OMG! ING! WTF?

Written By: - Date published: 1:33 pm, November 18th, 2010 - 60 comments
Categories: business, spin - Tags: ,

by Frank Macskasy

Last year, over 13,000 New Zealanders got some measure of satisfaction from ANZ’s part-owned ING in New Zealand. For over a year, half a billion dollars in investors’ funds had been locked up, during a nasty dispute between ING/ANZ and their investors.

The bad publicity for both ANZ and ING was incalculable and showed up the ANZ  as a corporate entity quite willing to shaft their own customers.

But not to worry, ‘cos ANZ finally came up with the answer of how to overcome all that bad publicity – they changed ING’s name to “One Path”!!

Yup – a total re-branding of their subsidiary company. Evidently the “ING” brand name was now a rather smelly liability, and they’ve opted for a “make over”. (New website here)

I would have thought the new name, “One Path”,  was rather unfortunate. For 13,000 investors, ING was the One Path to losing much of their life savings.

The ANZ has no such option, I guess. Their branding can’t be changed quite so easily. So they’ve taken to massive billboards and TV advertising, with the theme, “In a Perfect World…”

Of course, in a “perfect world”, investors in an investment company, belonging to a major bank, would not have been shafted as they were by the ANZ.

Thinks… maybe ANZ/ING would’ve caused less damage to their credibility and branding had they simply looked after their customers in the first place.

Thinks… that it takes a ‘leftie’ to remind a major corporation of the basics in how to look after a customer.

60 comments on “OMG! ING! WTF? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    18 November 2010 at 2:01 pm

    The big banks are not here to look after either the Righties or the Lefties, just their own shareholders and Board.

    Now the Lefties realise this but its always interesting to see the Righties look so completely surprised when they too get caught in the oncoming corporate headlights.

    • grumpy 1.1
      18 November 2010 at 2:10 pm

      Bloody hell CV, you’re busy – don’t you have a job?

      I have friends who lost their life savings to these bastards. Don’t for a minute think the “righties” support these pricks. ANZ are the least favoured bank by NZ businesses – and rightly so. They have now stuffed National Bank with their Aussie “screw kiwi business” attitude.

      The best thing Labour did was Kiwibank, now all it needs to do is go after business customers.

      I am sure you know this but the biggest opposition to bank bailouts in the US is not from the Democrats but the right wing Tea Party.

      • nzfp 1.1.1
        18 November 2010 at 2:32 pm

        The Banking Ombudsman guaranteed a full refund to everybody who complained to the Ombudsman about this case! Everybody! Tell your friends to complain now.

        • Sib 1.1.1.1
          18 November 2010 at 8:29 pm

          The Banking Ombudsman did not guarantee that. The system of compensation muddled and piecemeal. While some people did get a full refund, many did not. Many people got only 60 per cent. Some, it is not known how many, got nothing at all. And to get anything at all, it took a hell of a fight.

          This is nothing to do with the political left or right. This was a financial scam. Just like people who run Ponzi schemes, ANZ/ING thought their scam would run for ever. But they got caught.

          A big problem as that there are still people around who refuse to believe that bankers who wear grey suits can have less integrity than Mother Theresa.

          • nzfp 1.1.1.1.1
            18 November 2010 at 9:45 pm

            OK, fair enough Sib, let me rephrase it – that’s what I was told by people I know personally who were awarded full compensation by the Ombudsman.

            I agree with you though – it was a scam. It damn well was a scam because those RIF’s and DYF’s were all investing in fraudulent CDO’s and other exotic, toxic, derivative based investment vehicles. You can’t tell me that ING and ANZ didn’t know what they were doing – both of those Financial institutions have been around long enough – ripping people off long enough to know a rip off when they see it. Maybe the old saying is right – when the tide goes out we can see who’s been swimming naked – maybe ANZ/ING were just naked!

      • Pascal's bookie 1.1.2
        18 November 2010 at 2:37 pm

        I missed the tea party types pushing for banking reform though. And I guess their new goppy branded tea party congress critters are going to get right on top of the foreclosure debacle, and tell the banks that if the lost the paper work proving a homeowner owes them money then tuff. Home owner keeps his house and banker takes a bath and should keep his books better next time.

        Amirite?

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.3
        18 November 2010 at 2:53 pm

        Bloody hell CV, you’re busy – don’t you have a job?

        grumpy 😀

        I can highly recommend marrying into wealth 😀

        The Tea Party never used to be particularly Right Wing but overtime big money Right infiltrated it and it is today what it is.

        • grumpy 1.1.3.1
          18 November 2010 at 3:15 pm

          “I can highly recommend marrying into wealth”

          So are you just one of those rich pricks using left wing blogs as part of a guilt trip?

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.3.1.1
            18 November 2010 at 3:20 pm

            Dude, I’m very surprised at you playing the Politics of Envy and Greed card, aren’t you happy for me? Don’t be jealous, I’ve taken individual responsibility to get where I am 😀

        • Jeremy Harris 1.1.3.2
          18 November 2010 at 6:15 pm

          I can highly recommend marrying into wealth

          Ho ho, I’m so glad I saw this comment, so much explained in one sentence… The hypocracy is delicious…

          Turns out all your implications you run a business or have a successful career, all just bluster, you’re real talents are posting on other people’s blogs and sponging off the spouse…

          I guess in your world it doesn’t matter how much you take the sucessful will always go out and make more for you…

          Life must be tough as a guilt ridden, wealthy, white liberal…

          • grumpy 1.1.3.2.1
            18 November 2010 at 6:21 pm

            Don’t believe all you read here. Tongue/cheek/diversion

          • Jeremy Harris 1.1.3.2.2
            18 November 2010 at 6:23 pm

            Maybe but I enjoy needling CV almost as much as CV enjoys needling me..!

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.3.2.3
            18 November 2010 at 6:41 pm

            Jeremy, didn’t pick you out as one to be jealous of someone else’s success! Envy is not a good trait my friend, and I didn’t think you would be playing the Politics of Envy 😯

            • grumpy 1.1.3.2.3.1
              18 November 2010 at 7:18 pm

              You really are good at this, have you thought of taking up something a bit more challenging – like politics? Matt could do with a bit of help to go with Hone.

              • Colonial Viper …
                19 November 2010 at 12:51 am

                As long as I can still be at my darling’s beck and call, gotta keep the women in your life happy you know its (literally) like a full time job

          • felix 1.1.3.2.4
            18 November 2010 at 10:25 pm

            Jeremy, you seem to be implying that CV achieving financial security somehow doesn’t count. Are you saying you measure financial success differently depending on how one arrives at it?

            I’d be very interested to know your philosophical basis for this. If CV’s financial achievement doesn’t count, who’s does? Let’s see how committed you are to this stance. Genuine question.

            • Jeremy Harris 1.1.3.2.4.1
              19 November 2010 at 12:34 am

              I don’t believe in dynastic wealth, I hope my parents give all their money away or to my brothers…

              If it’s true and CV is married to money, more power to him… I certainly believe it’s his family’s money to spend however they want, I certainly don’t believe I have a right to anyone else’s legally acquired wealth no matter how they came by it…

              However, I do believe a self made fortune is better than inherited wealth, the self acquirer is more likely to put the wealth to good use expanding the economy and creating wealth and jobs for all…

              • Maynard J …
                19 November 2010 at 12:39 am

                Would you strongly support land taxes and inhertiance taxes to break down dynastic wealth?

              • Jeremy Harris …
                19 November 2010 at 12:46 am

                No… I don’t believe I have the right to take other people’s legally acquired property by force…

                • Maynard J …
                  19 November 2010 at 2:34 am

                  Do you believe the market will make it happen?

                  • Jeremy Harris …
                    19 November 2010 at 8:51 am

                    No, there is no market in people’s decisions upon death…

                    • Maynard J …
                      19 November 2010 at 10:54 am

                      Hmm, sounds like a market failure then. All that inherited wealth and land going to waste. Who’d have thought that the market isn’t perfect, and that intervention could improve things.

                      In other news, do you believe taxation is taking people’s legally acquired propery by force?

                    • Jeremy Harris …
                      20 November 2010 at 2:55 pm

                      Well as already pointed out, there is no market in what people elect to do with their things after death…

                      Whoever said markets are perfect..?

                      It really is none of your or my business what people do with their stuff after they die, taking money off widows with the threat of imprisonment is hardly what I’d call “improving things”…

                      There are a few things only the government can only provide, economically and morally… Taxes seem the most practical way to pay for them…

              • felix …
                19 November 2010 at 1:28 am

                Sorry Jeremy, I don’t follow.

                In what sense is CV’s fortune not “self made”?

