Nor would industry support REAL regulation as it would impair their ability to charge dead people for giving them advice, or to charge too much for service of any kind, or use money that belongs to customers for self enrichment exercises, or even to support money laundering or terrorist activities. How dare someone place honesty above greed, are we living in a civil society or something?? I hope you can tell my sarcasm is leaking through in some areas.
Good on @PatrickVeyret for standing up and saying what needs to be said…more than said in fact, something/s need to be acted on rather than left un-regulated (self regulation) lest mayhem again ensue or continue, as it currently seems not to have abated.
An article regarding “Open Banking” rapidly approaching Australian consumers.
I am sure the big banks will love this. Not.
The analogy to the mobile phone industry is highly appropiate. Optus was always happy to be able to churn Telstra’s analogue mobile customers but the moment that number portability was proposed, they spat the dummy as now their long suffering digital customers could very easily move to Telstra’s vastly superior network.
It appears that little has changed in regard to the banks’ greed following the Banking RC.
The grubs at the ANZ obviously view the RBA’s decision to cut interest rates to record lows to try to stimulate the economy as just another opportunity to gouge some extra profits.
There may be more than meetings the eye. I wonder if ANZ funding costs have increased and they are using the opportunity to pass on the increased costs to the consumer.
At the end of the day, looking at the comparison rates for each of the lending institution is more important that what a bank does in relation to a RBA interest rate announcement. The comparison rates will indicate what the compatible rates are across loan accounts between institutions.
After reviewing comparison rates and any costs for changing mortgage providers, one can make a decision whether to stay with what they have at the moment or change to a more competitive provider.
‘Interim’ - but at least some rubber is hitting the road.
Interim approval to Banking Code changes following Royal Commission
11 July 2019
The ACCC has granted interim authorisation to allow the Australian Banking Association (ABA) to take immediate steps to make certain changes to the Banking Code of Practice.
These changes come in response to recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (Hayne Royal Commission).
The interim authorisation allows member banks to agree not to charge default interest on loans secured by agricultural land in drought or natural disaster declared areas.
It also allows member banks to agree not to charge dishonour fees or overdrawn fees or allow informal overdrafts on basic bank accounts.
Interim authorisation removes the risk that the ABA and its member banks would breach competition laws by agreeing to make, and implement, changes to the Banking Code.
The ABA also intends to amend the Banking Code to define the minimum features of a basic bank account. While welcoming the proposals overall, some consumer groups have raised some concerns and suggested improvements to the basic banking proposals.
The ACCC will consider any submissions and possible changes the ABA proposes in response to these issues before deciding whether to grant interim authorisation for the basic banking proposals.
“We’re allowing the banks to start making important changes following the Hayne Royal Commission, and for them to start taking steps to ensure they are prepared ahead of a new Banking Code coming into effect next year,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said today.
Interim authorisation commences immediately and remains in place unless it is revoked by the ACCC or the when the ACCC completes its assessment of the application for authorisation.
The ACCC expects to issue a draft determination on the ABA’s authorisation application in September 2019.
That’s the bulk of it - some more background on the link …
Are you thinking this is not another episode of Mario Kart Race unfolding? I am thinking it will be the next episode and the ACCC release is the teaser.
If i were to read it with cynicism, I’d possibly suggest ‘interim’ is code for ‘we’re not really sure what to do, so lets try this and see what happens, under the cover of interim …’
I closed an account with St George Bank today. They wanted to charge me $35 to send my funds to another financial institution. After not much resistance from me, they generously “waived” the fee. I guess they thought it was worth a try.
A review of APRA has made 24 recommendations about APRA and the Federal Govt (19 about APRA). The review was a result of the Hayne’s Royal Commission.
The panel found that APRA needs an overhaul, that it was too behind the scenes with deals, it was slow to react, penalties need reviewing to see if strengthening is required are among some of the recommendations.
To read an ABC News report about the review see:
On the Treasury site the Review is still listed as on-going but submissions closed in April 2019 and the report to the Govt was required by 30 June 2019.
The ABC program on Wed 17th July, spent some time on this concern. In a very non partisan assessment ex Senator Amanda Vanstone several times reiterated that in addition to improved transparency, accountability was also essential. Her view point - it would take the jailing of a number of directors and senior executives to ensure the culture was genuinely changed.
I keep on saying we need to do as Iceland did. Jail is an effective answer to many who don’t fear fines as the company will pay them. There is generally no responsibility taken when fines are just considered a cost of doing business. If a person however faces a strong possibility of jail and thus removal of lifestyle, freedom and an ongoing personal taint because they have been criminal and thus incarcerated is probably of much greater impact.
The theme of ASIC’s annual forum in May this year had a Hollywood ring to it – ‘other people’s money’. The 1991 movie of the same name starring Danny DeVito was about a corporate raider who put profit above all else, as mere humans fell by the wayside. It’s an appropriate theme as the foul stench left by the royal banking commission begins to dissipate. ASIC chair James Shipton set about to “remind the finance industry of its core function – to serve people – and its obligation to act efficiently, honestly and fairly”.
On the last two obligations, the Australian financial services industry – in particular the big banks – are
starting from a low baseline. Shipton issued a “fairness challenge” to the industry and invoked the Hippocratic oath required of medical students – ‘first, do no harm’. With each profit-minded initiative, the industry must ask itself: ‘Is this practice or product going to cause harm, be detrimental or have a negative consequence?’
The answer would be a resounding yes in many of the instances that came to light at the royal commission, including charging fees to people who were no longer alive and deliberately pushing people deeper into debt. If these sorry tales are anything to go by, the commissions and bonuses that drives the banking world are inherently antithetical to the ‘do no harm’ philosophy.
In what could be construed as a colossal understatement, Shipton cast doubt on the industry’s
performance on the fairness front in recent years. “I am not convinced this level of questioning and procedural discipline has been applied by the financial industry when developing, and reviewing, business practices and financial products,” he says.
The banking industry’s commitment to ethical behaviour remains a work in progress, but perhaps
the findings of the banking royal commission will be a genuine game changer instead of the catalyst of another long report that, damning as it is, doesn’t change much.
Is he still questioning whether or not it has?..not convinced?..how much proof do you need stuffed in front of your face to say “I am convinced it hasn’t been done”, did the person actually see and read the report or did they just have some points pointed out to them in passing. If they can’t yet see the failure no wonder ASIC has such a very poor record. No wonder ASIC fails if it has executives who can’t see, or maybe they just ignore the fails of the industry they have oversight of.
