CHOICE membership

Royal Commission into the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry



The big 4 banks and AMP can only operate with various licensing granted by the Australian Government which means as we all know they only operate with the explicit approval of Australia’s citizens. Yet they seem to view these very citizens as their targets, cash cows to be milked, in fact bled dry to maximise organisational profit and personal gain of their executive class.

I think how damming the behaviour demonstrated before the RC so far, their lying, cheating and wilful decisions to not only not comply with the financial service laws but deliberate actions to break the laws demonstrates that these organisations may no longer be fit to enjoy the privileges of their government supplied bank licenses and financial services licenses.
Maybe this is the appropriate regulatory response when the RC concludes is to issue them all with ‘show-cause’ notices as to why their licenses should not be withdrawn.
That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.


Financial ‘witness’: Our cause to continue business as usual is our political donations and indirect support. Additionally every Australian is a bank shareholder through their super funds so our uber profits are in everyone’s best interests, especially our own. We planners and brokers and so on promise to up our game to at least equal the banks honesty and integrity, all within 50 years.

RC: (listening intently per scope)

Government: Ah, political donations. Thanks for the transparency. We see how valuable those profits really are! Your CEO’s will spend 60 minutes every year telling us how you are doing for compliance, won’t they? No, no compliance targets required because you are pillars of our communities, just like us pollies, with nothing to be ashamed of; profits speak. And don’t fear we might include ‘working in your customers interests’ as a result of your testimony. We understand how important profits are.


It just keeps getting worse but the voice of our illustrious pollies remains mostly silent. It will be interesting how they manage to do almost nothing in response to this farcical situation they have aided, allowed, and often abetted.


Another day.

It will be interesting to see how this goes, and how government will turn this into a nicely dressed paper tiger that looks good. Perhaps ‘maximum’ is the operative word, with no minimum excepting some public shaming?


Personally I’d say “could” is the operative word in this case.


The AMP CEO has resigned with effect from today. He said he had no idea what was going on (so why was he CEO again?) but the responsibility was his (again if it was his responsibility why does he appear to have let this slip under his radar). Who then made these decisions because they should be moved out post haste. I bet he gets a good handshake payout at this retirement. What penalty does he really pay? What compensation to the victims of this fraud?

Then like a miracle the Government announces new penalties as pointed out by @TheBBG above, saying that they had been looking at it for some time after a report they had received, who could or would believe that? (they must think we are so gullible that it is insulting to our intelligence). But then they had also said we didn’t need a RC into Banking/Finance Industries and refused over 20 times to hold one as they said the Industry was great and it wasn’t needed. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the need for one, forced to create one when some of their own members threatened to cross the floor. The spin that now comes out is so crass it beggars belief!

But still they have not changed the Terms of Reference to have the RC look into macro-prudential policy, regulation or oversight. They don’t want change, they don’t want tough rules, but I’m pretty sure they do want Electoral donations from the big players so they don’t want too much pain to be felt by their contributors or is that being a lot of a cynic on my part.


Nothing new in bank royal commission revelations: Scott Morrison

From the above article: “The banking industry royal commission hasn’t uncovered bad behaviour that the government didn’t know about, Treasurer Scott Morrison said, raising doubts about the usefulness of an inquiry that could cost the economy half a billion dollars.”

So if the Government knew about it:

  1. Why did they oppose the RC in Parliament?
  2. Why did it take a RC to actually get it out in the open?
  3. Why have these practices been allowed to continue?
  4. Why did they not legislate to address the issues?

I hope that quote is juxtaposed against the earlier quotes about the big financial institutions not having done anything wrong because the Government had it all under control.

Maybe if enough people become aware, their outrage may lead them to question the status quo and encourage consumer activism.

OK… I know I’m dreaming :wink:


This article is now 2 1/2 weeks old. I wonder if Morrison knew at that time the true depth of the problem as it has become apparent from the recent results from the RC? If so, the RC has made public matters that he was hiding that should have come out long ago . If not, it is fulfilling its purpose discovering new facts that we are entitled to know. In both cases the RC was required and Morrison shows up poorly for both delaying it and for making such weak excuses for doing so. You would think when anything he says is problematic he ought to be smart enough to say nothing. Apparently he is another Minister that doesn’t understand holes enough to know when to stop digging.

I don’t know how he keeps his job, almost every time he makes a statement he sounds like a lightweight who doesn’t know what is going on. It’s hard to take him seriously as the occupant of such a key office. So what will we get in the next budget? Lots of pork, barrels and barrels of it, spending lavishly all the way to the next election. Stay tuned for the tax cuts and gratuities carefully timed to be in mind just before the vote. Will that be what the country truly needs or just what the incumbent government needs?


The current Government are certainly fanboys of the banking industry and seem be doing their best to run interference for them.

Remember they wanted to remove the reforms the Labor Party put in place to do with financial advisors, but failed. They also have attempted to torpedo the Industry Super Funds, the most successful section of the superannuation industry.

I think that if the Government weren’t aware of what was going on they are culpable, and if they didn’t they are culpable.

It is time to open the RC’s ToRs up to investigate, recommend, and prosecute where the evidence takes them.


You are unintentionally getting into ideology there. One party thinks their part of the super industry is successful but could be far more successful (eg profitable) without having to compete with industry funds.

Most of us, on the other hand, would identify those with the best returns as the most successful as we would be ignoring the retail fund groups dividends in our equation.


Sorry if it sounds that way, but I am not that well versed in superannuation. I was stating what I had heard on numerous ABC business reports, and as reported on Canstar:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but whether you look at one, three, or seven year returns, I think all the top performing funds are industry super funds.

Please let me know if I am misunderstanding.


It would be so much better if the Government admitted they were wrong, and started to discuss how the finance sector could be made to work for their clients, the consumers.


I took @TheBBG’s post to mean it is by who’s definition whether funds are considered successful or not.

Retail funds Shareholders think their funds are successful by the share dividends they receive, but not probably by the clients. And if they didn’t have to compete with Industry Funds they would be even more successful for their share owners.

Industry Funds clients think they are successful because their investments in the funds grow faster & bigger than retail funds do, and their shareholders (hold on a minute what shareholders :slight_smile: ).

Anyway that was my take on his post.


That is the case with the default funds. My apologies as my attempt at sarcasm toward government was a miss -> government thinks the retail funds are quite successful because they are so profitable.

but government’s value system is the retail funds are quite successful because they are so profitable.

Yes! Just because industry funds are mostly better for more members than retail funds, government considers that the retail funds are quite successful because they are so profitable. Profits (and dividends) are so important!

Got it? :wink:


Thank you @TheBBG & @grahroll for your gracious explanations.

I’m a bit slow on the uptake on this one. Just the word ‘superannuation’ is enough to make my brain fog over. :confused: :thinking:

(Please type slower to give me a chance to keep up?)

:bulb: OK, I understand what was being said now. Thank you.


I believe you meant to include @grahroll rather than myself and myself :)[quote=“meltam6554, post:115, topic:14825”]
I understand what was being said now. Thank you.

You are so very welcome!


You are once again correct Phil. :blush: I must be tired, or the fog hasn’t lifted.

I have corrected my error.

Should I thank @grahroll twice too (just to make it even)?


lol.(20 characters later ) :slight_smile:


Everyone should be reading each and every article and interview regarding the financial services debacle revealed by the RC and decide who they feel works for whose interests, and who steps up to reality and who does not regarding our financial industry (and probably other issues).


Priceless commentary, especially

‘Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims says the financial services royal commission is hearing from bankers who say they want to do the right thing, but that would affect their profits and share price.’

Our banks have been the most profitable in the world largely because of that jaded sense of irresponsibility to their customers. The executive KPIs must have been firmly overweighted to profits and share prices with no content about anything else.