Wee gripes: As Kiwi as shrimps on the barbie

19 comments on “Wee gripes: As Kiwi as shrimps on the barbie ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gitmo 1

   22 October 2009 at 4:02 pm

   Yeah I saw that as well – bloody liars.

   ASB Bank because they trademarked the ASB.
2. kaplan 2

   22 October 2009 at 4:12 pm

   ASB = Auckland Savings Bank? Ha… I thought it would stand something much more appropriate than that.
   A for ‘all’ and S for ‘slippery’ is good start.
3. felix 3

   22 October 2009 at 4:22 pm

   And at the Auckland Savings Bank Bank you can use your Personal Identification Number Number to access the Automatic Teller Machine Machine.

   But seriously, this is a breach of advertising standards isn’t it?

   Lawyery people? What say you?
   • rocky 3.1

     22 October 2009 at 4:26 pm

     Only a judge could determine that. A lawyer could argue either way. Depends whether you define “kiwi bank” as a bank kiwi’s use or a bank kiwi’s own.
     • felix 3.1.1

       22 October 2009 at 4:42 pm

       Yes of course. I’d be interested to hear some of those arguments.
       • gitmo 3.1.1.1

         22 October 2009 at 4:49 pm

         Doubt any lawyer would touch it.

         It was Founded 5 June 1847 (As Auckland Savings Bank) and its Headquarters are in New Zealand even if it has been owned by the Commonwealth Bank in Aus since 1989.
         • felix 3.1.1.1.1

           22 October 2009 at 5:05 pm

           Yeah, I realise it was once a kiwi bank. Lots of banks were.
           • Mike Collins 3.1.1.1.1.1

             22 October 2009 at 5:42 pm

             It depends on what your criteria for classifying something as Kiwi is. Obviously a number of people here take a very narrow view that ownership is key.

             But what about these things? Customer base, workforce, location, community involvement, sponsorship. These are all things that the big banks in NZ are particularly good at serving Kiwis (with an objective measurement).

             Coming back to narrow view of ownership – do you know what amount of shareholding New Zealanders have in the big banks? Do individual shareholdings count or is it only count if the government owns the bank that it qualifies?

             If you are so concerned about the ownership, have you considered buying shares yourself?
           • felix 3.1.1.1.1.2

             22 October 2009 at 9:14 pm

             Obviously a number of people here take a very narrow view that ownership is key.

             I don’t see that as particularly narrow – certainly no narrower than the alternate proposition (something is “yours” if you use it). It seems odd to exclude the factor of ownership from a description when referring to a business, doesn’t it?

             Customer base, workforce, location, community involvement, sponsorship.

             Those are also things with which NZ is particularly good at serving the overseas-owned banks, with equally objective measurement. We provide them with cheap staff, cheap premises, and tax is strictly optional.

             Do individual shareholdings count or is it only count if the government owns the bank that it qualifies?

             Public vs private ownership is another matter. There are a couple of banks whose NZ branches probably should be nationalised before they rip us off any more but I don’t see the National / ACT govt growing a spine any time soon. They didn’t even want us to own one bank IIRC.

             Of course kiwis can own shares in a foreign corporation but I usually use controlling interest as a measure of defining ownership.

             And no, I’m not interested in owning a bank. I don’t know where you got that idea. I’m interested in how we describe the ownership of a bank.
           • Mike Collins 3.1.1.1.1.3

             22 October 2009 at 9:59 pm

             “It seems odd to exclude the factor of ownership from a description when referring to a business, doesn’t it?”

             Never said exclude it – just think it is odd to think this is the only thing to consider when determining if something is Kiwi. Certainly is narrow if it is the only thing you consider.

             “Those are also things with which NZ is particularly good at serving the overseas-owned banks, with equally objective measurement. We provide them with cheap staff, cheap premises, and tax is strictly optional.”

             Cheap staff? As a bank employee I am happy with what I get paid thank you. Before going to university I worked in a branch as a teller and then as an out-the-front type person. I was happy with what I was paid then too. I do not feel that in general people in NZ banking are poorly paid (in some areas perhaps poorly treated – but that is a different matter and irrelevant to what country issued a shareholder’s passport).

             Of course, there’s nothing like a jumped up union official being laughed at when he tries to tell people they are being exploited. FINSEC (excepting a few good people) are generally ineffective, or more likely, irrelevant.

             “Public vs private ownership is another matter. There are a couple of banks whose NZ branches probably should be nationalised before they rip us off any more but I don’t see the National / ACT govt growing a spine any time soon.”

             How about they just up stumps tomorrow? How would that be good for the economy or the people and businesses they leave in the lurch? Do you realise how important a function banks perform for New Zealand and our way of life?

             You see it is easy to say banks people rip people off. But do you really consider the benefit they provide to New Zealand? To get an understanding of this benefit – imagine they all shut for business tomorrow.

