Talk:ANZ (bank)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article confusing?[edit]

I feel we might need to clarify the article:

It originally stated

and the leading bank and largest company in New Zealand

I have modified this to

and one of the leading banks and the largest company in New Zealand

AFAIK this the modification I have made is more correct. Westpac is the largest bank according to their website [1] and the ANZ website does not claim they are the leading bank either [2]. I think one of the problems is the article is confusing at the moment. In NZ, as the article alludes to, ANZ and the National Bank are now part of the ANZ National Bank Limited group. AFAIK, this group is the largest banking groups in NZ. However ANZ and National still appear to operate as largely seperate entities in NZ. So perhaps we need to clarify these details. Someone who knows a bit more could help.

ALso, could someone confirm it is the largest company? I know Fonterra is sometimes considered the largest company although as a cooperative group, they aren't quite the same as a normal publicly traded company I believe... Nil Einne 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I somehow forgot Telecom. I don't see how ANZ could be larger then Telecom, even with their recent plummeting. Telecom is or was ~20% of the NZX50 if I'm not mistaken. They are also AFAIK undisputedly the most profitable. So I reckon the statement that ANZ is the largest company must be wrong and have removed it. Nil Einne 17:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Article Name[edit]

The company's correct title is simply ANZ, not ANZ Bank, or The ANZ, this should be reflected in the title. There has been a recent initiative to reduce the inconsistencies around the name. Vespine 06:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to both the ASX and the copyright notice on their web page, the company name is Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited. This is the name in the lead and infobox of the article. ANZ is a disambiguation page that links to this article, which seems correct. --Scott Davis Talk 12:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry my mistake for not being complete ;) the TWO correct titles are 'Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited', which I didn't mention because it is correct; and 'ANZ' which I did mention because 'The ANZ' and 'ANZ Bank' are NOT correct. The lead and info box are correct since 'The ANZ' was replaced with 'ANZ', but the article title is not correct. Looking at other disambiguation pages, I think the correct title to this article should be ANZ (Bank). I recognise that I'm probably being a bit pedantic.Vespine 05:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current title ANZ Bank is the most likely to be searched for by readers. Perhaps the article should be at Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. Would you prefer that? (there's a naming convention to drop "Limited" unless it is always used for the company like AWB Limited). If you have access to accurate information on former names of the bank and its affiliates and subsidiaries, could you please review the entire History section? For example it says "ANZ Bank" was formed in 1951, but "ANZ" merged in 1970. It says "ANZ Singapore Limited" but "ANZ Bank (Samoa)" (which might both be right). --Scott Davis Talk 07:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ANZ is currenly a disambig page, but none of the other destinations are especially significant. I prefer ANZ Bank but a quick check of their website shows that they use ANZ. So I don't know. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ANZ (bank) or ANZ (Australasian bank) perhaps..? --Deon555talkReview 22:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a small article on p46 of the Australian Financial Review Rear Window section today (30/10/06), entitled 'What's in a name? A lot, if you're ANZ'. Apparently an edict was issued to the media last week that only the name ANZ or Australia and New Zealand Banking Group be used. They quote ANZ Bank and ANZ Banking Group as being 'officially hated' by the bank. This supports the comment by Vespine above. I would support a rename to Australia and New Zealand Banking Group with a redirect from ANZ Bank to help readers who, like us, didn't get the official memo. amitch 11:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw the AFR article. I can't find any public announcement from ANZ on this, but it's definitely been the company's position for several years. I've moved the page, and updated most links to ANZ Bank as well. I think the basic ANZ Bank redirect and ANZ page cover the most likely searches. Pedronet 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the website, anznational.co.nz, the full name of the registered bank in New Zealand is ANZ National Bank Limited. it should be noted also that ANZ Australia and ANZ New Zealand are run by one parent company, "Australia New Zealand Banking group" as seperate entities. This is because of different banking laws between the countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.9.234 (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Internal Links[edit]

I have added Internal links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 13:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed Links to pages Not Yet Created.[edit]

I have reversed Links to Pages Not Yet Created. Kathleen>wright5 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Awards[edit]

I have some concern about the Roger Awards section added by Savage lucy on 14th December 2008. I totally agree that any negative information on the organisation should be included in an article, however a special section for an award that wasn't actually won and that I have never heard of (and clearly not very well known because it requies a description within this page) seems a bit excessive.

I would suggest removing the complete description of the awards, for example, Michael Jackson's wikipedia page states "13 Grammy Awards" with just a link to Grammy Awards, rather than saying "13 Grammy Awards, which recognises outstanding achievements in the music industry and are run by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences".

Secondly, I believe that this section should belong on the ANZ National Bank wikipedia page, this wikipedia page clearly states it is an Australian Company, yet the Roger Awards section mentions that profits are heading offshore, this is a statement regarding it's New Zealand subsidiary and not the ANZ Group itself, as are references such as "rip-off credit card customers" and profit statements which are not based on any data outside of the New Zealand subsidy.

