January 3, 1996 |
Great Western Financial Corp. has officially handed over its reins to a new chief executive, but the new boss sees little change in basic direction for the parent of Great Western Bank. On Monday, the CEO job officially passed from James F. Montgomery, a savvy thrift industry fixture who personified the Chatsworth-based company's Old West image, to John F. Maher, an investment banker who helped design the firm's push into banking services.
September 24, 1986
John F. Maher has been elected to the board of directors of IRT Corp.
March 6, 1997 |
Chatsworth-based Great Western Financial Corp. implored its shareholders to shun the embrace of its rival in the savings and loan business, H.F. Ahmanson & Co., while it ponders Ahmanson's takeover bid and any alternatives that emerge. Irwindale-based Ahmanson made the all-stock offer public on Feb. 18. It is currently worth about $6.1 billion--more than 30% above Great Western's pre-offer market value. In a letter to his shareholders, Great Western Chief Executive John F.
September 10, 1986 |
John F. Maher, a managing director in the Los Angeles office of Shearson Lehman Bros., has been named to the No. 2 job at Great Western Financial in Beverly Hills, succeeding Robert B. Holmes, who recently resigned, it was announced Tuesday. Maher was elected president and chief operating officer of Great Western, effective immediately. Great Western Financial, with about $25 billion in assets, is the parent company of Great Western Savings, the nation's third-largest savings and loan firm.
February 20, 1997 |
Amid increasing signs that a bidding war will erupt for Great Western, the savings and loan's chief executive on Wednesday lashed out at statements made by the management of its hostile suitor, H.F. Ahmanson & Co. In an e-mail bulletin to employees Wednesday afternoon, Great Western Chief Executive John F.
May 27, 1991 |
Expensive company-paid perquisites--such as country club memberships and the use of the company planes--are among the examples experts cite most of corporate excess. Executives who can most afford to pay for life's luxuries are granted what they need, while company underlings are forced to muddle through with few, if any, offers of help from their firms, compensation consultants point out.