                • Jeremy Harris …
                  19 November 2010 at 8:50 am

                  It’s not rocket science, did CV personally increase NZ’s producivity, wealth and job numbers by introducing a new product or service, creating a new product or service, reducing the cost of an existing product or service or invest wisely to allow others to do so or did CV marry someone who had (or their ancestors had)..?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    19 November 2010 at 9:12 am

                    Look, I don’t want to be impolite Jeremy, but go take a hike. I’ve put in a tonne of personal sweat and effort to get to where I am today, and I do not need a wrecker and a hater like you to cleverly talk down my achievements.

                    Its not my problem (or indeed my responsibility) to ‘create new products and services’, ‘to increase NZ’s productivity and job numbers’ etc!!! It is to get wealthy and make myself a success, now if I can do it by own efforts and marry into wealth than everyone else can too by taking some frakin personal responsiblity for their lives, what a bunch of bludgers.

                    I am amazed at the jealousy I am hearing. Why would you even suggest that I have some kind of responsibility to add one whit to the wider economy in my quest for financial success. Its not just me, plenty of other people have made it this way too. The wealth was already there, why bother growing it, just reach out and take it. Pardon me, but anyone who complains about this is just an envious slacker IMO.

                    • nzfp …
                      19 November 2010 at 10:50 am

                      I’ll have to agree here Jeremy – take a few minutes to go over CV’s posts – whatever his financial situation CV has consistently demonstrated a concern for the rest of his/her (sorry mate – not sure of gender) fellow New Zealand citizens. Honestly, take a minute and have a look.

                      If CV is independently wealth because he/she happened to fall in love with and marry somebody who’s family is independently wealthy – and then chooses to use that time to promote economic and political democracy as well as an economy that promotes a widening and deepening of the middle class so we can all enjoy the benefits of living in God’s Own (godzone) at the expense of the elites and the banksters – then more power to him/her!

                      By the way, I’ve had to eat humble pie myself with at least one other poster on this forum – can’t seem to disagree with them on pretty much well anything today – but that’s cool.

                      Cheers CV, have a beer on me.

                    • Jeremy Harris …
                      19 November 2010 at 3:17 pm

                      @nzfp, I don’t doubt CV cares but I believe his socialist viewpoint usually hurts the very people who the big government programme is aimed at… If CV is wealthy – great..! I bear no jealousy or animosity…

                      I don’t personally support land taxes for the same reason I don’t support an ongoing tax on someone buying a plant for their garden, or on the milk in their fridge – property ownership shouldn’t be conditional on paying ongoing taxes that, if the taxes are not paid, is taken from you by force… You don’t really own something in that case…

                      @Felix have you ever tried making money just for yourself without providing something in return..? It is possible at the moment because of the current monetary system and the government monopoly of currency (I don’t support this) but generally you must provide one of the services I describe above to acquire wealth, the other options are inheritance or fraud…

                      You asked how I ranked entreprenuership and inheritence and I believe entreprenuership is more benefical for society, inheritance is people’s personal choice and fraud is force which should be dealt with by the legal system… This is just my personal opinion…

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 November 2010 at 3:31 pm

                      Thanks for that nzfp, appreciated. Monteiths works for me 😀

                      Hi Jeremy, always a good tustle mate.

                  • Jeremy Harris …
                    19 November 2010 at 10:08 am

                    I really can’t tell exactly how much you’re taking the piss at this point… Satire so clever no one can tell..?

                    Felix asked me a question and I answered it…

                    • KJT …
                      19 November 2010 at 10:20 am

                      “did CV personally increase NZ’s producivity, wealth and job numbers by introducing a new product or service, creating a new product or service, reducing the cost of an existing product or service or invest wisely to allow others to do so”.

                      Did you?

                  • nzfp …
                    19 November 2010 at 10:40 am

                    Hey ya Jeremy,

                    You seem to have contradicted yourself in this thread. This is not a negative criticism – just something I would like you to think about.

                    Consider your earlier response in the following:

                    Maynard J: Would you strongly support land taxes and inhertiance taxes to break down dynastic wealth?

                    Jeremy Harris: No… I don’t believe I have the right to take other people’s legally acquired property by force…

                    And then further along you stated:

                    … It’s not rocket science, did CV personally increase NZ’s producivity, wealth and job numbers

                    The thing to consider is that all of the Classical Economists – the great English Economist and arguably the most influential of the Classical economists David Ricardo in particular – as well as Adam Smith (Maxim IV on taxes), John Stuart Mills, The French Physiocrats right up to Henry George, not to mention many many others, all advocated land taxes.

