then again shares in BHP are worse and their board should stand down after $8 Billion dollars LOSS
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    3:43pm
    CBA has the worst dividend return of the big 4 banks.
    OlderandWiser
    20th Aug 2016
    12:30pm
    So why are they paying an obviously less competent CEO such an obscene salary? Would appear to DISPROVE the popular theory about paying for talent. Frankly, I think the monkeys would do a far better job, and at a lower cost.
    GingerMeggs
    17th Aug 2016
    3:50pm
    This is another extreme example of how top corporate managers with the support of some share holders have manipulated the game in their own interest. At everybody else's cost.
    The debakle in the dairy industry is another example of the same sham being played out. It's time some common sense and degree of fairness and ethic's is put to practice here. There is no way one bank boss can be worth the income of 519 pensioners. This really highlights how corrupt our money system is getting to be! Plus as Rainey say's below I'll bet he uses all the tax dodge tricks he can find.
    Alex
    17th Aug 2016
    4:06pm
    The money used to pay him is skimmed off the earnings of customers, many of whom have very limited means. It is galling that bank managers are wheeled out with regularity to give advice on the budget and the economy and on how ordinary people should be made to pay for the deficit. At least Glenn Stevens was honest as he retires on his enormous payout. He made it clear he is not concerned about fairness and equity for ordinary Australians. They do not count. Ratings agencies like Moody's, another arm of the Financial Industry, pop up with regularity to pompously threaten the credit rating. These are the people who gave AAA credit ratings to junk bonds and facilitated the current recession that has impoverished a huge number of people and countries worldwide and for which as yet there is no solution. Perhaps they should concentrate on trying to find a solution for the damage they caused and acknowledge their own incompetence. Alas politicians do not demand that of them.
    Not Amused
    17th Aug 2016
    4:11pm
    For some indiscernible reason, I never feel envious or angry about other people's pay packets or any material wealth they may have. Maybe Mr Narev's salary is the going rate and compares with other high responsibility jobs where people are head-hunted internationally etc. etc.

    The Commonwealth Bank used to be known as "the people's bank" until the Labor Party privatised it after they de-regulated banks and financial markets. Since then the Commonwealth Bank is owned by its shareholders. It is a private enterprise organisation subject to the same competition for salaries and benefits as other big private companies.

    I've never had a problem with the CBA. I pay bills on time, have never over-borrowed and see the bank as a private business the same as any other - profits pay off and they also employ people. It is a good thing Australian banks are profitable as our country would otherwise be in big trouble. It was probably time the bank didn't pass on an interest rate cut to its borrowers because depositors are the people who provide the lending money and they had been overlooked for a very long time, seeing their deposits providing mortgage loans, but getting minimal interest in return. I hope the CBA continues considering its depositors as well as answering to its shareholders. Big businesses are not responsible for we pensioners or any other social group, and to place that obligation on private enterprise is just perpetuating the entitlement mentality.
    Alex
    17th Aug 2016
    4:31pm
    Dear No Amused how virtuous you are?
    His responsibility appears to be to have financial advisers rip off as much as they can from the unsuspecting as was shown with the scams run by CBAs wealth advisers. If he did not know this was going on he is not doing his jobl.
    Before banks were privatized managers earned reasonable salaries, similar to that of a Cabinet Minister, now we have Mr Narev earning 25 times the Prime Minister's salary. There is no justification for the outrageous takings of people in the financial industry. I do not believe as responsible citizens we should close our eyes to ripoffs and corruption.
    particolor
    17th Aug 2016
    4:40pm
    No Choice now We are Ruled Not Governed :-( :-(
    Not Amused
    17th Aug 2016
    6:45pm
    Dear Alex
    "...how virtuous you are?" Sarcasm is the wit of a fool. No bigger fools than the perpetually outraged. Private enterprise employee remuneration is determined on performance and an open field of job applicants with competing qualifications. Very different from publicly funded Cabinet ministers who are paid and pensioned regardless of qualifications, performance and outcomes.
    Alex
    17th Aug 2016
    7:52pm
    It seems you do get angry about what people earn after all. Who sets the open field and judges the skimming 'performance'.
    Not a Bludger
    17th Aug 2016
    4:12pm
    Save me from this c--p,please.

