Investment Wankers

By DeusExMacintosh

An Australian banker is in hot water after being filmed looking at semi-nude photos of a model while a colleague was doing a television interview nearby.

He could be seen clicking on photos of Miranda Kerr in the background of the Channel 7 interview on Tuesday with an analyst for Macquarie Private Wealth.

The footage soon made its way on to YouTube and became a huge hit.

Macquarie Private Wealth, however, was not amused and said it was taking the matter very seriously.

The images of Ms Kerr could clearly be seen during the Channel 7 interview, only at the end of which does the banker turn to the camera and realise he has been filmed.

A Macquarie statement said: “Macquarie has strict policies in place surrounding the use of technology and the issue arising from the live cross on Seven News is being dealt with internally.”

The banker in question, said to be a mid-level client investment manager, has reportedly been meeting executives to determine his future.

BBC News

And now for your delectation, we present “the masters of the Universe” hard at work…



An Australian banker caught viewing erotic images in the background of a live TV interview will keep his job, his employer, Macquarie Bank, has said.

David Kiely became an internet sensation when the Channel 7 interview, showing him looking at images of model Miranda Kerr, was posted on YouTube.

A massive internet campaign was launched to save his job and Ms Kerr also pleaded his case. Macquarie said it had completed an inquiry and that Mr Kiely would stay.

In a statement it said: “He will remain an employee of Macquarie. Macquarie and the employee apologise for any offence that may have been caused.”


  1. Tinos
    Posted February 4, 2010 at 4:34 am | Permalink

    I saw this first @ FAIL Blog.

  2. Joseph Clark
    Posted February 4, 2010 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Funny, but it is the nastiness really necessary? “Investment Wankers”? Is it OK to call someone a wanker just because they work in finance?

  3. MikeM
    Posted February 4, 2010 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Just because they work in an investment bank and amuse themselves during working hours studying images of semi-naked women?

    The collective term for these people is “a wunch of bankers”

  4. Jason Soon
    Posted February 4, 2010 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    The guy took a break to look at a picture for a few minutes. He should have been more discreet and careful but I don’t see what the big deal is. How do you know he only takes short lunch breaks or even skips lunch, arrived early, leaves late, etc? How do you know the time he spends looking at the odd picture is more or less than the time other workers spend going out for lunch, checking their bank statement and paying their bills, having coffee breaks, having smoking breaks, etc? This has all been blown out of proportion.

    Of course lefties and people on the public tit are going to be resentful that he earns big bucks but also takes an ‘Internet break’ but given that he’s at an investment bank he probably works longer hours than the average worker anyway.

  5. TheodoraBrown
    Posted February 4, 2010 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    I think the Macquarie IT Department is going to cheerfully be using the footage at all their inductions into the bank’s internet policy from now on – the “don’t access anything you don’t want your nanna to know about” rule now has a fantastic example ….

  6. Posted February 4, 2010 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    This Tele story suggests that the guy was set up – it was a prank pulled on him by another worker:

    Not nice, if true.

  7. Posted February 4, 2010 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Isn’t the reference to wankers a play on words in the context of what he was looking at?

    Besides, it IS Macbank….

  8. Posted February 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    [email protected] asks

    “Investment Wankers”? Is it OK to call someone a wanker just because they work in finance?

    It’s NOT ok if you are allergic to tautology.

    [email protected] said:

    When you open an e-mail you don’t necessarily know what the attachment will be

    I ***NEVER*** have attachments or inlined mimes displayed automatically. Even with gmail. When running a desktop client (e.g. Thunderbird) I ***ALWAYS*** display the plain text version by default, and then the formatted version if I need to. Just don’t try to get Microsoft LookOut to protect you from this sort of problem.

    Besides, the guy flipped back and forth… between real work and the pictures… I see anything like that, especially at a work account, and the delete button gets hit instantly.

    My thinking is that with email continuity and archiving regs (each email imposes a cost on the business, and personal email through a business email account means your friend’s email is archived by a business, so privacy is forfeited), and with the ubiquity of cheap browsers on cheap phones, it’s easy enough to say “check your gmail on your phone to see if you have anything important coming in… don’t get non-work stuff routed to work accounts”. So… either the sender or the receiver in this case needs a big reprimand for SOMETHING along the chain of events.

    (At the moment, prior to a full-on email external archiving solution going live in a couple of weeks, I’m getting everyone to clean out such emails from our system, inform others to send personal email elsewhere… once live… I’ll be putting in some pretty draconian bots to move patently personal emails into a deep sin-bin that users will never see.)