                    The point is, that these economists – as well as many many others – recognised that land is a resource that is not produced by men, but is provided freely by nature, just as water and air and sunlight are provided freely, consequently wealth generated from owning land was defined by these economists as a “free lunch”.

                    American economist “Professor Michael Hudson” best describes it in a recent interview (June 25, 2008), with radio host “Bonnie Faulkner” on the “KPFA” show “Guns and Butter”

                    You can listen to the entire interview here: “Michael Hudson — The New Road To Serfdom”

                    Hudson states (read the transcript here):

                    The idea of classical economics was to tax away the free lunch. In other words, they said there were two kinds of taxes. Most people these days think of taxes as adding to costs, as in if you earn wages and pay taxes out of those wages you have less to spend on consumer goods and investment… if a profitable company is taxed, it has to raise its prices to cover taxes plus the cost of production. The classicists said there were exceptions to this, that those exceptions were monopoly profits and land rents. For instance if you tax the land at rental value, it’s not going to remove the land from production because nature provides it. You’re not going to reduce the supply of land because you tax it, you’re just collecting the rent for it because you’re the government. Since ancient Babylonian times, Greece, Rome, medieval Europe, England after the Norman invasion, almost every governmental system based its taxation on land rent.

                    Just some food for thought for you.

                    Captcha:got – got land tax?

                  • felix …
                    19 November 2010 at 10:57 am

                    Jeremy I’m still struggling with this idea.

                    Are you saying that I can’t just get rich by amassing a lot of money?

                    Are you saying I have to perform some specific act that you or “society” can identify, or my money is no good?

                    Why can’t I just make money for myself?

        • NickS 1.1.3.3
          18 November 2010 at 10:36 pm

          Some of us are old money, we don’t need to actually have money kiddo 😛

          And according to the guys over at The Exile, the Tea Party was entirely astro-turfed and exploited populist memes. Can’t be arsed finding the link right now, jus want to sit back with a cold beer and a good book 😛

  2. D14 2
    18 November 2010 at 2:16 pm

    REbrand!!
    But the TV ad says they still have the same people running the product.
    That sounds like a really good idea.

  3. nzfp 3
    18 November 2010 at 2:31 pm

    The Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA) proudly awarded the 2009 “Roger Award For The Worst Transnational Corporation operating in New Zealand” to ANZ.

    The judges noted:

    The judges all noted the generally egregious behaviour of the Australian‐owned banks that were nominated (ANZ, BNZ and Westpac), and were unanimous in picking them as the worst TNCs operating in New Zealand in 2009 … foreign–owned banks are the Achilles heel of the New Zealand economy, given that they contribute to the lion’s share of the national debt. They account for nearly 70% of investment income debts on the national balance of payments and for 74% of the economy’s net overseas indebtedness.

    But specifically for ANZ the judges stated that:

    ANZ has succeeded in winning the 2009 Roger Award because the ING funds fiasco is simply and plainly ‘pure greed capitalism’ at its worst. This debacle saw the bank immorally misleading small investors into taking their money out of safe term deposits and putting it into highly risky investments, while assuring them that these investments were safe. In fact, most of them were highly dangerous and dodgy, and lost millions of investors’ money.

    When the betrayed investors got organised and put pressure on the bank to repay what had been lost, ANZ’s repayment offer came with big strings attached ‐ investors who refused to sign a waiver agreeing not to take legal action against the bank would receive no compensation. In
    the words of the judges, this was ‘the most extreme case of anti‐democratic manipulation by a transnational within New Zealand during 2009. Simply, ANZ was employing financial Pressure to erase the legal rights of investors – a truly Roger winning performance.’

    The ING debacle was, as one judge noted, ‘the icing on the already baked Roger cake.’ Thus ANZ is the winner of the 2009 Roger Award.

    The Roger award is named after former New Zealand Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas. The criteria for judging are by assessing the transnational (a corporation with 25% or more foreign ownership) that has the most negative impact in each or all of the following categories:

    Economic Dominance – Monopoly, profiteering, tax dodging, cultural imperialism
    People – Unemployment, impact on tangata whenua, impact on women, impact on children, abuse of workers/conditions, health and safety of workers and the public.
    Environment – Environmental damage, abuse of animals
    Political interference – Interference in democratic processes, running an ideological crusade

    Congratulations ANZ for a job well done and a well deserved award! *Applause* Hear hear!

    Captcha:irritates

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      18 November 2010 at 2:58 pm

      I lol’d

    • Jeremy Harris 3.2
      18 November 2010 at 3:26 pm

      They account for nearly 70% of investment income debts on the national balance of payments and for 74% of the economy’s net overseas indebtedness.