             And nationalisation? You can’t be serious (well you probably are, but you’re a nutcase). Great way to get investment into this country. Try and think through your positions (and I wouldn’t be admitting you did here).

             “And no, I’m not interested in owning a bank. I don’t know where you got that idea. I’m interested in how we describe the ownership of a bank.”

             So you’re prepared to grizzle about the bulk of ownership being Australian but not prepared to buy shares yourself? You would rather some other NZ citizens bought the bank, or worse – have the Government steal it? With those sort of smarts I wouldn’t be surprised if you were advising the Labour Party at the moment. Would explain a bit.
           • felix 3.1.1.1.1.4

             22 October 2009 at 10:39 pm

             Never said exclude it just think it is odd to think this is the only thing to consider when determining if something is Kiwi. Certainly is narrow if it is the only thing you consider.

             Understood, but your definition only makes sense if you do exclude ownership. So I think we agree there.

             Cheap staff? As a bank employee I am happy with what I get paid thank you…..

             Cheap for the NZ operations of their company as compared to their other operations in other countries. Internationally speaking we offer low wages, low compliance costs, low regulation etc.

             Of course, there’s nothing like a jumped up union official being laughed at when he tries to tell people they are being exploited. FINSEC (excepting a few good people) are generally ineffective, or more likely, irrelevant.

             ????? Weird.

             How about they just up stumps tomorrow? How would that be good for the economy or the people and businesses they leave in the lurch?

             ???? Who suggested such a thing? Weird. Do you think because I’m questioning the wording of their advertising I’m effectively calling for their removal from the economy? Seriously weird leap of logic.

             In the unlikely event that you’re serious, the market would rush to fill the void.

             Do you realise how important a function banks perform for New Zealand and our way of life?

             As above. And weird.

             You see it is easy to say banks people rip people off. But do you really consider the benefit they provide to New Zealand? To get an understanding of this benefit imagine they all shut for business tomorrow.

             Are you still talking to me, Mike? Where am I saying these things that you pretend to be responding to? Weird. And as above, if you’re serious, the market would respond appropriately to mass bank closures.

             And nationalisation? You can’t be serious (well you probably are, but you’re a nutcase).

             Sure.

             Great way to get investment into this country. Try and think through your positions (and I wouldn’t be admitting you did here).

             Depends what sort of investors we want, Mike. I prefer overseas investors to pay taxes on the profits they make from our country. Your mileage may vary. But that’s a whole other discussion.

             So you’re prepared to grizzle about the bulk of ownership being Australian but not prepared to buy shares yourself?

             No, I’m grizzling about the wording of their advertisement. Did you miss that and jump straight to the imaginary part where I called for the destruction of capitalism?

             You would rather some other NZ citizens bought the bank, or worse have the Government steal it?

             Don’t care really. The market will respond appropriately.

             With those sort of smarts I wouldn’t be surprised if you were advising the Labour Party at the moment. Would explain a bit.

             Again, just weird. I’m starting to have second thoughts about our friendship, Mike. I don’t know if I can count on you in a combat situation.
           • Mike Collns 3.1.1.1.1.5

             23 October 2009 at 7:00 pm

             Fair enough Felix. I may have been a little over the top in giving you a serve. Perhaps you can read my insults to you as a proxy for the “Aussie banks are evil brigade”, rather than to you yourself.

             Not sure we know each other though – I presume Felix is a pseudonym?
           • felix 3.1.1.1.1.6

             23 October 2009 at 7:55 pm

             Nah I’m just being cheeky, we don’t know each other.

             or do we?…

             Nah, I don’t want you to be looking at your friends and workmates sideways, wondering which one of them I am.

             or do I?…

             DUN DUN DUN….
   • Mike Collins 3.2

     22 October 2009 at 5:44 pm

     By the way TSB is also known as TSB Bank.
     • Jared 3.2.1

       22 October 2009 at 8:51 pm

       I like how Kiwibank parades itself as the only NZ owned bank, seems they forgot about TSB Bank…
     • felix 3.2.2

       22 October 2009 at 9:20 pm

       BNZ Bank is another acronym crime (acroniminal?). Also NZI Insurance. They’re everywhere once you start looking for them.

       Jared, good call. They’re the only one with physical branches everywhere though.
4. Chris 4

   22 October 2009 at 4:34 pm

   It’s the same as the Auckland University of Technology University calling itself AUT University – which is incorrect. It is the Auckland University of Technology University.
5. deWithiel 5

   22 October 2009 at 5:30 pm

   Apparently AUT were scared that due to their deplorable research profile the last government would stop them being an university; so the redundant university was added just to remind people that they were really a university. Maybe the ASB uses the same idiot marketers; or it’s scared that its poor behaviour will warrant it being stripped of its banking status? Given the current government’s impressive moral rectitude this outcome is most unlikely.
6. bobo 6

   22 October 2009 at 6:49 pm

   I had my first savings account with ASB was a fraggle rock savers account , used to encourage saving back then at primary school.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS