Why this long-serving bank boss can sleep better at night
Outgoing ANZ Bank boss Shayne Elliott says moves during his tenure to sell dozens of businesses and slash the number of major corporate clients on the bank's books will set it up for a more volatile world and the next inevitable financial crisis.
Elliott, who will be replaced by Nuno Matos next week, delivered his last result as chief executive on Thursday, as the bank posted flat half-year profits of $3.6 billion.
After more than nine years leading ANZ, Elliott cited a phrase often used in the industry – that in banking, it's better to be 'boring' – especially when the world is heading into a more disruptive era of rising geopolitical tensions and the unwinding of globalisation.
As CEO, Elliott made major shifts at ANZ including selling about 30 non-core businesses and scaling back ANZ's presence in Asia; shrinking the number of big business clients on its books; and buying Suncorp's retail bank for $4.9 billion. The Melbourne-based bank has also been slapped with a $1 billion capital charge over governance failings in its markets division, and critics say its digital transformation has been underwhelming.
Elliott, the longest-serving current big four bank boss, argued changes under his tenure had made ANZ a less risky and simpler bank, and it was much more picky about its biggest clients than when he joined as the head of ANZ's institutional bank in 2009. He said at that time, the 10 biggest clients of the bank were 'vibrant and exciting', but higher-risk and 'not a world for banks'.
Loading
'I think banks are much better to be boring,' he said.
'I'd be very happy to say we're boring and safe in terms of our customer selection, and I sleep better at night because of that, and I know our shareholders do.'
During Elliott's time as CEO, banks have also faced major changes from events including the COVID-19 crisis and what Elliott called the industry's 'crisis around culture' – the 2018 royal commission into banking misconduct.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Getty argues its UK copyright case does not threaten AI
Getty Images' landmark copyright lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Stability AI has begun at London's High Court, with Getty rejecting Stability AI's contention the case poses a threat to the generative AI industry. Seattle-based Getty, which produces editorial content and creative stock images and video, accuses Stability AI of using its images to "train" its Stable Diffusion system which can generate images from text inputs. Getty, which is bringing a parallel lawsuit against Stability AI in the United States, says Stability AI unlawfully scraped millions of images from its websites and used them to train and develop Stable Diffusion. Stability AI - which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and in March announced investment by the world's largest advertising company, WPP - is fighting the case and denies infringing any of Getty's rights. Before the trial began on Monday, Stability AI's spokesperson said "the wider dispute is about technological innovation and freedom of ideas". "Artists using our tools are producing works built upon collective human knowledge, which is at the core of fair use and freedom of expression," the spokesperson said. In court filings, Stability AI lawyer Hugo Cuddigan said Getty's lawsuit posed "an overt threat to Stability's whole business and the wider generative AI industry". Getty's lawyers said that argument was incorrect and their case was about upholding intellectual property rights. "It is not a battle between creatives and technology, where a win for Getty Images means the end of AI," Getty's lawyer Lindsay Lane told the court. She added: "The two industries can exist in synergistic harmony because copyright works and database rights are critical to the advancement and success of AI ... the problem is when AI companies such as Stability want to use those works without payment." Getty's case is one of several lawsuits brought in the United Kingdom, the US and elsewhere over the use of copyright-protected material to train AI models, after ChatGPT and other AI tools became widely available more than two years ago. Creative industries are grappling with the legal and ethical implications of AI models that can produce their own work after being trained on existing material. Prominent figures including Elton John have called for greater protections for artists. Lawyers say Getty's case will have a major effect on the law, as well as potentially informing government policy on copyright protections relating to AI. "Legally, we're in uncharted territory. This case will be pivotal in setting the boundaries of the monopoly granted by UK copyright in the age of AI," Rebecca Newman, a lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, who is not involved in the case, said. Cerys Wyn Davies, from the law firm Pinsent Masons, said the High Court's ruling "could have a major bearing on market practice and the UK's attractiveness as a jurisdiction for AI development".