  9. Posted February 4, 2010 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    [email protected] and [email protected] on terminology.

    If it’s fair to call ball-point pens “biros” after the early versions from the Biro brothers, then it’s fair to call bankers a "bunch of utter Fuggers"… and if you mispronounce the “gg” with a touch of a click…. who cares?

  10. Posted February 4, 2010 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    This is DEM just being her usual pisstaking self… but if the guy is going to be sacked for it, that’s going too far. A bit of a giggle at his expense — okay. Sacking him for it — not okay. Something about flogging a dead horse comes to mind.

  11. Joseph Clark
    Posted February 4, 2010 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    I know most of this is harmless fun but there’s quite a bit of nastiness shining through too. I’ve been surprised by how popular banker bashing has become. A lot of people seem to be comfortable saying some really nasty things about people based on them working in finance.

  12. Posted February 4, 2010 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Touched a nerve there…

  13. Posted February 4, 2010 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    I mention the sacking issue because when I was working at a certain top-tier law firm (which shall remain nameless) the work filter would routinely put the kybosh on blogs that featured the ‘f-word’ on the front page. It was a major reason for my frequent daytime absences from Catallaxy. Obviously MacBank’s filters are more, ahem, generous.

  14. Peter Patton
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    There is something quite corrupt about how this whole to-do has been framed. Call me old-fashioned, but I’d be much prouder of my child the investment banker, than my child the quasi-sex worker. The complete silence on the low-rent Miranda Kerr is very puzzling.

  15. Posted February 5, 2010 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    Peter, if you’re looking for someone willing to slut-shame Miranda Kerr for her professional choices, a blog run by three women is probably not the place to go.

  16. Posted February 5, 2010 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Values shift, Peter, especially as Miranda Kerr helped him keep his job (in which, I am glad to note, sanity has prevailed).

    Time was that prostitutes were on the bottom of the World Values Survey ‘trustworthiness’ scale (along with used car salesmen). However, politicians and journalists now rate at the bottom (and by some margin) in Western countries, and prostitutes are in the middle somewhere. I haven’t seen the latest figures, but I suspect that bankers have probably joined journos at the bottom, at least temporarily. Nurses and judges are at the top, doctors are very high and lawyers (non-judges of course) are in the bottom third.

    There has also been a long-standing tradition in non-Abrahamic cultures of the ‘good prostitute’; that the trope still has legs is evinced by the success of movies like Pretty Woman, which is a plot-steal from Plautus, a Roman playwright.

  17. Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    If it develops that looking at pictures of women I find extremely desirable on national TV is a surefire way to be introduced to them, I believe I will start camping with a laptop in the background of news casts tomorrow.

  18. Peter Patton
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:58 pm | Permalink


    Please accept my apologies if I have offended you. In no way was that my intention. I have no interest in “slut shaming” Miranda Kerr! I have bought GQ since I was in my early 20s, and not just for the articles! 🙂

    As I find absolutely nothing wrong with female swim wear models (though it is true I would hope my young daughter and son blossom in other career choices), it would quite a challenge for me to condemn the Macquarie Bank dealer, and impossible given that I buy the magazine myself. Once we add in the fact that Macquarie Bank itself advertises in GQ, the possibility of scorn, derision, or outrage has vanished.

    How different my attitude would be if the guy had been reading kiddie porn! I would have been more than outraged, as I unreservedly abhor child pornography. In addition, it is universally condemned and thus a most serious crime.

    But we are not talking about kiddie porn, so any outrage one has for the MacBank broker must deal with Miranda Kerr’s role in all this.

  19. Posted February 6, 2010 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    I dunno, Miranda Kerr is just providing a fairly standard non-rivalrous good… 😉

    More broadly, I suppose the whole thing is proof positive of the extent to which people do not like being wrenched about when it comes to values. I can still remember when the local bank manager was the most respected person in town (spot the country Queenslander). The GFC has pulled that particular rug out from under the whole class of people wearing the label ‘banker’, and they don’t like it.

    No-one likes being ‘downed’ on systematically, but there’s precious little you can do about it: there’s a mountain of research out there showing that, except where it protects very narrow negative rights, anti-discrimination legislation has counter-productive effects. There’s an excellent paper on the Americans with Disabilities Act discussed in Superfreakonomics which is well worth reading on that score. Basically, you can’t make people like each other. What you can do, however, is make people behave in public, which is a separate (and more complex) issue.

