ANZ's explanations about the departure of chief executive David Hisco have so far been unsatisfactory.
Bets have been hedged and threads left dangling in a manner which is exacerbating tension in the local banking sector - a sector already on edge over a broader regulatory conflict with the Reserve Bank.
Is Hisco's offending extremely serious?
If so, why wasn't he formally dismissed? Why is it not an external legal matter? Why isn't he paying the expenses money back?
Or, is this just a technical issue around the inappropriate accounting of his expenses?
The sums at issue across nine years - though enough to outrage some workers - pale in comparison to Hisco's salary and allowances.
Was Hisco thrown under a bus?
That's certainly the big divisive question being asked by many in the local industry this week.
So is this a calculated case of ANZ's board trying to have it both ways?
Or are they just caught between a rock and a hard place?
As a former Prime Minister, ANZ chairman Sir John Key is a master of public communications - one of the best in the country.
There are few more adept at maintaining an ambiguous position in the face of intense media scrutiny.
It seems that the words at Monday's press conference were carefully chosen - words that clearly don't play well for Hisco with unions and a broader public, which seldom has tolerance for the comfortable travel perks of senior executives.
Chauffeur-driven cars? That sounds terrible in a headline and ANZ's board must have known that.
But what does that mean? Do the drivers wear little caps?
It sounds terribly decadent but is it effectively just a high-level misuse of taxi chits?
Perhaps those words were warranted because there is more to this buried in the legal complexities of a high stakes employment dispute?
But if that's the case and the issue has gone on for nine years then it surely raises questions about a much more serious culture issue at the top of New Zealand's largest bank.
That would imply a broader review of banking culture and conduct is required in this country.
The Reserve Bank has confirmed it is still talking to ANZ about the issue and therefore can't comment.
It was informed of the Hisco issue two weeks ago. Key says ANZ has been working through the issue for three months.
Has the ANZ met its statutory obligations to keep the RBNZ informed?
The RBNZ says it has worked closely with the ANZ since it was informed of the issue.
But was it surprised by ANZ's decision to go public on Monday?
On this question, the RBNZ has declined to comment.
Ironically the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and RBNZ's final response to their local review of bank conduct and culture is now imminent .
But the FMA has confirmed that this will not address issues around executive culture.
We know that ANZ group chief Shayne Elliot initiated the internal review of executive conduct and culture.
It's not an unreasonable thing to do given the expectations that the Hayne Royal Commission has set for the banking sector in Australia.
It seems plausible Hisco is the victim of a post-royal commission cleanout across the Tasman.
But if our banks are really independent then why aren't our own regulators and banking leaders driving this stuff?
Meanwhile, Key says the Hisco issue is completely separate from the issue ANZ had over the incorrect capital and risk setting which earned it a censure from the RBNZ last month.
But where was Hisco in that debacle, which also dates back years?
Does he not have questions to answer on that issue?
Key has blamed the error on a junior staff member. Finance Minister Grant Robertson says the buck stops with Key and "Mr Key must know that".
At best Hisco's departure is a case of extremely bad timing for the ANZ.
It has sowed public doubt in local management practices and embarrassed regulators who had stuck their neck out to vouch for the local sector in the face of calls for a royal commission.
Our other major banks will either be extremely angry about this - or nervous.
Will they be conducting similar reviews of executive expenses? What are their rules about "chauffeur-driven" vehicles?
And yes - as with all these questions - the Herald will keep asking. Meanwhile the stoush about the deeper and ultimately more important issue of how much risk New Zealand wants to let its banks take - how much capital they must hold - is about to kick off big time.
Submissions from the Aussie banks on the RBNZ's capital review are due for public release in the next couple of weeks - ensuring tension in New Zealand's banking sector will remain high.
It's all been very unfortunate timing indeed.