Recently, the spotlight turned to ING New Zealand and its half owner ANZ bank, whose financial advisory network sold ING funds now partially frozen thanks to famously toxic CDOs and other instruments of financial mass destruction. So much for the ’safe’ and ‘low risk’ investment ING’s funds were promoted as. “As safe as a bank”, ANZ said, some investors claim. Little wonder complaints flooded the office of the Banking Ombusdman, which has so far ruled 37 out of 60 cases in favour of complainants. Whatever.

But as a PR person, ANZ’s silence is deafening. Sure, let ING take the flack and do the quibbling. No point in unnecessarily sullying the ANZ brand when ING, now effectively dead, can take it on the chin. But for how long can ANZ stalk in the shadows when it was their ‘advisors’ (commission sales people) flogging funds in an investment company the bank half-owned? More than that, flogging funds promoted as ’safe’ and ‘low risk’ when they were significantly exposed to subprime lending and CDOs, considered dodgy as far back as 2004.

Now that really stinks. But not a word on the matter from ANZ. Do its local directors even care? Perhaps the local chapter is run by lawyers, who lead by the letter of the law and don’t care much for the court of public opinion? Do they have a marketing department? Who comes first at ANZ – customers, or money markets and men? Can we trust the advice provided by ANZ and its representatives? Should I bank with ANZ? Silence won’t address these concerns or a rotting reputation. Showing moral backbone might.