What are people's opinions on this section? I am thinking it is best moving this section to the ANZ National Bank page under a general heading such a Criticism and shorten this down to 1-2 paragraphs at max. Cj au (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. The Awards are clearly specific to New Zealand, and such a large section dedicated to a relatively unknown award seems undue. I'm going to move the text to the ANZ National Bank page and note the duplication. Any other comments should be directed to Talk:ANZ National Bank. Rimmington01 (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms[edit]

I've restored ANZ's coat of arms to the article. They are acurate and were correctly referenced. I have seen the source. These are actually the second set of arms granted to ANZ. Cheers! A1 Aardvark (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Headquarters[edit]

As I understand It World Headquarters are now Located at 833 Collins Street Docklands. So maybe this should be changed, I would change this but I have only seen it referenced as Global Headquarters. But I work in this building and can say the executives have moved in and Mike Smith's office is now here. I will get a new photo this week and if no one complains or objects, change world Headquarters in the article to 833 Collins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.32.137 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Union Bank of Australia should maybe have an own page[edit]

At least there is this picture. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StateLibQld_1_259160_Union_Bank_of_Australia,_Dalby,_ca._1935.jpg --Mats33 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mainbanker872[edit]

This account appears to have been created with the sole purpose of adding disparaging POV information sourced solely from the news media into this article. Almost all of the information as written is not without dispute and provides none of the contrary claims. Vespine (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the section to more accurately reflect the content of the sources which were linked. I propose since none of that information is actually relevant to ANZ alone, I really don't see the point of needing it here. I have also removed the paragraphs which i believe are entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, people looking for news should go to a news site, not an encyclopedia. Vespine (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANZ reported that in 2014 3% of its workforce breached its own code of conduct[edit]

I dispute this "factoid" has a place in the article. So what? Without any kind of context this piece of trivia is entirely unremarkable and uncontroversial. How does this compare to other companies? Does it mean ANZ actually enforces its codes of conduct? Vespine (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In early 2016 ANZ was the subject of allegations that conduct involving drugs, alcohol and a strip club was tolerated by senior management.[edit]

This is NOT what the articles are about, again, wikipedia is NOT a news source. The articles are about 2 traders that have taken ANZ to court over unfair dismissal. The particular details of that case are a matter of debate, the fact that certain allegations have been made is not encyclopedic. If every company had to list every unfair dismissal case they had to defend in court and every allegation made against them, that's all the article would be about. I do not see how this is relevant or notable to the company's wikipedia article. Vespine (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

controversies section[edit]

I'm removing it, I do not see a special need for the section. The whole thing was started by Mainbanker872 whose subsequent edits and comments lead me to believe the edits were not in good faith. The information that is left here which is a fraction of what mainbaker872 originally tried to add, while I agree it is now NPOV, I really don't think it's particularly Notable. Vespine (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vespine: Hi Vespine, just thinking that we should reconsider the removal of the section on controversies. I think that it is pretty common to have these sections as long as the content it relevant. I am not so much thinking the content that you deleted before. But things like environmental issues and land in Cambodia and more recently for example the whole issue with the Benchmark Interest Rate manipulation for which 10 traders and ANZ itself are likely to face court over. I note that just because something is in the news does not mean that it is not an issue and should not feature. In general I think this is particularly a section that would add some balance, especially considering that there is a whole section in here regarding "advertising".. Just my thoughts and I dont want to overstep the mark. I would like to hear your thoughts on it and discuss with you. FOSBusters (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)FOSBusters[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List Tag[edit]

Hi User:Eddaido I noticed you reverted my recent edit here and I was wondering why since there is a tag on that section requesting that the information in list format be converted to prose. Since other portions of the history section are in prose, I felt it made more sense for the later decades to also be in prose. Could you let me know what issues you had with my edit? Thanks. WonderfulWorld (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While its true you have converted a list into prose you have turned an intelligible list into a prose format which reads like a list converted to prose format and it is now very difficult to follow and digest. I think very few people would bother to try to tackle it. We had a list from which it is easy to pick cherries converted by you into a pile of prose which may contain a few cherries but they are effectively hidden —no longer open to view. The conversion to prose hasn't been done by anyone else because it really is a difficult job to do. The heap of information needs to be evaluated and turned into a rational story. Maybe here I'm being a bit repetitive. Do you understand me? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eddaido I apologize for making it difficult to follow. However, there is a tag on the section and the majority of the information is currently unsourced. There are also a number of events in the list that aren’t essential to the page. Can we summarize the decades and list a few examples of acquisitions/mergers and major events, similar to the earlier decades on the page? WonderfulWorld (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was necessary to point out that your previous edit was not an improvement. Why not have another go? Maybe this time you can find the sources too. Its looked at by something like 600 people each day and 73 people are automatically informed if any changes are made to the article. Mind you, they may or may not read the whole article, sometimes they might. Keep at it, Eddaido (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help and I’ll work on improving this section in my sandbox before publishing it in the main article. WonderfulWorld (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eddaido just wanted to let you know I changed the timeline into paragraphs. I did a lot of research over the past few months and tried to make the information easily digestible. Let me know if you have any issues with it. Thanks. WonderfulWorld (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANZ A$DC stablecoin[edit]

What of ANZ's A$DC stablecoin, the first stablecoin issued by an Australian bank? A bit of a change from refusing to deal with Bitcoin. See e.g. {{cite news|url=https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/anz-stablecoin-a-dc-used-to-buy-tokenised-carbon-credit-units-20220624-p5awb0||title=ANZ stablecoin A$DC used to buy ‘tokenised’ carbon credit units|work=Australian Financial Review|date=27 June 2022}} and several articles in cryptocurrency media about its launch. Errantios (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ANZ_(bank)&oldid=1197153058"