    This is simply more populist Bank Bashing by the Permanently Outraged as led by leftie Bill Shorten and self promoter Dastyari.

    Our Banks underpin and stabilise our whole economy and support all of us in retirement.

    Give credit where it is due for a job well done and this credit includes the boss's substantial income.

    Predictably, you jealous grizzlers are still trying to tear down the tall poppies.
    Anonymous
    17th Aug 2016
    6:13pm
    hear, hear
    OlderandWiser
    17th Aug 2016
    6:39pm
    Support WHO in retirement? With a miserable 2.5% interest on fixed deposits. I think the only retirement they are supporting is their greedy overpaid CEO's!

    NOBODY earns that amount of money. It's obscene and disgusting.
    Alex
    17th Aug 2016
    7:48pm
    Tell me again what planet you are living on Not a Bludger? Our banks and those in the US contributed to the most unstable economic conditions we have ever had. They have lost huge amounts of peoples retirement incomes. A job has not been well done and even if it were no Banking Executive warrants the income cited.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    8:59pm
    I agree people forget banks actually provide a great service to us all. Imagine trying to shop without money. I bid 2 carrots for half a pumpkin sort of stuff.

    If you just park your money in the bank then 2.5% is a good return on your money as the banks can borrow on the wholesale market for much less than that. Interest rates are likely to be low for the next decade so you need to get used to it.

    Tall poppy syndrome is certainly alive and well here today. Me I'm just thankful for what I've got and the mega millions of others are of no interest to me.
    jeffr
    17th Aug 2016
    4:14pm
    I have just listened to Alan Jones discuss with Malcolm Turnbull HOW MUCH OF AUSTRALIA HAS BEEN SOLD TO THE CHINESE. I urge you all to listen to it. Flabagasted cannot even describe how I feel about it.This government should all be sacked NOW.
    GingerMeggs
    17th Aug 2016
    4:25pm
    Agreed whole heartedly

    Looks like we need a new army to protect us from our politicians selling our home and country from under us!

    Maybe some of us can inspire Alan Jones to build a save Australia party
    Anonymous
    17th Aug 2016
    4:36pm
    You people had your chance to get rid of the Government last month but failed miserably so now just cop it.
    Anonymous
    17th Aug 2016
    6:21pm
    jeffr what has your post to do with this topic apart from having another go at the government, just accept labor got done, don't be a miserable loser all your life, you will have another chance in three years time, not much hope with billy the knive as your leader.
    jeffr
    17th Aug 2016
    6:39pm
    Heemskerk it is not Labor being done.....It is every Australian who believes in an Australian Democracy which will not be owned by the Chinese.

    This is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than point scoring between the Libs.Labor.

    Bank CEO salary,s are a non topic now.

    17th Aug 2016
    4:20pm
    Wasn"t there a Politician named Joe somebody or other who said go and get a good job looks like this bloke did.
    HarrysOpinion
    17th Aug 2016
    4:23pm
    ...and so did Joe !
    bandy
    17th Aug 2016
    4:48pm
    What do we think,doesnt matter what we think it wont make any difference they do what they want to do.Its the shareholders who have to stand up & be counted
    BrianP
    17th Aug 2016
    6:28pm
    People like Denise Brailey and I have been calling for a Royal Commission into Banking for many years.

    It is long overdue and so much damage has been done to so many people.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    8:37pm
    People like Denise Bailey simply do not accept that people themselves should take some responsibility for their actions and subsequent problems. Problem is no body today wants to take responsibility for their own actions and are looking for someone to take the blame. Bank bashing is now out of control.
    OlderandWiser
    20th Aug 2016
    12:34pm
    People like Denise Bailey should be applauded for CARING about SOCIETY, instead of supporting an increasingly self-serving society in which nobody gives a damn for anyone but themselves and the disadvantaged are blamed for their problems, while those who cause the disadvantage are called ''tall poppies'' and supposed to be exempt from any social responsibility.

    There's no ''bank bashing'' going on. There are responsible calls for accountability that is essential for a healthy society and a healthy economy, and it's a disgrace that the ''I'm alright Jack, bugger you'' brigade defend evil.

    ''All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing''
    OlderandWiser
    17th Aug 2016
    7:17pm
    A friend's daughter is a senior executive in a bank (not Commonwealth). She remarked that the way CEO's get pay rises is by sacking a lot of staff, making the remaining staff work much harder and longer hours for less pay, and then claiming they drove profits up. Yes, by destroying the lifestyles of thousands and doing major damage to the economy by increasing unemployment. Does that really merit a reward? There needs to be much more rigid control over the conduct of these vultures.
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    8:35pm
    Most baking is now done electronically so they simply don't need the same number of staff or bank branches as they had in days gone by. The take up of electronic banking caused the problem not the CEO and the staff less do not have to work any harder because the workload has decreased significantly. So if you use electronic banking then you are partly responsible for banks needing less staff and you destroyed the lifestyles of thousands by putting people out of work. The CEO was simply being fiscally responsible in reducing staff no longer needed and to do otherwise would be irresponsible.
    OlderandWiser
    18th Aug 2016
    10:29pm
    WRONG AGAIN OLD GEEZER. The sackings were nothing to do with electronic banking reducing staff needs. They were, as I said, due to a greedy CEO seeing a way to drive up his wages by destroying the lifestyles of workers and eliminating needed customer services.

    There was NOTHING fiscally responsible in his action. He had executives working 60 hours a week to compensate for staff reductions, and terrified of losing their jobs if they cut their hours back. The extra staff ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED.

    Once again, your wild assumptions assume a utopia that doesn't exist, and try to condone the unacceptable. You just cannot get it through your head that the world is driven by GREED AND SELFISHNESS at the TOP END.

    You are quick to brand the less well-off with vile labels, but equally quick to defend the filthy greedy scum who cause all our economic problems.
    ex PS
    19th Aug 2016
    10:00am
    Rainey, the same thing as your daughter relates has been done in the Public Service for many years, it has caused a serious decline in the amount and quality of service provided by government departments. Sacking staff is rarely done to save money, it is usually done to make more money available for senior staff to share amongst themselves in the form of productivity bonuses. In fact they are not being more productive as they are cutting services to save a few dollars (on paper of course) as the money invariably finds its way into the hands of upper management.
    Gee Whiz
    17th Aug 2016
    8:11pm
    This is a disgrace. This is the bank that refused to pay out on legitimate on TPD insurance claims, robbed retirees who had unvested through the banks financial planning department and refuses to pass on the Reserve Banks lower interest rate.

    The CBA was once known as the peoples bank until Hawke and Keating decided to privatize it.

    It quickly became known as the peoples Rip-off bank.

    It is a disgusting organization run by some of the biggest crooks in the country. They make the arch criminal Al Capone look like an angle.
    GingerMeggs
    17th Aug 2016
    9:12pm
    Great to see so many concerned people BUT

    The only way to get real change is push, persuade, inspire the government and all the existing vested interests to change the rules. That will only happen when all this venom posted here by people gets re directed to people who can, will do something to change things and not have it simply disappear as it does on this site after a few days . If this opinion does get acted on how is it forwarded to people who will act? I see no policy of this site owners as to how they pass on all these views!
    john
    17th Aug 2016
    9:18pm
    NOBODY is worth more than $200,000.any more should be taxed as unearned income at 75%
    Old Geezer
    17th Aug 2016
    9:33pm
    Many retired people and pensioners only have non earned income. So you think they should be taxed at 75%.
    OlderandWiser
    18th Aug 2016
    10:17pm
    Obviously pensioners and retirees should not pay tax at all if their income is less than the level required for a comfortable retirement. But anyone with an income over $200,000 should be paying very high taxes - and 75% isn't unreasonable. The problem with our economy is that those who can afford to pay are not paying anywhere near enough and the government is trying to bleed folk who can't afford to pay to compensate. They are determined to get blood out of stones rather than upset their wealthy mates.
    JAID
    19th Aug 2016
    9:48am
    Tax ceilings seem like an odd vehicle John. A continuous scale may work better. The curve would be interesting. Might start off like a cross section from the back of a German WW1 helmet approaching 100% with a slight final curve up before cutting off just before the spike. Perhaps some approximate points:

    $20k - 0%
    $50k - 4%
    100k - 12%
    200k - 48%
    500k - 65%
    1m - 80%
    5m - 95%
    20m - 98%
    100m - 99%

    People would receive 20k from 20k $45k from $50k, $88k from $100k, $200k from a million right up to a million from a hundred million. So displays of comfortable wealth would still be available. LearJet would suffer.

    Pay rates would lift pretty quickly. :-)
    OlderandWiser
    20th Aug 2016
    12:36pm
    I wish you were the Treasurer, Jaid. We'd solve our economic problems and most of our social problems overnight. Combine your tax system with a revised, fairer and much more generous pension system (for the aged and disabled) and better help for the unemployed and we'd have a prosperous and happy nation.
    Franky
    17th Aug 2016
    10:01pm
    This is simply obscene!
    trood
    18th Aug 2016
    12:57am
    This guy is an obnoxious weasel not worth a dollar. He was disgusting trying to explain his way out of the Commbank insurance frauds. These CEOs, the more they stuff up the more they get paid, eg BHP, Murray Goulburn, Aust Post, etc,. High time they capped the salaries of these obscene pigs
    Dan
    18th Aug 2016
    11:10am
    spot on they are stalling with the assessment of investors who lost their money to the shonky associated companies with CBA It is plain fraud and massive cover-up and the Governments of all persuasions are too weak to do anything Even if the Government floated another bank owned by the Governments as the Commonwealth Bank once was , I do not think anyone would trust them either
    AlbertC
    18th Aug 2016
    6:10am
    it is more than a disgrace as far as can see if i was earning i million a year i would be happy as my bills would be paid this is earning in ecses of 12 mill ayear after his first year he could resighn and still be on top when is old and grey as for these they are mmagots feeding of us and that 12.ooo$ when ivested would triple over a 3 ry period to around 30 mill time to pull wages on these people back into line as i said once before their lots of people that out theit that could that job for alot lot lot less.and behapy .?/
    johnp
    18th Aug 2016
    11:22am
    Re the part where it says "bank chiefs such as Ian Narev claim to work hard in favour of Australians’ interests"
    that is a lie as they work in the interests of their own pockets plus many Australians in most walks of life work hard anyway !
    However they are not really to blame as they are only taking advantage of the global situation for competition among choice of CEOs which is the fault of compliant shareholders, directors and business generally. Just like Sol Trujillo (former Telstra CEO) who could have been replaced for a fraction of what he was paid. The CEO of China Telecom has a far larger organisation to manage at small fraction of these sorts of salaries
    Topcat
    18th Aug 2016
    2:29pm
    Oh dear - I notice 131 comments already on this article and whilst I agree, all the moaning and groaning will do nothing. Sure people can have their say but to what end - it changes nothing. Banks are a law unto themselves. The only way as I see it is if people were to take out their money from banks and put what they have into a Credit Union or some place else. What with Murdoch and the Banks I am sick of it all. I just have to be content with my lot which isn't a fortune. What with Rupert Murdoch, the Banks and Government I don't know who is worse.
    MD
    18th Aug 2016
    4:18pm
    "Australians, (they) are left with few options when it comes to paying their way in life; many find themselves in line at the bank, applying for loans or yet more credit. And when it comes to the banks, we’ve just learned precisely where the buck stops."

    I seriously question the validity re this (above) broad sweeping comment. Were the author to disclose the source of information may be enlightening, otherwise I'd suggest it's rather a broad sweeping journalistic furphy - something we'd expect from a hack.
    If people ARE lining - up for (bank) "loans" or "more credit" to "pay their way in life" then I'd suggest both the banks & those in line are heading for major difficulties. Mr Narev & his peers would be well advised to aquaint themselves with this info or their future extortionate remunerations could well be in doubt.
    The buck DOES NOT stop with the banks; although a goodly portion doesn't get past the CEO, there also exists legions of advisors, consultants, legalese pro's, insurers, sycophants, suckers and tooth fairies to contend with: shareholders included, dividends aside.
    Maybe if we were to tempt the Pollies with an equivalent to Mr Narev's big juicy carrot
    then we could expect some real action. Just think how many choppers would be required to keep all the heads in the air.
    Spike
    19th Aug 2016
    6:06am
    I believe this is too much money for one person for 12 months. I wonder how much he shares with the needy. This is pure greed what they pay the head of the banks.
    JAID
    19th Aug 2016
    8:50am
    Greed and irrational valuing of worth may be part of it...I wouldn't know. Certainly people can do fantastic work with little income but it seems apparent that systems that do not limit the potential for financial return do reward. That reward may not be to everybodies taste and it is by nature not a matter of equal distribution of wealth or anything like it. It may be tied to a chase for advance that doesn't matter. Then again, advances that value all do appear to be gained. Even at the leanest end of the income spectrum, health, information, education and general welfare, while extremely diverse, in range may be somewhat higher than it otherwise would have been.

    If this were entirely the case then jealousy would be the symptom. But it is not. There is a quantity of pure unadulterated worthlessness amongst these pay levels. Worthlessness cushioned by, convention, blind greed and failure of responsibility for wise selection.

    Convention cannot be discounted. Pay rates for certain types of workers rising everywhere in the world creates the appearance of both value and necessity. Some of that is real. In the context of this system only wisdom in selection can obviate the waste and trend the system back to reason.

    In a universe where we know an infinitesimally small quantity of the potential available it should also be remembered that there will likely be keys, bright ideas out there that can radically change health, well-being or outlook and knowledge for everybody. If a CEO or a prime minister, whoever, are capable of harnessing specks of availing wisdom others would overlook then it is hard to argue that any price is too much where it is covered by the advance afforded.

    [Of course, some have sparks of useful wisdom and some, like many/most managers effectively harness that of others...makes the calculation comparatively difficult.]

    In our political leadership we do not apply these values. A prime minister of Australia or a US president may have access to certain on-going credits but on annual pay are paupers compared to any of the bank managers. I do wonder where we may be if players joggled for position in the race to a $15 million prime ministerial annual pay packet (instead of about 3% of that.) :-)

    19th Aug 2016
    9:10am
    Stark raving and insanity and even criminal that these banking CEOs are being paid such salaries....

    Hell makes you want to just hide your money under your mattress...

    What about surgeons who perform complex and intricate lifesaving operations on babies inside the womb, or perform brain surgery, or people who are looking after severely disabled or ill people 24/7...Strewth even parents of babies and young children deserve more for their contribution to the planet then these fat cats...

    Never heard of this Ian Narev character but have to tell you the look of his smarmy, arrogant fat cat face makes me want to smack him across the head with an iceberg lettuce or something simialr....Just sayin'..
    Pamiea
    21st Aug 2016
    8:58pm
    DISGUSTING TO SAY THE LEAST. WHAT A RIP OFF. NO WONDER WE DONT GET MUCH INTEREST ON OUR MONEY WHEN MORONS LIKE THIS ARE BEING PAID
    THAT SORT O F MONEY.
    Adrianus
    22nd Aug 2016
    10:54am
    I think the article is newsworthy, but the responses are mostly unkind.
    Really, who cares what Mr Narev's salary was last year? We have sports stars who earn twice that for hitting a little white ball around a paddock, and yet no outcry? No outpouring of jealousy and envy?
    Kind of makes you wonder why?
    Well, I think I've got the answer. You see when CEO remuneration goes up, so too Public Service wages. We can now look forward to Australia Post CEO and others getting huge increases. This will inevitably lead to the price of stamps going up again!
    Forget the stamps! Don't buy them! Use electronic media.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles