sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

ANZ, BNZ and Westpac CEOs paid a combined NZ$12 million; Finsec floats idea of executive salary controls

ANZ, BNZ and Westpac CEOs paid a combined NZ$12 million; Finsec floats idea of executive salary controls

By Gareth Vaughan

The bosses of three of the countries big four Australian owned banks, combined, saw their pay rise this year to A$9.41 million (NZ$11.97 million) against a tough economic backdrop and as many customers' face rising interest rates.

Annual reports out this week from National Australia Bank (NAB), ANZ and Westpac, show their respective New Zealand CEOs - the BNZ's Andrew Thorburn, ANZ's Jenny Fagg and Westpac's George Frazis - were paid a combined A$9.41 million in the year to September. That's up from A$5.5 million last year although Frazis joined Westpac half way through the last financial year, in March 2009.

Frazis, who joined Westpac from NAB where he was group executive general manager, was paid A$4.38 million this year, compared to A$2.6 million for the period of the 2009 financial year he worked for Westpac. NAB's annual report shows he received A$336,380 from the rival bank in the 2009 year.

ANZ's annual report shows Fagg, who stepped down on September 1 to undergo cancer treatment and was replaced by David Hisco, received a total of A$2.13 million for the September 2010 financial year, up from A$913,600 last year.

And NAB says Thorburn received A$2.9 million in the September 2010 year, up from A$2 million last year.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia, owner of ASB, doesn't disclose what ASB's recently departed CEO Charles Pink was paid in its June year annual report.

Profits rise after IRD hit last year; Finsec raises possibility of executive salary controls

ANZ, BNZ and Westpac saw their profit rise strongly this year as impairment charges fell and following a bottom line hit last year from settling their structured finance transaction disputes with the Inland Revenue Department when the three banks, plus ASB, agreed to cough up a combined NZ$2.2 billion.

ANZ's annual profit rose to NZ$867 million this year from NZ$194 million last year, Westpac's earnings rose 36% to NZ$322 million and BNZ recorded a profit of NZ$602 million versus a loss of NZ$181 million last year. In their results some of the banks also said the "repricing" of products to "more appropriately" reflect risk and funding costs was boosting their margins.

Bank workers union Finsec has floated the possibility of executive salary controls. Commenting on Frazis' remuneration, Finsec campaigns director Andrew Campbell said it was unethical to pay such a large salary to one person while the economy falters and the average worker has seen no, or limited, wage growth. He also noted the remuneration covers a period when the banks were covered by the Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme.

"While Westpac staff did receive a pay increase this year it came after a significant campaign following a zero offer," Campbell says.

Westpac’s annual report shows Frazis received 41% of his 2010 remuneration in share rights and options. Of 14 senior group executives covered in the annual report, this was easily the highest percentage, with group CEO Gail Kelly second at just 24%. A Westpac spokesman declined to comment on why Frazis received a greater percentage of his remuneration in shares and options than his Australian-based colleagues.

Frazis’ pay comprised A$967,330 in fixed remuneration, A$1.29 million in annual cash performance awards accrued during the year but not yet paid, A$292,613 of non-monetary benefits which Westpac says covered Frazis relocating from Sydney to Auckland, accommodation payments and travel between Australia and New Zealand.

He also received superannuation benefits of A$14,586, A$399,634 worth of options, plus A$1.4 million worth of unhurdled share rights.

ANZ picks up tab for PwC audit of Fagg's Aussie tax return

Fagg's 2010 package consisted of A$782,000 in cash and A$643,559 in short-term benefits, A$12,975 in accrued long service leave, and A$691,576 in share-based payments. The A$105,359 of non-monetary benefits, incorporated in the short-term benefits figure, included the preparation of Australian taxation returns by PricewaterhouseCoopers and relocation expenses.

Fagg also received a total cash incentive of A$538,200 which included reward for achieving 95% of her short-term incentive target which was 120% of fixed remuneration. The performance objectives set for ANZ executives can include financial measures such as profit and revenue growth, customer measures such as customer satisfaction and market share, process measures like risk management, people measures such as diversity targets and corporate responsibility and strategic goals such as integrating acquisitions.