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Getty argues its UK copyright case does not threaten AI
Getty Images' landmark copyright lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Stability AI has begun at London's High Court, with Getty rejecting Stability AI's contention the case poses a threat to the generative AI industry. Seattle-based Getty, which produces editorial content and creative stock images and video, accuses Stability AI of using its images to "train" its Stable Diffusion system which can generate images from text inputs. Getty, which is bringing a parallel lawsuit against Stability AI in the United States, says Stability AI unlawfully scraped millions of images from its websites and used them to train and develop Stable Diffusion. Stability AI - which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and in March announced investment by the world's largest advertising company, WPP - is fighting the case and denies infringing any of Getty's rights. Before the trial began on Monday, Stability AI's spokesperson said "the wider dispute is about technological innovation and freedom of ideas". "Artists using our tools are producing works built upon collective human knowledge, which is at the core of fair use and freedom of expression," the spokesperson said. In court filings, Stability AI lawyer Hugo Cuddigan said Getty's lawsuit posed "an overt threat to Stability's whole business and the wider generative AI industry". Getty's lawyers said that argument was incorrect and their case was about upholding intellectual property rights. "It is not a battle between creatives and technology, where a win for Getty Images means the end of AI," Getty's lawyer Lindsay Lane told the court. She added: "The two industries can exist in synergistic harmony because copyright works and database rights are critical to the advancement and success of AI ... the problem is when AI companies such as Stability want to use those works without payment." Getty's case is one of several lawsuits brought in the United Kingdom, the US and elsewhere over the use of copyright-protected material to train AI models, after ChatGPT and other AI tools became widely available more than two years ago. Creative industries are grappling with the legal and ethical implications of AI models that can produce their own work after being trained on existing material. Prominent figures including Elton John have called for greater protections for artists. Lawyers say Getty's case will have a major effect on the law, as well as potentially informing government policy on copyright protections relating to AI. "Legally, we're in uncharted territory. This case will be pivotal in setting the boundaries of the monopoly granted by UK copyright in the age of AI," Rebecca Newman, a lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, who is not involved in the case, said. Cerys Wyn Davies, from the law firm Pinsent Masons, said the High Court's ruling "could have a major bearing on market practice and the UK's attractiveness as a jurisdiction for AI development".
West Australian
4 hours ago
- West Australian
KATE EMERY: Productivity Commission report says hybrid work approach is good for the economy
There are some debates best put to rest for good. Who is the best James Bond? Is man-made climate change real and do we need greater action on it? And in Australia we're a step closer to adding: is working from home bad for the country? The Liberal Party has been contorting itself like Harry Houdini on this subject, first announcing a crackdown on public servants working from home, then abandoning said crackdown when it proved about as popular as Houdini's short-lived film career, and now embracing it. Shadow industrial relations minister Tim Wilson and shadow housing minister Andrew Bragg have become the latest Liberals to distance themselves from the failed working from home crackdown with the enthusiasm of one magnetic north pole encountering another. Mr Wilson said working from home could be positive because 'happy workers tend to be more productive', while Mr Bragg cited research — including the Productivity Commission's recent report on the subject — to suggest that hybrid work was likely neutral or positive for productivity. 'In fact, most of the evidence comes down to support the proposition that working from home on a hybrid basis actually is good for people, good for the economy,' he said. A little bit more of this chat would have been handy three months ago, when the Liberal Party was busy getting its own metatarsals in the crosshairs. That Productivity Commission report did have a few caveats that suggested working from home can be bad for your career (just ask Peter Dutton), particularly if you are inexperienced. There was also evidence to suggest that people get more creative when they're physically in a room together. Anecdotally, younger people miss out in other ways. Twenty years ago when I was starting out in my career, the workplace was where many of us made lifelong friends, found romance and learned how to leave a passive aggressive notes on the communal fridge. Now a younger generation risks being robbed of the joy of inappropriate office crushes, meetings that could have been emails and knowing what your boss looks like doing karaoke. If the COVID years taught us anything, it's that flirting via Zoom is harder than it looks. Hybrid work, where working from home is only part-time, is the logical solution and the one best supported by research. It's here for the long-haul, so please let's shelve the debate along with the climate wars and any attempt to mount a defence of the Pierce Brosnan Bond years. Employers that insist on being able to see the whites of their employees eyes five days a week without justification might soon get a view of their other end instead. And future generations will wonder why it took a pandemic for us to realise that opposing working from home on ideological grounds was as senseless as insisting that anyone could really hold a candle to Sean 'shaken not stirred' Connery.