      Imagine how good our balance sheet would be if we joined as a state of Australia on the Aussie Dollar..!

      We’re already on the Federation documents…

      • Colonial Viper 3.2.1
        22 November 2010 at 12:20 am

        Adopting the current strength of the Australian dollar would destroy over two thirds of our remaining high tech exporters.

        But yeah, our balance sheets would look real good.

      • Jeremy Harris 3.2.2
        22 November 2010 at 12:35 am

        The comment was tongue in cheek… I so often forget that tone, sarcasm etc doesn’t translate well online, when it’s in your head and you say something face to face it comes out in your mannerisms, tone, body language, etc… None of that online…

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.2.1
          22 November 2010 at 12:38 am

          Ah, thats what the [sarcasm] tags are for 😀

        • Jeremy Harris 3.2.2.2
          22 November 2010 at 12:43 am

          I worry of turning into Spud if I unleash the emoticon beast…

        • lprent 3.2.2.3
          22 November 2010 at 8:12 am

          It is an art. Even if you aren’t a talented wordsmith (like me), you learn how to project tone and personaility in written language over time. In my case about 30 years.

          Code is a lot more fun. You can express so much more (and influence organizational structures) in a dynamic that operates.

  4. Pat 4
    18 November 2010 at 4:53 pm

    “Evidently the “ING” brand name was now a rather smelly liability, and they’ve opted for a make over.”

    Actually, ANZ bought 100% of ING’s NZ division a year ago. As part of the deal, it was a stipulation from ING that ANZ must change the company’s name.

    Nothing to do with one badly sold mortgage-backed investment product by ANZ staffers. Everything to do with not letting someone run around with your international brand when you have no control over the company anymore.

    • Pascal's bookie 4.1
      18 November 2010 at 5:09 pm

      Coz god knows they wouldn’t want it associated with anything shady. 😉

    • Frank Macskasy 4.2
      18 November 2010 at 8:34 pm

      “…Nothing to do with one badly sold mortgage-backed investment product by ANZ staffers. Everything to do with not letting someone run around with your international brand when you have no control over the company anymore….”

      Especially when that Brand Name is no longer popular with investors?

  5. Whaleoil 5
    18 November 2010 at 8:43 pm

    Just a quick question….is the Frank Macskasy the same Frank Macskasy who was convicted of stealing a dead babies name like dirty David Garrett, or is that just a unhappy coincidence?

    If it is then hugely funny for The Standard to allow a post from someone with the same devious background as David Garrett.

    http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2006/04/same-frank-macskasy.html

    [lprent: If it is the same guy, he got convicted on 20 years ago without knowingly lying about his previous record to a judge in a written statement (ran across the name when Garrett was being pilloried).

    Everyone has done some stupid things in life when they’re youngish – it is how you learn. It is rather different when you get to be Garrets age and stupidly attempt to gameplay a judge with a statement full of hypocritical bullshit. But of course you’d know all about that wouldn’t you?

    But in any case, I really don’t care – that person paid the penalty of stupidity.

    It was an interesting post and we generally leave all of the fictional smearing of shit without any trace of integrity to you. ]

    • The Voice of Reason 5.1
      18 November 2010 at 9:14 pm

      Well, you’re a convicted crim and you’re allowed to comment here, so what’s the prob?

    • Pascal's bookie 5.2
      18 November 2010 at 10:39 pm

      Did he lie about his record to the judge to escape conviction?

    • Maynard J 5.3
      19 November 2010 at 12:41 am

      Did he deliberately break the law to make a point, and then cry and whimper that he wasn’t breaking the law, and get convicted anyway?

    • Frank Macskasy 5.4
      22 November 2010 at 12:15 am

      Just a quick question… is Whaleoil interested in addressing the issues or playing the person?

      Because it seems to me rather more important that 13,000 of our fellow New Zealanders lost their savings (or a large chunk of it) to ANZ/ING by misrepresenting a financial product.

      I simply hope that ING’s reputation will follow into it’s new incarnation – One Path – so that potential investors enter into dealings with their eyes wide open.

  6. prism 6
    19 November 2010 at 10:29 am

    But not to worry, ‘cos ANZ finally came up with the answer of how to overcome all that bad publicity – they changed ING’s name to “One Path”!!

    I immediately thought of the Shining Path (Peruvian guerillas?). ANZ strategic managers are probably insensitive to such struggles and the effect that embedded connections might have on their brand.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.