Talk:Commonwealth Bank

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


Environment section[edit]

Not sure of the importance of the environmental segment. I don't think it's significant enough to warrant a mention.-Mike TinTin

I agree. For an organisation such as this, you might also write "the bank owns x% is the Doo Good company, which doesn't log enough old growth forest".Frade 12:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, so I removed it. Nosedog 04:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's of interest to people who are interested in environmental philosophy and ethics, and was significant enough for the Wildness Society to base a campaign around it, to which the Commonwealth Bank has responded. It also contrasts the Commonwealth with other banks which have positioned themselves as "environmentally friendly" or ethical. It is odd that the "Community Supports & Sponsorships" was not brought up as having little significance. I've restored the section, and will add more on why it is significant. —Pengo 23:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bank has also established a toner-recycling scheme" - Who cares? This has nothing to do with their activities as a bank. We might as well talk about what type of pen they use. --Jimi 14:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Not to mention colonial first state profit off human suffering and misery! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.191.119 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest?[edit]

This article mentions Commonwealth Bank as the second largest bank behind the NAB. However, the NAB article states the opposite...that NAB is second behind the Commonwealth. What's the deal? -Nickuss. It depends on what terms. I'm assuming market cap in which case CBA is larger than NAB in market cap. Please note I could not find a free link to support this, however most basic stock researchers will illustrate this. - Vagon 10 Sep 07 I can confirm that CBA is bigger. It says so here as well as here. I think this page as well as National_Australia_Bank need to be changed. 1337Garda (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Market capitalisation changes each time the share price of the banks change, I have recently updated the Banking in Australia - Top 5 banking groups in Australia and provided some references. Currently CBA is larger by about 16 billion Australian dollars, in fact NAB is almost third having a market capitalisation only 32 million Australia dollars greater Westpac, however these positions are based on market capitalisation which changes regularly. Prior to 2005 NAB was larger, and then in 2007 was constantly changing between 1st and 2nd place with CBA. Best advise I can give is that if positions change and you are going to change this article, don't forgot to change the article on the bank for which the change in postion has occured with. Cj au (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC) The article states CBA is the largest listed company on the ASX. By what measure? BHP is significantly larger than anything else on the ASX by market capitalization. -Krishna[reply]

Westpac[edit]

The Westpac article states that it is the largest Aust bank "by mkt cap" due to it's acquisition of St George bank (1st DEC 2008) // = You, Me and Everyone Else ; { talk = 07:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Commonwealth Securities[edit]

Ok, having this article on it's own is insane and serves no purpose. Proposing merge, so comments please. Thewinchester (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I guess there are two things to think about here. On one hand CommSec is wholly owned by CBA, but on the other hand is in a very distinct and different industry (as opposed to say CBA Private Banking, which is a clear extension of banking). While I wouldnt suggest giving CBA Private Banking its own page (Private Bank offers broking), merging CommSec with CBA would then logically follow merging ETrade with ANZ, merging AOT with Warner etc I'm not sure that it doesn't deserve its own page. - Vagon[reply]

As a distinct subsidiary, CommSec should have its own article. It's not just a Commonwealth Bank brand. Mark Chovain 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Mark on this one, CommSec should have its own article, it's not the fact that it's a CBA brand but the products that it runs are different from CBA RBS products. I also think that CommInsure should have its own article as well, due to the fact that the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society dates back to before CBA started. Locomotion (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current News / Protection[edit]

Over the past several days there has been an ongoing edit war over whether or not to include the "Current News" section of the article. I have protected the article until these problems are resolved. That said, I have some serious concerns about the section. It is completely unreferenced as far as I can tell and uses weasel works like "highly controversial" which should be a tip off that something is wrong. I would suggest rewriting with reliable sources keeping WP:NPOV in mind if the decision is that the section is needed in the article. We've already had a complaint at OTRS from one of the folks that was removing the section because they felt it was defamatory to the company. (ticket #2008022010004421) I know we see a lot of removal vandalism, but please, take an extra second to look at whats being removed and make sure that it meets all Wikipedia's policies. Shell babelfish 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to look-into the contents of this 'contentious piece' to see if there is anything I can cite, noting that it was unreferenced. However I see that the edit summaries of the twice it has been added by the same IP mentions the "Australia (sic) Financial Review (Fairfax)", an Australian financial newspaper, so it could be legitimate, but I am not a paid subscriber to the on-line version of the paper (at A$109.00 per month!). Can we have the last good version with the 'contentious piece' reinstated, which was again removed just before the edit protection was implemented, or will I have to use the article's history and play in a sandbox until I come up with something – if anything, I admit – suitable?
Also, I notice that the registered editor who has reverted this article five consecutive times has previously created an article about "a public relations executive with the Commonwealth Bank".  SEO75 [talk] 09:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue regarding the IT contract and conflict of interst charges that was previously written can now be fully sourced by way of a press release from the Commonwealth Bank : http://shareholders.commbank.com.au/GAC_File_Metafile/0,1687,23466%255Fcbm%252520media%252520release%25252028%252520april%2525202008,00.pdf As you note the edits to remove this information previously were carried out by a PR Executive. Clearly, this PR executive (Mr. Gleeson) was trying to protect the bank from negative publicity but he was not being truthful. The press release from the bank proves that this transaction was contemplated at the time and consummated in April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.193.207 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but per the protection policies the article remains in whatever version it happens to have been protected at. Besides that, given the clear issues I pointed out with the section, I wouldn't reinstate it under any circumstances. If you want it, you're going to have to rewrite it with proper sources. Shell babelfish 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traceability of the Earmarked fund - 2009 Victorian bushfire appeal[edit]

--58.38.46.188 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--58.38.46.188 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


and

--58.38.46.188 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have the donations via CBA something to do with the following pages....???? If yes, where is the record of the contributions via CBA ....??? Has the following report sourced CBA's origin...???

--58.38.46.188 (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--58.38.46.188 (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--58.38.46.188 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If not, where can it be traced....in other words, where is the financial report....???? --58.38.46.188 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current numbers[edit]

ABC Radio National show 'PM' just spoke with CBA rep who stated that the total assets exceeded $650b. A recent profit of $6.1b was also referred to. Transcript and direct link not available as of 2010-11-02. (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/default.htm) = You, Me and Everyone Else ; { talk = 06:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Bank[edit]

Can someone find reference that either the Commonwealth Bank or Westpac is the largest bank by mrkt. capitalisation. They both conflict with no references. I have removed both statements.

--121.215.5.146 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Commonwealth Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming Royal Commission and Class Action concerning the BankWest Commercial Loan Book[edit]

Disclaimer: Currently a CBA employee, not involved in the social media aspect.

The title of this section in the current page makes reference to both a Royal Commission and Class Action, neither of which appear to have been called or filed yet. Without making comment on the content of this section, I feel the title needs improvement - will not be editing due to aforementioned COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.246.100.38 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have done some tidying up (was not very readable). Done my first fact check - the reference to the 2 December 2015 hearing of the PJC. Firstly, Ruddock was speaking as a committee member, not in his role as attorney-general. Secondly, the discussion was whether there needed to be a royal commission, not the way the article currently presents it that a royal commission was planned, and an alternative was offered. They were merely two alternatives for looking at the individual cases. Neither is rejected by the CBA at the hearing, so the article is completely wrong on that The transcript is at [1].
The 'spin' on this item makes me severely doubt the many, many other uncited 'facts' and 'quotes'. Mauls (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_Bank&oldid=1213429964"