In addition Fagg received three year deferred shares worth a maximum of A$300,000 in September 2007 for retention purposes. These became available on September 3 this year and were valued at A$241,483 at vesting.

NAB’s annual report shows Thorburn's A$2.9 million was comprised of A$1 million salary, A$658,385 in short-term incentives including A$58,350 of non-monetary benefits potentially including parking, health fund benefits and tax advice. He also got A$215,316 worth of shares and A$1 million in rights, the latter up from A$452,033 last year.

BNZ chairman John Waller, meanwhile, received remuneration totaling A$409,746 for the year.

The bank bosses pay compares to the just over NZ$5 million received by Fonterra CEO Andrew Ferrier, NZ$5 million paid to Telecom's Paul Reynolds and NZ$2.7 million received by Jonathan Ling, CEO of the country's biggest listed company Fletcher Building.

* This article was first published in our email for paid subscribers earlier today.  See here for more details and to subscribe.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


I wonder if the NZ owned bank executives pay is as obscene

Bernard - perhaps you could do some research on this - or ask the RBNZ what they are going to do about this


If we are to continue to play along with the - albeit farcical - ruse we're living in  free society, then executive salaries in private companies are  solely in the domain of the shareholders.

Now move along please. Yes, that means you, the little red faced chap so angry somebody is getting more than he is. Perhaps just move your chuff off the couch mate.


The comments there from Finsec reminds me of the Share the wealth plan of Huey Long, the american populist: basically no one should have more than 300 times the average family fortune.

it's kind of understandable given the current world situation, but it'll never.happen.


Shouldn't it be up to the shareholders to limit this anyway?


That’s when ethic principles are abused ! “Society – robbers” -  straight to jail - hard labour work constructing rail tracks for each 100$ they stole 1m of track – with all the corrupt NZCEObankers a little bit slow, but good enough for the entire NZlightrail track network by 2015

Signed: Mr. Corrupt (myself) Justice Department.


Tribeless is right re the shareholders....but he steps quickly past the fact that these companies are parasites on the economy...they spin the BS that they are here to build wealth and boost growth...what a joke. let's see every mortgage holder being given the right to vote along with the shareholders. SOE salaries for bosses are bloated to fit the egos involved.


It never ceases to amaze how directors can espouse the wonders of the free market and competition in all aspects of their operations yet when it comes to executive salaries pursue an exact opposite track.

Distribute an invitation to run the organisation to about a dozen suitable candidates - and don't tell me there was no one in Fonterra's 15,000 staff without the necessary skills.

Then ask them to set out in a few pages how they would do this and also  to specify what they would charge for the privilege of occupying this position.

We would soon see if there were competitors to the grossly overpaid CEO's that masquerade as businessmen when they are in fact simply managers.

Watch CEO salaries tumble as competition works it's magic.

CEO's are fungible - there's thousands of people in the world that could step into almost anyone's shoes except a Steve Jobs or the like at Intel etc.

Buffett calculates that the S&P 500 has now given over 10 % of it's total equity to so called managers in addition to the obscene salaries - As he says " They have their hand on the light switch "



What if, in actual fact, their salaries are no different (in real terms) from the salaries of CEO’s of old in charge of the great entrepreneurial companies of last century and before? 

Maybe the salaries of these leaders of industry have not changed at all, but it’s the workers salaries in the last 50 years that have changed.

What's gonna happen to you
You have woke up too soon
And found the world rearranged
And now your feelings have changed

Say goodbye to before. (bye bye bye)
You are not welcome anymore


Cmments here from Bill English - "In the current environment when many bank customers are struggling and banks are making good profits, the bank will need to explain to those customers why it is paying this amount to its chief executive officer."

But rules out capping executive salaries -…


Just part of the spin doctor advice to English Gareth....."....must say something that keeps the govt onside with the peasant voters Bill....perhaps a hint that you're not happy about fatcat bankers sucking millions out in pay and perks....say something along those lines Bill...all part of the game boy"


"We call it riding the gravy train"

dum dum - dum dum - dum

"By the way, which one's pink?"

Pink Floyd wish you were here


These guys and their predecessors used volatile sources of funding to lend on potentially illiquid real estate. They don't even deserve minimum wage.