  20. Posted February 7, 2010 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    So this is the Maquarie Porn Guy thing that hit the fishwraps last week?
    It’s funny and quite sad really. This pin-striped and pear shaped, air-conditioned bald patch corporate guppie in a plasma screen tank, and it’s graphs all day and logs on to Miranda Kerr (who really ain’t nuttin’ special).
    And someone seriously suggested he get canned for that? Has anyone seen Sam Lowry –

  21. Posted February 7, 2010 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Is it OK to call someone a wanker just because they work in finance?
    Yes. 🙂

  22. Joseph Clark
    Posted February 7, 2010 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Adrien: why do you find it necessary to insult the guy’s physical appearance?

  23. Posted February 7, 2010 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    why do you find it necessary to insult the guy’s physical appearance?
    It’s not necessarily an insult, I was just describing the guy in his habitus. Balding is a sign of aging. Sneaking peaks at Miranda starkers is a sign of?
    Oh the humanity.

  24. Peter Patton
    Posted February 9, 2010 at 2:17 pm | Permalink


    OK, DEM chided me that this was a blog run by three women, so I was wondering if you get a bunch a sexist dinosaurs (Catallaxy” settle a debate we are having about whether or not Aussie women shake hands or ever say “mate”.

    Starting here:

  25. Posted February 9, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Peter: This may be more of a country/city divide than a gender divide. I was certainly brought up to shake hands as a kid (and was told emphatically that if I didn’t do so, I was very rude, especially if the other person had already stuck out their hand). I also (at home) say ‘mate’. However, I am from country Queensland, where people are supposed to be friendlier.

    That said, when I worked at a law firm, we were also instructed to shake hands (for reasons of courtesy) but also to avoid being too familiar. This advice was directed at both sexes and was, I think, very sound. I have always shaken hands with clients since going to the bar.

    On the specific issue of Muslims and handshaking mentioned over at Catallaxy, I have had this happen to me once, but not at work — it was at karate, and in the UK. A Muslim student refused to shake my hand, Sensei (who was Japanese) saw it and and that guy finished up ‘uki’ for the rest of the lesson (this, if you have ever studied martial arts, is not pleasant).

    I asked Sensei afterwards why he was so annoyed, and he pointed out that in Japan it is polite to bow, and Japanese get angry when foreigners turn up and don’t even try to fit in with local norms. In Britain, handshaking is the norm, and therefore people should fit in with the local norm.

    On balance, I think that most if not all Australian women shake hands, and that country women say ‘mate’. I will be interested to see what LE and DEM’s experiences are.

  26. Posted February 9, 2010 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    There’s also an element of class involved too. [Oh the joys of etiquette.]

    Personally I hate the air-kiss – I can’t do it and it just makes me cringe with embarrassment (guess I’m not the tactile kind like LE) – and much prefer a handshake but it’s true that traditionally ladies didn’t shake hands as such, men kissed the back of them instead or just held them in a semi-shake. You’ll still find that in a reception line at a formal event but I wouldn’t try it on any woman under 70 elsewhere or they’ll think you’re taking the piss.

    On first introduction I’d usually expect a handshake regardless of gender, but this is often waived in casual situations and in all women groups may be replaced by the godawful air-kiss. In mixed groups this strikes me as awfully pretentious and an annoying American affectation, but it’s still done by those who consider themselves big “S”, Society.

    I was taught to say “how do you do?” on first introduction but that’s considered quite formal these days. In a casual situation “G’day mate” is perfectly acceptable but I have difficulty using it without irony and would save it for later re-introductions to someone I’d already met. In conversation I refer to friends as mates all the time, regardless of their gender.

    Since women joined the workforce handshaking is pretty much the standard courtesy (single handshake as equals though please, not that patronising extra hand on top some old farts older gentlemen still try). It’s immensely rude to refuse an offered handshake regardless of whether you are female, muslim, jew or purple people eater as it’s a gesture of mutual respect. It would be saying “actually I DON’T respect you as an equal to me”. Even though I have nerve damage in my hands that can make it painful, I wouldn’t ever refuse a handshake. I’d have also made the guy at Karate uki long before the Sensei got hold of him.

  27. su
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    I shake hands with men and if they don’t seem to be the handshaking kind I nod at women with the kind of fixed grin that says do not on any account attempt to kiss me (it seems to work, I must have the maniacal gleam down pat now). The nod is a little bit of an abbreviated bow really with lots of scope for making it more or less respectful (add a surreptitious heel click for people you really despise). Then there is the reverse, the slight toss of the head for familiar but informal acquaintances like mechanics, and plumbers . You don’t want to piss off your plumber so it is very important to get the greeting right.

  28. Peter Patton
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Wow! What a splendidly nuanced exposé of handshaking as equalizing ritual in the Australia of 2010. I especially like DEM’s noting the class aspect. The Catallaxians are insistent on it being a very new, and still largely marginal cultural tic, which I disagree.

    The other night I watched the original 1930s black and white version of The Women and what struck me was how forward and relaxed these [admittedly upper class New York women] were about hand-shaking each other on first being introduced.

    Of course, after that, as DEM laments the air-kiss intrudes.

    On the class element, my observation is that in larger groups, all the men will shake hands, but working class women are more likely to hold back, the reasons for which are complex.

    I first encountered women shaking hands en masses on my first day at university. I have spoken to women friends about this. The less highly borns said they were quite intimidated when the elite private school girls bounded up, looked them in the eye, offered their hand, shook it firmly (though not Mark Latham), saying ‘how do you do, my name is Sara Watkins’ or whatever. My friends said their intimidation was more admiration, for the confidence it showed, and that they were shocked that such “snobby” women would be so “friendly”.

    My mother and father trained me to always shake the hand of a newly introduced women – let’s assume, she is ‘taken’ by another bloke (or woman) there, sometimes if I suspect she is a little nervous among new company, I will hold that hand a millisecond longer (not long enough to be confused with being a lech), hunch over slightly, squint a little, and repeat her name, both to make sure she feels welcome, and that I remember her name! 🙂

    After hand-shaking intros, the etiquette does change, and along gender lines. If I have made a chatty connection with the woman, we have shared a laugh, a few drinks, a gossipy exchange of information, my expectation (though not demand) would change to a good-bye peck on the cheek, IF she initiates it, which in Australia/UK, often/usually happens.

    The next time I saw that woman socially, I would expect a quick peck hello, or an air kiss, but again would wait for her lead. If she did so lead, then from then on when we meet, I would feel comfortable being the first to proffer a kiss or a gentle hug.

    I see this sort of behavior wherever I go, whether it is work or play.

  29. Posted February 10, 2010 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn’t try it on any woman under 70 elsewhere or they’ll think you’re taking the piss.
    I’ve done it, on occassion, and got away with it. It’s not easy. But it scores points for cavalier chutzpah if you can manage. Doubt it it’ll come back in a huge way tho’.
    The nod is a little bit of an abbreviated bow
    Originally given by social superiors in response to a full bow. I like bowing, I think it should make a return, it’s graceful.

  30. Posted February 10, 2010 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Viz hand kissing, a joke:

    An elderly woman, a young woman, a Russian officer and a French Dandy were travelling the Orient Express in the 1880s.

    At one point the train goes into a long tunnel and the lights wink out for the duration. In the middle of the darkened journey a kiss is heard followed by a sharp slap!

    The train comes out of the tunnel. Light resumes. No-one says anything. But they’re thinking:

    Elderly woman: Land sakes! That young lass is a floozy.

    Young woman: Why does that Frenchman prefer that old woman to me?

    Russian Officer: That Frenchman’s a clever man. He steals a kiss and I get slapped.

    Frenchman: Excellent. I passionately kiss the back of my hand, slap a Russian officer and get away with it. 🙂

  31. JC
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    I had personal experience with this sort of thing. I was forced to fire a young trader in the late 90s because he was seen by a woman, looking at explicit material on the web and she complained to the HR wankers who then sought legal advice, which came back that it imperiled the firm and had not only legal implications in the future but also reputational issues.

    The Mac dude was an idiot, as the firm will do nothing to protect him if there were more serious reputational issues involved.

    People hate traders at the moment so it’s best not to give too much away to chance.

  32. Peter Patton
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 9:02 pm | Permalink


    My very first proper job out of uni sent me to the Boston office for six months, my second day in the job! Anyway, I was a bit of a hit in the office being the only Aussie, etc.

    One day at lunch time, a group of us decided to go to a Chinese restaurant, so I whipped across to the other side of the office where four of the Associates – 1 level and 2 years, my senior – were chatting. I said, “hey do you girls wanna come get some Chinese food with us”? Silence. Dead Silence. I thought, ‘these chicks are in a funny mood, maybe they’re strategizing their MBA applications or something.

    Anyway, when I returned from lunch, one asked me to come into one of the spare offices for a chat. Then another one joined, then the other two. This is roughly how the ‘talk’ went.

    Now, we respect that some of the world’s greatest feminist minds have come out of Australia. We also know, most of them leave, never to return. Why do you think that is Peter? It is because of a culture that reveres Paul Hogan and raises its boys to be like you. Now, we don’t think you are being deliberately anti-deluvian and intentionally misogynist, but here in the US, calling a female who has moved passed puberty a ‘girl’ is so not on, we can’t begin to tell you. Be thankful, it was we who heard you, because you are our friend, and we like hanging out and partying with you. But here’s a heads up. It is a sackable offense, and shows a very weird 2nd rate citizen view you have of women.

    Or words to that effect. Then all four left at once.

  33. JC
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 9:13 pm | Permalink


    Let me guess where they did their undergrad.

    Harvard or Barnard college (Columbia)… Perhaps even Boston College.

    Those gals have a real attitude. Lol.

  34. Posted February 10, 2010 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    At least they told you to your face, Peter. I’ve long been a believer that while men have a lot to learn from women (probably the best lesson of feminism, really), the exchange isn’t all one way. One of the best male traits that women should emulate is airing concerns to someone’s face rather than going behind their back. As far back as Mary Wollstonecraft that trait has been identified as one that women really need to lose, much as men have had to learn to keep their hands to themselves.

  35. Peter Patton
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    I can remember the four of them still so vividly – whom by the way I got along famously with, but only after I gave them what for, but that’s another story. 2 went to Yale, 1 Dartmouth, 1 Harvard. The following year, 2 went to Harvard Business Schol, 1 to Wharton, and 1 to Stanford.

  36. Peter Patton
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 9:38 pm | Permalink


    Oh, I certainly respected them for being so upfront, as I could tell not only were they making their own personal needs front and centre, but also doing me a favor in educating me on local American etiquette.

  37. Jason Soon
    Posted February 11, 2010 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    it is pretty ridiculous how sensitive americans are re speech codes

  38. Peter Patton
    Posted February 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    I think there’s also the time-period/era/generation thing. Had I been a young woman in the 1970s and 1908s, I imagine I would have felt degraded and disrespected if every time I walked into the tea room there was a series of yellowing The Sun page 3 girls staring down at me; that despite having degrees in Economics and Law, the senior partners always gave me their photocopying to do; that if men one year my senior would walk by and say “now when you girls have finished giggling about which leg waxer to use, we have hours to clock, so maybe we’ll make some money this year……”

    But today is not 1980 or even 1990, and I think in 2010, the feminist revolution has been largely bedded down (excuse the deliciously inappropriate pun), in the workplace. Now, of course, any number of women reading this might be provoked to fire off posts detailing myriad examples of how far we still have to go.

    But, I guess my point is to acknowledge, that by young women taking a neophyte like me (and I imagine tens of thousands of other men) aside, and applying good old-fashioned peer-pressure, without involving the courts, tribunals, or even management, small victories have accumulated, even snowballed.

    Also, remember, a whole new generation has been born, to whom equality in the workplace no more crosses their mind than an obligation to stand in a bus queue, with no privileges for gender or rank does not cross our minds.

    In this new environment of 2010, women have so much more security about their role in the professional work place, that some of the – what were politically necessary at the time – more ‘take no prisoners’ ‘lines in the sand’ such as men of equal status saying ‘girls’ and women saying ‘boys’ is no longer seen as a passive-aggressive form of sexist oppression and intimidation in the work place.

    But as I am an XY production not XX, perhaps even in 2010, ‘I just don’t get it’.

    If that is the case, I have no doubt there are those out there who would be delighted to disavow me of my delusions! 🙂

  39. Posted February 11, 2010 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    I do think you’re basically right, Peter, and that managing disputes privately (but also being upfront) are good things that we should celebrate. There are exceptions on both sides, of course (and, unfortunately, I have seen and experienced more of the nasty female tendency to go behind people’s backs than the nasty male tendency to patronize or harass). Maybe we are at the stage where we can learn from each other!

  40. Peter Patton
    Posted February 11, 2010 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    Yes, one’s first month in the corporate world is like attending finishing school for manners The Managing Partner (no, I’m not a lawyer) of the first firm I worked at post-uni gave me advice on elevator and door etiquette. Before finishing school, I always stood back and allowed any ‘ladies’ to enter or alight first. My boss taught me that the situation becomes much less fraught if we all simply expect the well-mannered to hold the door for others if we are the first to get to the door/lift, and to do so regardless of gender. What a bloody sensible idea!

    What I did not tell me, but demonstrated most brutally bu his own actions, was that people of his stature and power have the liberty of always holding the door/lift open for you, even guiding through with either a gesture of the hand, or even an avuncular ever-so-light tip on the back.

    The psychology was clear. Top dogs can afford such magnanimous gestures. But the rules changed with the handshake, with his invariably being one on those that clasps his had totally over yours and then bending it ever so slightly to accentuate even further that he was on top! 🙂

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *