# Royal Commission Into Banks



## Tisme (8 April 2016)

I thinking there will be a lot pf bank tellers worried they will cop the blame for the criminal behaviour of anyone, but the LNP elite base in charge of the four pillars.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 April 2016)

Tisme said:


> I thinking there will be a lot pf bank tellers worried they will cop the blame for the criminal behaviour of anyone, but the LNP elite base in charge of the four pillars.




Bank tellers, what are they ?


----------



## Tisme (8 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Bank tellers, what are they ?





She works out of the gunyah, somewhere on the Birdsville track.


----------



## basilio (8 April 2016)

ONCE UPON A TIME... we had publicly owned Commonwealth Bank and State Banks.  They were established to offer effective competition to the private banking system which was far too self interested to offer the broader public a fair deal. While these banks stayed in the market place the privately run banks had a benchmark of behaviour, costs and wages.

When Governments privatised the banks the bench marks disappeared. They only benchmarks  currently in place are the amount of profit that can be created by
1) Slashing employee numbers
2) Creating new and imaginative fee structures
3) Extending credit levels in whatever way necessary to make a buck regardless of risk
4) Creating new financial offerings to shear the sheeple ie financial planning,  super plans

The prize for this progress ?  Being able to command the highest salary package as a CEO.


----------



## CanOz (8 April 2016)

You lot are real socialists aren't you? I mean i'm all for paying taxes to get good schooling and healthcare for the masses, but the state has no business running banks ffs!


----------



## SirRumpole (8 April 2016)

CanOz said:


> You lot are real socialists aren't you? I mean i'm all for paying taxes to get good schooling and healthcare for the masses, but the state has no business running banks ffs!




The private sector has no business ripping people off either. 

The banks have no business asking the government to guarantee their funds when trouble hits the economy.

Private sector greed in the finance sector has the capacity to adversely affect all of us so there needs to be strict regulation. I wouldn't object to at least one bank being government owned for the sake of consumer confidence. 

Let the others take the risk of lending to dodgy businesses.


----------



## CanOz (8 April 2016)

> The private sector has no business ripping people off either.




Agree, but this should be regulated by competition and watched over by the regulators.



> The banks have no business asking the government to guarantee their funds when trouble hits the economy.




Agree, again businesses, including banks need to be regulated to prevent getting to a stage where they need to be bailed out in order to prevent a systemic risk/run on the banks. 



> Private sector greed in the finance sector has the capacity to adversely affect all of us so there needs to be strict regulation.




Agree, you can't trust bankers....anywhere



> I wouldn't object to at least one bank being government owned for the sake of consumer confidence.




Why i don't agree with this, is because there are very few shining examples of Governments managing anything well. Seriously, a private business reporting to shareholders, with good corporate governance, has a better change at turning a profit effectively and efficiently. 



> Let the others take the risk of lending to dodgy businesses.




So your Government bank would only lend to 'good' businesses'? While all the time the RBA (a Bank Governed by a board made up of mostly Government) is lending to the other banks


----------



## orr (8 April 2016)

basilio said:


> ONCE UPON A TIME...
> 
> The prize for this progress ?  Being able to command the highest salary package as a CEO.




It will take me a short time to locate the detail, But the salary of the last public servant to administer the Commonwealth bank is a very interesting figure to compare to criminal carpetbaggers that now fill the 'free market positions' of bank CEO's today.... Someone feel free to beat me to it.

It's the LNP's unstated objective to make sure that there is NO Royal Commission into banks and Finance sectors. To have it force fed by public fury on their watch is great schadenfreude.

Morrison's shrill entreaties of foreign investor distemper over such in inquest says it all with regard to the true contempt he and the LNP business shills have  for the mug local.


----------



## CanOz (8 April 2016)

orr said:


> mug local.




Thug local...you spelt that incorrectly Orr.


----------



## noco (8 April 2016)

basilio said:


> ONCE UPON A TIME... we had publicly owned Commonwealth Bank and State Banks.  They were established to offer effective competition to the private banking system which was far too self interested to offer the broader public a fair deal. While these banks stayed in the market place the privately run banks had a benchmark of behaviour, costs and wages.
> 
> When Governments privatised the banks the bench marks disappeared. They only benchmarks  currently in place are the amount of profit that can be created by
> 1) Slashing employee numbers
> ...




If my memory serves me correct, The Commonwealth Bank was owned by the Government and created competition and control of the banking system very well...Private banks dare not step out of line for fear of going out of business and the system worked very well until, in their wisdom, The Labor Government at the time decided to sell the assets to fill their black hole.....

Now Bill Shorten wants to hold a Royal Commission into the banking system and it is going to happen because of the Labor Party's bad decision.

Labor has taken control of the media (ABC/SBS) and their next effort will be to nationalize the banks followed by manufacturing, mining and agriculture.......They call it Democratic Socialism (Communism) CENTRAL CONTROL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Bank

*Deregulation (1983–1991)
1980s logo

In 1989 the bank acquired 75 per cent of ASB Bank in New Zealand.

In 1991 the bank acquired the failing Victorian Government-owned State Bank of Victoria (est. 1842).
Privatisation and the Colonial merger (1990–2000)

Between 1991 and 1996 the Australian government fully privatised the Commonwealth Bank. The first share offer in 1991 was valued at $1,292 million, the second in 1993 for $1,700 million and the third was sold for $5,000 million in 1996.[7] It is a public company, but one of the few such companies in Australia whose official name does not end in 'Limited'.

In 1994 Commonwealth sold its shares in National Bank of Solomon Islands to Bank of Hawaii.

In 1994, Commonwealth took a 50% share in PT Bank International Indonesia.

On 10 March 2000, the Commonwealth Bank and Colonial Limited announced their intention to merge, with seven Commonwealth Bank shares being offered for twenty Colonial Shares. The merger received final approval from the Supreme Court of Victoria on 31 May 2000 and was completed on 13 June 2000. This brought into the fold Colonial’s stake in Colonial National Bank, the former National Bank of Fiji. The bank also acquired the remaining 25% of ASB Bank.

Banking opportunities in Asia saw the Bank in 2000 acquire full ownership of PT Bank International Indonesia and rename it (PT Bank Commonwealth). This bank now has over 16 branches and has opened several FX shops to cater to Commonwealth Bank clients who are tourists in Bal*i.

Now then, which party was in control of government 1990/1996?

The Labor started the Commonwealth Bank and the Labor Party ended it.


----------



## McLovin (8 April 2016)

basilio said:


> ONCE UPON A TIME... we had publicly owned Commonwealth Bank and State Banks.  They were established to offer effective competition to the private banking system which was far too self interested to offer the broader public a fair deal. While these banks stayed in the market place the privately run banks had a benchmark of behaviour, costs and wages.




Ironically, it was the government owned banks that went to the wall in the last recession. Even Westpac, the most impaired private bank at the time, never got close to blowing itself up like the state banks. If that was the benchmark, no thanks.

IMO, I think we're coming to the end of the era of big bank profits and high returns. It will take the better part of a decade to play out though.


----------



## PZ99 (8 April 2016)

If there's a RC clearly John Dyson Heydon will be the Govt's first pick for Commissioner


----------



## SirRumpole (8 April 2016)

CanOz said:


> Why i don't agree with this, is because there are very few shining examples of Governments managing anything well. Seriously, a private business reporting to shareholders, with good corporate governance, has a better change at turning a profit effectively and efficiently.




The Commonwealth Bank and Bank of NSW operated effectively for years under government control. It was only after they were sold off that they started ripping people off. A government run bank would likely have lower profits, but would be safer. There needs to be a safety valve in the financial sector.



> So your Government bank would only lend to 'good' businesses'? While all the time the RBA (a Bank Governed by a board made up of mostly Government) is lending to the other banks




I would expect a good government run bank to concentrate on the safer consumer market and to do due diligence when it lent it's (our) money and ensure that there would be good expectations of getting the money back from profits of the businesses it lends to rather than fire sales of the assets after they go broke.


----------



## CanOz (8 April 2016)

> The Commonwealth Bank and Bank of NSW operated effectively for years under government control. It was only after they were sold off that they started ripping people off. A government run bank would likely have lower profits, but would be safer. There needs to be a safety valve in the financial sector.




Really, was they were profitable? How profitable? How do you know they were efficiently using their capital? I'm not saying they weren't, I'm just skeptical as to why they would be privatized if they were doing so well.



> I would expect a good government run bank to concentrate on the safer consumer market and to do due diligence when it lent it's (our) money and ensure that there would be good expectations of getting the money back from profits of the businesses it lends to rather than fire sales of the assets after they go broke[




That 'safe' consumer market is what nearly took down the global financial markets, its not the market, but the risk involved in any lending book, be it consumer or corporate. I think what you're trying to say is that a government back may not take the risks that a private bank might, in order to leverage up their exposure. I get that.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 April 2016)

CanOz said:


> Really, was they were profitable? How profitable? How do you know they were efficiently using their capital? I'm not saying they weren't, I'm just skeptical as to why they would be privatized if they were doing so well.




They were privatised *because* they were doing well and there were people wanting to buy them, and the government needed cash to pay off debts.

 If they were not profitable why would people want to buy them ?


----------



## Tisme (8 April 2016)

PZ99 said:


> If there's a RC clearly John Dyson Heydon will be the Govt's first pick for Commissioner






And that predator woman as his coxswain.


----------



## Tisme (8 April 2016)

> He told ABC radio’s Fran Kelly: “He voted against it a year ago, Fran, but apparently in the eve of an election when there’s a few reports about banks, Bill Shorten is up there in his ill-fitting suit, puffing his chest up, and saying we need to thump the table. This is just classic political distraction.
> 
> “*Think about people offshore.* What sort of message do you think Bill Shorten saying there needs to be a royal commission into the banks sends to the international community about confidence in the Australian banking system?”





I thought it was taboo to think of the people offshore coz they are terrorists looking for a free lunch. 

Morrison is worse than Noco in blaming Billy for everything short of causing WWII 


flip side:



> Mr Shorten accused the government of “selective hearing” after it zealously launched a royal commission into trade union governance.
> 
> “If there was a building worker, a tradie, then the government is over them like a rash examining their behaviour.
> 
> “But the top end of town, the banks, the government is so quick out of the blocks to rule out a royal commission, it’s breathtaking.”


----------



## cynic (8 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> They were privatised *because* they were doing well and there were people wanting to buy them, and the government needed cash to pay off debts.
> 
> If they were not profitable why would people want to buy them ?




Interesting question. So what is your understanding of the reasoning behind the purchase of State Bank of Victoria by the Commonwealth Bank?


----------



## orr (8 April 2016)

CanOz said:


> I'm just skeptical as to w*hy* they would be privatized if they were doing so well.




Why???

Neo Conserative Rationalism.... have you been asleep for the last 35 odd years? the great 'neo con' the global fetish of the slovenly, greedy and weak brained. Here's Guy Rundle on the topic;

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au...y-abbott-and-the-conservatives/14589108003047


----------



## McLovin (8 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Commonwealth Bank and Bank of NSW operated effectively for years under government control. It was only after they were sold off that they started ripping people off. A government run bank would likely have lower profits, but would be safer. There needs to be a safety valve in the financial sector.




How do you explain the 60% decline in net interest margin since privatisation? How would a government owned bank be safer when the most recent instances of bank failure in Australia have been government owned banks.


----------



## noco (8 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Commonwealth Bank and Bank of NSW operated effectively for years under government control. It was only after they were sold off that they started ripping people off. A government run bank would likely have lower profits, but would be safer. There needs to be a safety valve in the financial sector.
> 
> 
> 
> I would expect a good government run bank to concentrate on the safer consumer market and to do due diligence when it lent it's (our) money and ensure that there would be good expectations of getting the money back from profits of the businesses it lends to rather than fire sales of the assets after they go broke.




So why did the Labor Party sell off the Commonwealth bank in the first place?

The Labor Party created the bank and the Labor Party destroyed it.


----------



## orr (8 April 2016)

McLovin said:


> How do you explain the 60% decline in net interest margin since privatisation? How would a government owned bank be safer when the most recent instances of bank failure in Australia have been government owned banks.
> 
> View attachment 66222




We are talking about a Royal Commission into Australian Banks. What Government owned Australian bank 'nearly went to the wall in the last recession' your quote, or any recession post the 1930's  depression? I'm always eager to learn. 
How does a government owned bank go broke? Without the said country being broke. Soros and the Bank of England being a renowned exemplar 
And give us another graph of margins going back a couple of more decades, if you've got one handy... I'm particularly interested in the 'golden' post war expansion era of regulated banking, regulation instituted because of the Depression, retail mortgage interest rates though that period being in the realms of 4.5 to 5.5%.
My immediate reaction to your graph would be that bank margins operate as a percentage of the nominal(retail) rate.

Bretton Woods ... Glass Streagall... Chicago School... Hayek ... These things mean anything to you?  Galbraith obviously doesn't.
.


----------



## Value Collector (8 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The banks have no business asking the government to guarantee their funds when trouble hits the economy.
> 
> .




The government doesn't guarantee the banks funds, it provides a guarantee to the depositors on their funds up to certain limits.

The government does not in anyway guarantee the banks equity holders capital, the banks equity holders will lose 100% of their capital before the depositors lose anything and the government guarantee becomes effective.

-----------------------------------

Banks provide a great service to the economy by borrowing short term and lending long term, eg they borrow cash from depositors which is at call and lend it on 30 year loans.

This makes them at risk to bank runs, eg depositors all want their money today, but the money has been lend out in 30year loans.

The bank guarantee is there to stop bank runs, and therefore protect the system from severe booms and busts that isn't good for anyone.


----------



## Value Collector (8 April 2016)

orr said:


> How does a government owned bank go broke?




By lending out depositors money into bad loans.
By having operating costs that are higher than the income.

a government owned commercial bank can't print money, it still has to comply with the normal laws of business.


----------



## DB008 (8 April 2016)

The banks are sure quick to raise interest rates but slow to drop 'em.

Also, when l lived in London a very long time ago l could use my HSBC card at any of the other big banks atm's for free. Not here...


----------



## McLovin (8 April 2016)

orr said:


> We are talking about a Royal Commission into Australian Banks. What Government owned Australian bank 'nearly went to the wall in the last recession' your quote, or any recession post the 1930's  depression? I'm always eager to learn.




The state banks of SA and Victoria. They didn't nearly go to the wall, they collapsed. The state bank of NSW was pretty much fried after the 1980s as well, although it never collapsed.



> The State Bank of Victoria was a bank that existed from 1842 until 1990 when it was taken over by the Commonwealth Bank.[1] It was owned by the State of Victoria.
> 
> The bank collapsed due to the weight of the bad loans made in the 1980s, in particular by its merchant banking arm Tricontinental, after deregulation of the banking industry in the mid-1980s by the Hawke ALP government. Tricontinental eventually collapsed, which threatened the existence of the State Bank and forced its sale to the Commonwealth Bank.[2]
> These events were a key factor in the defeat of the Labor government of Joan Kirner and the election of the Liberal Party, led by Jeff Kennett, at the 1992 Victorian state election.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Bank_of_Victoria



> The State Bank of South Australia was a bank created in 1984 and owned by the Government of South Australia. The bank became the subject of a two-year South Australian Royal Commission upon collapse in 1991. The surviving part of the bank now exists as BankSA.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Bank_of_South_Australia



			
				orr said:
			
		

> How does a government owned bank go broke?




You need that explained?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 April 2016)

Labor has announced it will hold an RC into the banking and finance sector and if the LNP don't follow suit it will look as though they are covering up for the "big end of town".

Will be interesting to see Turnbull squirm over this one, some of his own Ministers and MP's want an RC too.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...yal-commission-into-baking-misconduct/7311006


----------



## noco (9 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Labor has announced it will hold an RC into the banking and finance sector and if the LNP don't follow suit it will look as though they are covering up for the "big end of town".
> 
> Will be interesting to see Turnbull squirm over this one, some of his own Ministers and MP's want an RC too.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...yal-commission-into-baking-misconduct/7311006




Just another wasted $80 million......The LUG Party whinged about $50 million used on the TURC resulting 100 convictions of trade union officials.......I understand there has already been an inquiry into banking system and nothing was found to be untoward.

Just another Labor Party preelection stunt.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 April 2016)

noco said:


> Just another wasted $80 million......The LUG Party whinged about $50 million used on the TURC resulting 100 convictions of trade union officials.......I understand there has already been an inquiry into banking system and nothing was found to be untoward.
> 
> Just another Labor Party preelection stunt.




The Abbott government could have de-registered the CFMEU instead of wasting $80 million on a RC.

Confidence in the banking system must be assured which is why an enquiry is necessary and will be worth the money.


----------



## noco (9 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Abbott government could have de-registered the CFMEU instead of wasting $80 million on a RC.
> 
> Confidence in the banking system must be assured which is why an enquiry is necessary and will be worth the money.




Ummm...It was only $50 million.

De-register the CFMEU??????.....But then the rotten apples would have got off Scott free.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n/news-story/35dae35f38998e3bec7e0a4e429ac68a

*BCA chief executive Jennifer Westacott said: “Establishing a royal commission into financial services when there is already *robust regulatory oversight in place risks undermining confidence at a critical time in the economic cycle, and could have a serious impact on investment and growth.’’

As Immigration Minister Peter Dutton labelled Labor’s move “a stunt”, Mr Morrison said there was already a “cop on the beat” when it came to banks. This included the Reserve Bank, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Council of Financial Regulators and the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, which he said had greater powers than a royal commission.

Banks differed on the need for the probe. NAB chief executive Andrew Thorburn said he was concerned an inquiry would be a “serious distraction” but the democratic process was paramount, while a Westpac spokesman rejected a royal commission as “not necessary’’.

Australian Bankers Association chief executive Steven Munchenberg said many of the *issues a royal commission would look at had already been examined by previous inquires whose findings were being implemented.*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...m/news-story/ef51831ac3d518687850298f77de50a4

*Labor’s latest atavistic forays into financial and industry policy extend a worrying trend towards economic populism that poses a serious threat to Australians’ long-run living standards and its own credibility. Bill Shorten’s flippant, populist call for a royal commission into banking is yet another sign the party that nurtured Australia’s development into a prosperous free-market economy in the 1980s is returning to its roots as a party of command and control. Labor’s previous flirtation with banking royal commissions, in 1936, ended badly for it, producing Ben Chifley’s famous three-page addendum advocating full bank nationalisation, which ultimately would propel Labor into 23 years of electoral oblivion in 1949.*

Ben Chiefly tried to nationalize the banks in 1936 and it still the aim of the LUG party and this is why they want an RC to use as a lever. Labor’s latest atavistic forays into financial and industry policy extend a worrying trend towards economic populism that poses a serious threat to Australians’ long-run living standards and its own credibility. Bill Shorten’s flippant, populist call for a royal commission into banking is yet another sign the party that nurtured Australia’s development into a prosperous free-market economy in the 1980s is returning to its roots as a party of command and control. Labor’s previous flirtation with banking royal commissions, in 1936, ended badly for it, producing Ben Chifley’s famous three-page addendum advocating full bank nationalisation, which ultimately would propel Labor into 23 years of electoral oblivion in 1949.

The Labor Party's democratic socialism (Communism) ideology is, and always has been central control.....First the media (ABC/SBS) and then the banks.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 April 2016)

I may remind you, as you yourself have already pointed out, it was a socialist , Fabianistic, communist Keating government that sold the Commonwealth Bank.


----------



## noco (9 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I may remind you, as you yourself have already pointed out, it was a socialist , Fabianistic, communist Keating government that sold the Commonwealth Bank.




Rumpy, If Labor had not sold the Commonwealth Bank in the 1990's, there would have been far more competi6ion among banks in 2016.

The Beattie Labor government also sold the Queensland Golden casket for $599 million....The Golden Casket was the "GOLDEN EGG' which paid for the building and operation of Queensland hospitals......Beattie had no brain only a mouthful of cheesy teeth.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 April 2016)

McLovin said:


> The state banks of SA and Victoria. They didn't nearly go to the wall, they collapsed. The state bank of NSW was pretty much fried after the 1980s as well, although it never collapsed.




Much the same with Tasmania Bank too and for very similar reasons. Didn't collapse but was basically stuffed by the time of the merger with the SBT to create Trust Bank (since taken over by Colonial and then Commonwealth).

I don't think it mattered who was in government at the time. Liberal completely trashed the state's finances in Tas during the 1980's just as Labor did in Vic. Both states were close to broke by the time those governments were replaced. And just as Labor had to fix the mess in Tas, the Liberals had to fix it in Vic. 

It was what happened at that time, which party was governing didn't seem to make a difference in practice since the outcome was very similar.

Personally I'm not in favour of government-run banks. Banks aren't a natural monopoly like water or power, they can reasonably compete and seem to be doing so. That said there's an obvious need for stability and regulation.

So far as any bail out of a private bank is concerned, I do think it ought to involve very strict conditions and that these should be made known well before the need arises.


----------



## McLovin (10 April 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Much the same with Tasmania Bank too and for very similar reasons. Didn't collapse but was basically stuffed by the time of the merger with the SBT to create Trust Bank (since taken over by Colonial and then Commonwealth).
> 
> I don't think it mattered who was in government at the time. Liberal completely trashed the state's finances in Tas during the 1980's just as Labor did in Vic. Both states were close to broke by the time those governments were replaced. And just as Labor had to fix the mess in Tas, the Liberals had to fix it in Vic.
> 
> ...




Hey we agree!

It didn't really matter which party was in power or who the ultimate owners of individual banks were, the problem was that regulation couldn't keep up with the rate of change; a bunch of previously caged up bankers were let loose and really had no idea what they were doing. Before the banks were deregulated and the dollar was floated they were pretty febrile institutions that derived more than half their funding from low/no interest deposits. The funding mix and the difficulty in obtaining foreign finance put a natural handbrake on how much banks could lend. Then suddenly in the 1980's it was a free-for-all. 

I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that Westpac should have never been allowed to buy St George (although St George was in a fair bit of trouble when it was taken over) and CBA should have not been allowed to buy Bankwest. It's concentrated the power of the big four even further. Now that it's happened it's going to be very difficult to undo. Anything that weakens the position of the banks and the ability to pay chunky dividends will be vehemently objected to by the caravan industry and their customers..


----------



## Value Collector (10 April 2016)

I am currently a third of the way through Ben Bernanke's book "the courage to act", it's a pretty interesting read so far, I would recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about the gfc from the Feds side or the financial system in general.


----------



## noco (16 April 2016)

Judith Sloan sums up Bill Shorten's populist act on a Bank RC......Last year the Greens proposed the Bank RC and Shorten knocked it back and now he has back flipped to gain some votes at all costs.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...r/news-story/a92566a43a3e1a295ccede3c26a71146

*Bill Shorten is like the boy in the sandpit comparing his sandcastle with the constructions of the other junior sandcastle builders. If they can have a royal commission on trade unions, he can have a royal commission on banks. So there.

Take it from me, this does not make for good public policy. Indeed, only a year ago, the Labor Party didn’t see the need for a banking royal commission, rejecting the attempt of the capitalism-hating Greens to bring one on.

But you have to understand that ‘‘scandals’’ have taken place that justify a royal commission, which will directly cost more than $50 million — and triple or quadruple that figure for the banks and other parties that are forced to participate.

But let’s face it, it’s just a political stunt. After all, that sum of money could be directed immediately to the authorities that regulate the banking sector. Mind you, Shorten is not committing to make up for the money that these authorities were required to find by way of efficiency dividends (along with other government departments and agencies) by the current federal government.

So what precisely are these scandals and how should they be interpreted in the context of very high (and rising) levels of customer satisfaction with the banks?

Some of them are old and relate to financial planning activities undertaken within the banks. Having said that, shonky and conflicted financial planning has not been confined to banks; there are plenty of small financial planners as well as those who work for non-bank institutions who have duped their customers.

Don’t get me wrong: some of the stories are appalling and involve outright fraud, including forged signatures and failure to inform. But if you go to a bank to seek financial planning advice and are surprised that advice would include investing in bank-related products, you are truly naive.*

Read more >


----------



## SirRumpole (3 August 2017)

The Commonwealth Bank faces fines of potentially trillions for breaches of money laundering laws.

More fuel on the fire of a Royal Commission which is now a lot closer imo.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-...t-scandal-might-be-the-one-that-hurts/8772390


----------



## luutzu (3 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I am currently a third of the way through Ben Bernanke's book "the courage to act", it's a pretty interesting read so far, I would recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about the gfc from the Feds side or the financial system in general.




Did he say it was the right thing to do?


----------



## Tisme (4 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The Commonwealth Bank faces fines of potentially trillions for breaches of money laundering laws.
> 
> More fuel on the fire of a Royal Commission which is now a lot closer imo.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-...t-scandal-might-be-the-one-that-hurts/8772390





Never going to happen. The Libs would never **** in their own nests and the Labs don't have the stomach.e for them.

It's probably only the CIA washing money, just like they did with Nugan Hand until some twit spoiled the party.


----------



## sptrawler (24 March 2018)

It is interesting, that everyone is up in arms about the welfare card, where the Government dictates that 80% of the funds must be spent on essentials.
Also everyone is up in arms, that the Banks lend money to working people, because they have a gambling habit.
Weird, it seems like a contradiction.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-...card-limit-increases/9577654?section=business

On one hand, an institution shouldn't be able to dictate what someone spends their money on.

Then on the other hand, an institution is responsible for giving money to someone, who doesn't spend it responsibly.
We really are lost souls.


----------



## luutzu (25 March 2018)

sptrawler said:


> It is interesting, that everyone is up in arms about the welfare card, where the Government dictates that 80% of the funds must be spent on essentials.
> Also everyone is up in arms, that the Banks lend money to working people, because they have a gambling habit.
> Weird, it seems like a contradiction.
> 
> ...




Not really.

In one instance you have poor but not idiotic people; on the other you have slightly rich but somewhat idiotic people. 

It's more sensible to watch people who do idiotic things than those who are just poor.

Banks, either directly or when managed by smarter executives, do participate in predatory lending practises. That's the kind of practise where if you have no conscience and a good legal team, there's good money to be made.


----------



## Tisme (26 March 2018)

I suspect there is a shite load of industry collusion that simply occurs by cross employment , where journeymen move around the four pillars imparting the practices of the others.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 April 2018)

The AMP directors admitted they lied to the Royal Commission and ripped off consumers by charging for services not delivered.

The whole board should resign and be barred from any further directorships in this country, ever.

As a minor AMP shareholder I'm disgusted with their actions and the consequent affect on the share price and shame that they have bought to the company.


----------



## basilio (19 April 2018)

If one wants to take a longer view of why we are having a Royal Commission into the banking industry this resource is useful.

*A recent history of Australia's banking scandals*
It was a long and chequered road to the banking royal commission and as public hearings continue the revelations just keep coming. Here, we’ve collated some of the more outrageous moments in the banking and financial sector in the nine years since the global financial crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...recent-history-of-australias-banking-scandals


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2018)

LNP has egg on its face over this. They thought it would be a good opportunity to demonise the Union Funds, but now finds out the people who would most benefit from the corporate tax cuts are endemically corrupt.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> LNP has egg on its face over this. They thought it would be a good opportunity to demonise the Union Funds, but now finds out the people who would most benefit from the corporate tax cuts are endemically corrupt.




Indeed , and the people remember that the Coalition fought the idea of a RC into banks tooth and nail, and were dragged into it. That's not a good look for them.

The bank execs who thought they would get a soft deal from a LNP Royal Commisison, must be vomiting into their Chardonnay glasses these days.


----------



## basilio (20 April 2018)

It will be  interesting to see how quickly acknowledged instances of fraud/malpractice are referred to State anmd Federal prosecutors.

It will be interesting to see what it takes to get an extension of the Royal Commission as it becomes clear that the barrel is rotten to the core and that it will take much longer to sort out the mess. (Perhaps the Government should ask/tell the Banking Industry rather than the tax payers  to pay for the extension?)

At what stage will shareholders and other organisations hold bank management to account for their malpractice and  sharply reduce the sky high salaries and bonuses they give themslves?

Finally what effect could this Royal Commission have on the over profitability of the banking industry? Is there a strong  possibility that short and long term profits will be so compromised that share prices  will fall significantly? What knock on effects effect could that have? I wonder if/why stockbrokers aren't making this sort of analysis at the moment ?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 April 2018)

basilio said:


> Is there a strong possibility that short and long term profits will be so compromised that share prices will fall significantly?




AMP's share price has drastically reduced. The only way to get it respectable again is to get rid of the current board.


----------



## explod (20 April 2018)

Monetary penalties mainly impact shareholders, many of which are super funds.

The culprits need to be identified, sent to gaol or given individual monetary penalties.


----------



## Tisme (21 April 2018)

explod said:


> Monetary penalties mainly impact shareholders, many of which are super funds.
> 
> The culprits need to be identified, sent to gaol or given individual monetary penalties.




Will their replacements be from the same old pool of trough feeders?


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (22 April 2018)

What has the regulator (ASIC & FOS) been doing though. They would be well aware of all these issues that are supposedly coming out now with the royal commission.

People in most cases have to go to FOS or ASIC prior to taking the legal option. 

Have an elderly friend (full pensioner) who has a “dispute” in with FOS at present where an insurance company has behaved very bad. The pensioner’s brand.

They conduct a preliminary view, and then move to a ruling on the “dispute” which is binding to the FSP.


----------



## Darc Knight (23 April 2018)

It's interesting how people are referring to the "once mighty AMP" as having their name tainted by this. But I recall AMP being caught out for unethical conduct twenty odd years ago.
AMP's law firm Clayton Utz has a similar reputation. I recall a Four Corners episode highlighting Clayton Utz shredding documentary evidence during a Case, while defending Phillip Morris tobacco.
Julie Bishop was a managing partner of Clayton Utz before becoming a Pollie. Shame on you Julie.


----------



## basilio (24 April 2018)

This Royal Commission is just *incendiary.* The latest testimony by a women who went to a financial planner for advice is jaw dropping. Just a taste here. Check out the unfolding story on The Guardian.

0m ago 00:25 

_McKenna had her *super in two public-sector funds*. One had a *deferred benefit* *worth $500,000*, which she would receive, unless she left the scheme before the age of 58. 

She *was not yet 58 *at the time she sought the *advice from Henderson*. 

The advice was *prepared and Henderson and McKenna met again in December 2016*. 

The principal recommendation was that she should *establish a self-managed superannuation fund* by rolling out one of her public-sector funds. 

The recommendation would have *caused her to lose the $500,000*. 

This is *despite McKenna’s clear and repeated instructions* that she wasn’t interested in a self-managed super fund, that it could leave her bankrupt and that bankruptcy would cost her her job. 
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-the-stand-as-politicians-urge-patience-live
_


----------



## basilio (24 April 2018)

I don't think Sam Henderson will be a Financial Advisor after this afternoon... But check out just what a big wheel this guy is in the finance industry.

*AZNGA acquires Henderson Maxwell - InvestorDaily*

*TV - Sam Henderson*
*samhenderson.com.au/tv/*
*Sam Henderson has been a trusted voice in TV for many years and hosts a show on Sky News Business every Thursday night at 8pm called Your Money Your Call Retirement. The show is filmed live and is designed to answer viewer questions over the phone or via email. You can have your questions answered live by ...*

The royal commission is hearing about Henderson’s celebrity status. He has a Friday night show on Sky Business, appears regularly on channel 10’s The Project, and writes for the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian Financial Review, the Age and Money Magazine.


----------



## moXJO (24 April 2018)

explod said:


> Monetary penalties mainly impact shareholders, many of which are super funds.
> 
> The culprits need to be identified, sent to gaol or given individual monetary penalties.



This is a really good point.


----------



## basilio (24 April 2018)

_"Monetary penalties mainly impact shareholders, many of which are super funds.

The culprits need to be identified, sent to gaol or given individual monetary penalties."   Explod_



moXJO said:


> This is a really good point.




I suspect after today Sam Henderson will be on very short odds to be first off the ranks. (Unless of course some other unbelievably greedy story surfaces)
The story continues to unfold at the Royal Commission.
39 
*Celebrity adviser's employee impersonated client to get super account details*

_*Extraordinary evidence* here. This relates to the case of *Donna McKenna*, a fair work commissioner, who we’ve been discussing. 

Celebrity financial adviser *Sam* *Henderson had* pushed McKenna repeatedly to put her super into a self-managed super fund and have it managed by his firm, which would, of course, *entail significant fees*. It would also have *cost McKenna $500,000 for withdrawing her super* from her public sector fund before the age of 58. 

It has just emerged that *an employee of Henderson Maxwell* pretended to be McKenna, called her existing superannuation funds, and asked for details about the account. The royal commission *hears recordings of the calls*. 
_
*In the recordings, it is made plain to the Henderson Maxwell employee that McKenna would lose $500,000 if she moved to a self-managed fund. Yet, remarkably, Henderson’s firm still formally advises McKenna to do so. 
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-the-stand-as-politicians-urge-patience-live
*


----------



## basilio (24 April 2018)

The Sam Henderson story is dynamite. It will be interesting to see how the various media outlets approach the story.

Actually the whole day of evidence has exposed the banks to so much drama the only good point (for them) is that there will be plenty of other people to point teh finger at.

In fact it has many similarities to the Royal Commission on child sexual abuse.  Because there were so many organisations and people exposed the public seemed to "accept" what in other circumstances would have required far more drastic responses.


----------



## bellenuit (24 April 2018)

basilio said:


> The Sam Henderson story is dynamite. It will be interesting to see how the various media outlets approach the story.
> 
> Actually the whole day of evidence has exposed the banks to so much drama the only good point (for them) is that there will be plenty of other people to point teh finger at.
> 
> In fact it has many similarities to the Royal Commission on child sexual abuse.  Because there were so many organisations and people exposed the public seemed to "accept" what in other circumstances would have required far more drastic responses.




Has it been revealed if Henderson's client actually went ahead with moving her funds to an SMSF. And if not, what cause her to not heed his recommendation.


----------



## basilio (24 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Has it been revealed if Henderson's client actually went ahead with moving her funds to an SMSF. And if not, what cause her to not heed his recommendation.




She was * well aware and repeatedly told* Henderson that if she did move her super funds to an SMSF she would lose $500,000.  And yet Henderson kept trying to get her to set up an SMSF in his company. She thought that advice was risible and told him so.

Check out the live story on The Guardian.

____________________________________

Geat to see The Guardian follow this Royal Commission with immediate ongoing reporting. I wonder which other media is doing likewise ?


----------



## HelloU (24 April 2018)

Good question.....and how much was the fund balance so some perspective can be gained here on the exit fee loss as a %.....these commissioner peeps get over $500K a year with allowances. It is not like they have only $50 in the defined benefits fund.


----------



## banco (24 April 2018)

Even if she had a fund balance of $5 million (very unlikely) it still would have been incredibly stupid advice. Only somebody who can't add up or a spiv financial adviser (is there any other kind?) would think otherwise.


----------



## HelloU (24 April 2018)

One dot point out of 50 alternative arrangements.......for the sake of complete professional disclosure it would be incredibly remiss to not include it. 
There is a lack of factual details here....just regurgitated headlines.


----------



## banco (24 April 2018)

That was their formal recommendation. Are you one of those spiv financial advisers? The gravy train is coming to an end. No more spewing out a template of bs for $5,000. It's going to be lean times for most financial advisers.


----------



## HelloU (24 April 2018)

The client instructed that information detailing a SMSF setup COULD be included in the written advice she was getting. The client testified she had said this to Hendersons. 
Client had at least 3 meetings with Hendersons.
@banco says above that SMSF was the formal recommendation of Hendersons. 
Client declined to setup said SMSF with them, complained and had fees refunded.
On the limited facts that are available I would think the client has done the correct thing by not taking their SMSF advice....and during the 3 meetings, if I did not want an SMSF to be considered in the 'report', I would have revoked my permission for its consideration (or cut ties with the firm if my instructions were not followed). 

There were discussions concerning the purchase of real estate from within the SMSF - what the context of this was in relation to the need for the establishment of an SMSF I do not know.


----------



## basilio (25 April 2018)

Worth reading the complete unfolding story on The Guardian website to get a fuller picture of what happened.

Sam Henderson was told repeatedly that taking his client out of her Defined Benefit Pension scheme early would cost her $500,000.  Yet despite this statement *and the fact that it was confirmed by the Pension body when he rang them up* (impersonating his client..) he still attempted to get her to close down all her accounts and create a SMSF fund under his control. That was his studied advice.

It makes one wonder how he treated his other clients. Is there a way to have their advice checked again ? It will also be interesting to see if there is any substantial sanction against Sam Henderson. So far he seems to have been slapped with a wet lettuce leaf. The complaint that Donna McKenna made is still not resolved..

*Banking royal commission: celebrity adviser asked that misconduct investigation be kept confidential – as it happened*
‘Commercial interests’ trumped interests of consumers, ANZ admits. NAB’s Andrew Hagger gives evidence about falsifying of forms. All of the day’s testimony

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-the-stand-as-politicians-urge-patience-live


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2018)

I originally assumed this wouldn't amount to much. An investigation into banking under a Coalition government sounds a lot like getting Labor to investigate unions and I wasn't expecting too many "problems" to be found.

In practice however I was clearly wrong. So much has been revealed that it now looks somewhat impossible that "business as usual" is even an option going forward. One way or another, it's going to be politically very difficult for government to not step in and heavily regulate the entire sector.

So far as owning shares is concerned, it's hard to think of a sector with greater risk at the moment.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I originally assumed this wouldn't amount to much. An investigation into banking under a Coalition government sounds a lot like getting Labor to investigate unions and I wasn't expecting too many "problems" to be found.
> 
> In practice however I was clearly wrong. So much has been revealed that it now looks somewhat impossible that "business as usual" is even an option going forward. One way or another, it's going to be politically very difficult for government to not step in and heavily regulate the entire sector.
> 
> So far as owning shares is concerned, it's hard to think of a sector with greater risk at the moment.




If banks behave like this you would have to assume that other businesses do too.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If banks behave like this you would have to assume that other businesses do too.




I think the difference is transparency.

If someone visits a Toyota dealership then nobody expects the sales staff to recommend anything other than Toyota vehicles. They make no attempt to present themselves as an objective source of information about cars, they sell Toyota and that's it. Consumers do however expect and will likely receive accurate information about the Toyota vehicles on offer through that dealer.

Same for a lot of things. A tiling company won't recommend carpet. Calling a company that does nothing other than air-conditioning and asking for the best way to heat your home won't see them recommending any means other than air-conditioning. The staff at McDonald's aren't going to say that KFC has better chicken burgers. Whoever promotes tourism in WA isn't going to suggest a trip to Queensland. And so on. With most businesses it's reasonably apparent that they're selling specific products and they don't pretend otherwise.  

The difference with the entire financial advice industry is the understanding of consumers that they were receiving actual advice rather than simply a sales pitch. They call themselves financial advisers, they don't call themselves financial salesmen. The industry has certainly created an impression that if someone seeks advice then that's what they'll receive - advise on the best course of action. 

Then there's things like loans. Consumers expect that if a bank asks for information about their income, expenses and so on and then comes back and says they can afford to borrow $x then the bank has properly worked this out that the consumer can actually afford to repay the loan. The actions of the bank certainly create this impression and they've done nothing to suggest otherwise.

A lot of this comes down to the banks creating an impression of doing something very different to what they have actually been doing.


----------



## banco (25 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as owning shares is concerned, it's hard to think of a sector with greater risk at the moment.




I think it will be mortgage brokers and financial planners that will be hit harder than the banks themselves.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (25 April 2018)

basilio said:


> Worth reading the complete unfolding story on The Guardian website to get a fuller picture of what happened.
> 
> Sam Henderson was told repeatedly that taking his client out of her Defined Benefit Pension scheme early would cost her $500,000.  Yet despite this statement *and the fact that it was confirmed by the Pension body when he rang them up* (impersonating his client..) he still attempted to get her to close down all her accounts and create a SMSF fund under his control. That was his studied advice.
> 
> ...




From what i read, this firm impersonated the client when ringing her super fund

The FPA recommended a 12 mth ban for this guy doing media???

The FPA are at RC hearing Thursday.

Donna McKenna clearly not happy with “dispute” outcome.

Regulation across a lot of sectors is appalling.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> If someone visits a Toyota dealership then nobody expects the sales staff to recommend anything other than Toyota vehicles. They make no attempt to present themselves as an objective source of information about cars, they sell Toyota and that's it. Consumers do however expect and will likely receive accurate information about the Toyota vehicles on offer through that dealer.




Sure but there are opportunities for rip offs in car dealerships on service, eg charging over the odds for spare parts when the same part can be picked up on e-Bay for half the price. The customer is supposed to trust the dealer that they are getting a fair go and not expect to have to go shopping for every part they are likely to need.


----------



## tech/a (26 April 2018)

Most here know I have basically *NO TIME* for so called financial Planners.
Fortunately I do know *ONE* good one!

If you want some interesting reading Google Banking Royal Commission 
transcript 20/4/18 go to page 91 through to 116

Here you will see a planner who operated under a Millennium 3 licence
who are a part of ANZ.

*This is exactly what I hate*. These people know nothing, do nothing and
charge vulnerable trusting people ridiculous amounts to line their *OWN*
Pocket.

*AND THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!

Yet he STILL is in Practice!

*


----------



## basilio (26 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure but there are opportunities for rip offs in car dealerships on service, eg charging over the odds for spare parts when the same part can be picked up on e-Bay for half the price. The customer is supposed to trust the dealer that they are getting a fair go and not expect to have to go shopping for every part they are likely to need.




I don't know if we should venture into the motor industry as a shining example of customer fairness....
In summary the new car service centres are  wayyy overpriced and offer very  indifferent quality. The centres have many apprentices being supervised by 1-2 trained mechanics
Car parts are priced way beyond any reasonable price for value because... well the manufacturers of cars make their profits on parts and servicing. That's just the way it is..
__________________
Many years ago I  had a couple of jobs in the car industry. One striking memory was the realisation that for many car parts they all came off the identical production line. At the end the parts were simply put into different boxes - Genuine Ford Parts, Repco,  no name brand.  Identical item vastly different prices - only according to the box label.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 April 2018)

basilio said:


> I don't know if we should venture into the motor industry as a shining example of customer fairmness....
> In summary the new car service centres are  wayyy overpriced and very  indifferent quality.
> Car parts are priced way beyond any reasonable price for value becasue... well the manufacturers of cars make their profits on parts and servicing. That's just the facts.
> __________________
> Many years ago I  had a couple of jobs in the car industry. One striking memory was the realisation that for many car parts they all came off the identical production line. At the end the parts were simply put into different boxes - Genuine Ford Parts, Repco,  no name brand.  Identical item vastly different prices - only according to the box label.




Royal Commission into the motor industry ?


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (26 April 2018)

I see APRA is getting ahead of the pack (regulators) and removing the 10% investor loan cap at the banks.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Royal Commission into the motor industry ?




As I say, if the banks are doing it...

First VW now Ford, and you can bet there are a lot of other hidden sins.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-...llion-fine-for-unconscionable-conduct/9699474


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (26 April 2018)

Can see the RBA cutting rates because of ther RC in 10-12mths


----------



## HelloU (26 April 2018)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Can see the RBA cutting rates because of ther RC in 10-12mths



can u explain ur thinking here please


----------



## Joules MM1 (26 April 2018)

this is actually a financial planner in disguise 







 *AFP news agency*‏Verified account @*AFP* 56m56 minutes ago
Rock climbers pass a 100-meter-high store selling food and water on a cliff in Pingjiang in *China*


----------



## HelloU (26 April 2018)

A lot of me struggles with expectations of personal responsibilty in all of this. My previous went down in a ball of flames but my point was somebody (very smart and powerful and everyday making decisions about the lives of others) KNEW they were getting advice that they did not want yet went back repeatedly to the same firm. What would be the circumstances under which a smart person would do this? 

And if peeps are shocked by a situation where you might pay an early $500K fee to realise a defined benefits fund (say $3M available) then i can think of a few - illness, marriage/family etc. In broad terms it would be a dumb thing to do but individual circumstances always determine courses of action. That is why the facts/details are important to stories like this (not just headlines).

To me, a bigger financial scandal is that someone can pay less than $1M into (taxpayer funded) super, and then pull $10M back out of it over the next 25 years.


----------



## HelloU (26 April 2018)

climbing the corporate ladder or the most exclusive brothel in town?


----------



## basilio (26 April 2018)

It get's better and better ?  Or worser and worser depending on how one sees the situation at the Royal Commission.

Every stinking piece of fish that we have understood is the "way the system works" is being put on the table and exposed for it's rottenness. 
-  The self dealing of the banks and the spivs they commission to rip off the wood ducks. 
-  The industry organisations that hide the corpses and protect the guility until the complaints go broke or die waiting. 
-  The government that supports this process of public  evisceration in the name of the free market and the rights of business (to make as much moolah as they possibly can in any way they can  get away with it..)

Check out todays installment and then have a look at this governments record on (not) cleaning the Aegean stables that is the financial services industry.

* Banking royal commission: witness collapses after accusation of lying *
Dover Financial Services sole owner Terry McMaster taken away by ambulance after being questioned about company’s customer protection policy  (_which totally proteced Dover Financial Services._.)

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-witness-collapses-after-accusation-of-lying

* How the Coalition ran interference for the banks *





89 reading now
 Show comments

The Coalition wasn't merely asleep at the wheel when it came to the practices being exposed at the banking royal commission: it pulled out all stops to allow some of them to continue, including attempting to circumvent the will of parliament, in an extraordinary 12-month burst of activity that began within weeks of its election.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bus...terference-for-the-banks-20180425-p4zbjz.html


----------



## banco (26 April 2018)

HelloU said:


> A lot of me struggles with expectations of personal responsibilty in all of this. My previous went down in a ball of flames but my point was somebody (very smart and powerful and everyday making decisions about the lives of others) KNEW they were getting advice that they did not want yet went back repeatedly to the same firm. What would be the circumstances under which a smart person would do this?
> 
> And if peeps are shocked by a situation where you might pay an early $500K fee to realise a defined benefits fund (say $3M available) then i can think of a few - illness, marriage/family etc. In broad terms it would be a dumb thing to do but individual circumstances always determine courses of action. That is why the facts/details are important to stories like this (not just headlines).
> 
> To me, a bigger financial scandal is that someone can pay less than $1M into (taxpayer funded) super, and then pull $10M back out of it over the next 25 years.




You are adding in imaginary facts and context that simply aren't there. Once they knew about the $500K fee there's no way an adviser with the best interests of their client in mind could recommend what they recommended (none of the situations you mentioned [illness etc.] were applicable). Occam's razor says he was trying to maneuver her into arrangements that were best for him regardless of their impact on her. 

Yes she is almost certainly smarter and more well informed than your average customer. Perhaps if she was less well informed she would have lost 500k by taking his self-serving advice. 

It will be good to see these spivs and their firms hit the wall hard. You don't have to have a masters of commerce to see bankruptcies in their futures.


----------



## HelloU (26 April 2018)

I agree with u......but I would like to know more than the headlines. I do not see the RC as an activity for our entertainment, but as a method to fix failed systems.......just reading headlines does not explain the context of events.....nor is the information available. If I wanted to just read headlines from the 'Guardian' I would go to their website. The fact we are having a RC means that plenty of bad stuff is anecdotally happening........I want the details so I can I see the devil. I see no details here, just shock and awe, and media grabs.

As a test to show what I mean (not that I have the right to test anyone), you said there was no illness involved. Where do you get that from?


----------



## banco (26 April 2018)

HelloU said:


> I agree with u......but I would like to know more than the headlines. I do not see the RC as an activity for our entertainment, but as a method to fix failed systems.......just reading headlines does not explain the context of events.....nor is the information available. If I wanted to just read headlines from the 'Guardian' I would go to their website. The fact we are having a RC means that plenty of bad stuff is anecdotally happening........I want the details so I can I see the devil. I see no details here, just shock and awe, and media grabs.
> 
> As a test to show what I mean (not that I have the right to test anyone), you said there was no illness involved. Where do you get that from?




Because his lawyer would have been completely negligent not to have raised it in cross examination and it wasn't disclosed in the FWC woman's witness statement.


----------



## HelloU (26 April 2018)

banco said:


> Even if she had a fund balance of $5 million (very unlikely) it still would have been incredibly stupid advice. Only somebody who can't add up or a spiv financial adviser (is there any other kind?) would think otherwise.



I still agree with this in principle......but i seek facts before saying it is so....that is why I asked for some facts around this......before i got shut down by broad generalisations......cos what may change any recommendations are how the new changes to tax on defined payments will hit this account, and the comparison to a maxed SMSF (totally tax free) with trust arrangements for the excess and disbursements through tiered exchangeable securities offshore. Also illness and divorce, amongst others, may drive recommendations. What if any reasons were given for not waiting till 58 years of age? idk but I want to know......all of these details are missing. Probably not the place to seek constructive discussions though on these money matters amongst all the gay marriage, bullying and 'what movies are we watching' goodness that thrives here. Far easier to just shut down financial discussion with racial slurs.


banco said:


> Because his lawyer would have been completely negligent not to have raised it in cross examination and it wasn't disclosed in the FWC woman's witness statement.



Even dumb old me knows a lawyer NOT saying something does not make it a true fact. I was actually looking to get links to any factual statements about the report itself that u had. I cannot find any details about the report to read.

A parting thought - do u think the client had any other investments that were being discussed?   or did she just want to talk to a financial adviser cos her only asset was a single govt defined super fund, that she did NOT want to make any changes to, so she made a random choice from the yellow pages to get financial help about said fund?


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (27 April 2018)

The RC will make it harder for people to get loans. 

Inflation under 2% now, no wage growth, no inflation, property going nowhere, share market going nowhere. No serious money getting into the economy.

Most economists have pushed back their views on interest rates.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 April 2018)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Inflation under 2% now, no wage growth, no inflation, property going nowhere, share market going nowhere. No serious money getting into the economy.




But the economy is going gangbusters. Just ask Morrison and Turnbull.


----------



## Tisme (27 April 2018)

Knew about it, did squat until the day before the Senate Committee was due to report:



> *ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR*
> A Shorten Labor Government will hold a Royal Commission into misconduct in the banking and financial services industry.
> 
> This is an important decision that was not taken lightly - it’s been made after careful consideration over an extended period of time.
> ...


----------



## basilio (27 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Knew about it, did squat until the day before the Senate Committee was due to report:




What ?  So :

1) Was  Labours  policy to have a Royal Commission into the Banking and Financial Services industry in 2016 a good idea at the time given the scores of problems that had become obvious ?

2)  Should the LNP have steadfastly refused to take the very strong step of a Royal commission for years begging that a Senate committe could "do something" ?

3) Has the outcome to date of the Royal Commission demonstrated beyond any conceivable doubt that this industry needs an almighty kick in the xrse, that labour was  spot on in it's approach and the LNP abjectly wrong?
(And let's not forget that it took a continued resolute stand by Labour and the cross benchers and *maverick LNP members *to get this RC on the road.


----------



## IFocus (27 April 2018)

This is such an ugly look for the LNP


----------



## SirRumpole (27 April 2018)

IFocus said:


> This is such an ugly look for the LNP




Yep, "running a protection rackets for ripoff artists" is a powerful election tactic.


----------



## Tisme (27 April 2018)

basilio said:


> What ?  So :
> 
> 1) Was  Labours  policy to have a Royal Commission into the Banking and Financial Services industry in 2016 a good idea at the time given the scores of problems that had become obvious ?
> 
> ...




By now you would know I'm not a fatuous follower of any political party or idiotic utopian mantra. So I'm pleased you implicitly share my common sense chagrin.


----------



## basilio (28 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, "running a protection rackets for ripoff artists" is a powerful election tactic.




That is  *so *deadly.. I have to say I  largely find the whole financial services industry a smokescreen to cover the best sociopaths in town shaking down anything with a pulse and enough money to make it worthwhile.

I suppose the question will be whether anything substantial will come from the RC in terms of
1) Actions against current malpractice
2) Resolute regulation  with real enforcers to control the market place
3) Creation of competing financial products that by their competiveness and simplicity undercut the BS that poses as financial advice in the current situation.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 April 2018)

basilio said:


> Creation of competing financial products that by their competiveness and simplicity undercut the BS that poses as financial advice in the current situation.



Financial advise is one of those things that the masses have been convinced they need because it's all too hard to work it out themselves.

Ordinary workers using someone to do their tax is another such instance. Not that hard if you can read and do basic maths.

Maybe the world has changed, maybe it's just me but the older I get the less confidence I have in most professions or trades. 

A recent medical incident involving a family member tells me that medicine is another thing worthy of a major investigation. I'm no doctor that's for sure but it took no more than a few seconds looking at an x-ray image for me to start questioning the doctor's diagnosis upon which the treatment being given was based. Yep, I was right, they were trying to fix something that wasn't broken and doing nothing about what was. Suffice to say I sure ain't happy about that one, doctors should be able to read these things better than I can.

If it's important then learn how to do it yourself.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Yep, I was right, they were trying to fix something that wasn't broken and doing nothing about what was. Suffice to say I sure ain't happy about that one, doctors should be able to read these things better than I can.




May I ask if that was the public or private sector ?

The private sector has an incentive to over service whereas the public sector is most likely too overworked to treat things unless necessary.


----------



## sptrawler (28 April 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I originally assumed this wouldn't amount to much. An investigation into banking under a Coalition government sounds a lot like getting Labor to investigate unions and I wasn't expecting too many "problems" to be found.
> 
> In practice however I was clearly wrong. So much has been revealed that it now looks somewhat impossible that "business as usual" is even an option going forward. One way or another, it's going to be politically very difficult for government to not step in and heavily regulate the entire sector.
> 
> So far as owning shares is concerned, it's hard to think of a sector with greater risk at the moment.




I'm away ATM smurph, what is the real issues, when you cut through the white noise. Haven't had much internet, so am not up to date with the issue.


----------



## moXJO (28 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> May I ask if that was the public or private sector ?
> 
> The private sector has an incentive to over service whereas the public sector is most likely too overworked to treat things unless necessary.



Public is worse.
Those doctors and surgeons ain't doing it for the love.


----------



## Tisme (30 April 2018)

The AMP CEO resigns and directors take a 25% fee cut for the next 8 months.

That should fix everything.

Women's movements will be most upset one of their sisters has had to take the hit.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (2 May 2018)

Are people with "liar loans" going to be  giving evidence at the royal commission?


----------



## Tisme (2 May 2018)

Does anyone think it's kind of a coincidence that Catherine Brenner gets discredited and quick on its heals David Gonski is wheeled out with a new education model proposition?

It was David who mentored her and her sister and got them into the pigs at trough directors/chairman club; first up a seat at CocaCola.


----------



## Junior (2 May 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Financial advise is one of those things that the masses have been convinced they need because it's all too hard to work it out themselves.




There are many instances where financial advice can add a significant amount of value.  I see it every week.

The issue is that many advisers are focused on sales, and they will charge fees and provide advice even in circumstances where the client actually doesn't need advice (there are parallels here with surgeons/doctors).  This is common where the adviser does not have a high enough level of education or ethics, and is stuck in the routine of recommending the same/similar strategy to every client regardless of their situation - because they don't know any other way, or their employer is forcing them into this practice.  

This is rife thanks to vertical integration, where many advisers are incentivised/forced to simply sell the licensees products, rather then properly analysing their clients circumstances to determine what is best for THE CLIENT..... *value-adding strategies *and placing your client in a much better position than before they took your advice, needs to be the priority.  If products are required to implement these strategies, that is the last piece of the puzzle, and there needs to be no bias where this is concerned.


----------



## Macquack (2 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> The AMP CEO resigns and directors take a 25% fee cut for the next 8 months.
> 
> That should fix everything.
> 
> Women's movements will be most upset one of their sisters has had to take the hit.



You are just a little bitch Tisme, slipping in that unnecessary comment.


----------



## Darc Knight (2 May 2018)

If you took the worst inmates from Long Bay Jail and placed them in these Boardrooms would anyone notice a difference?


----------



## Tisme (2 May 2018)

Macquack said:


> You are just a little bitch Tisme, slipping in that unnecessary comment.





Not so little my delicate friend

 diddums sourpuss


----------



## cynic (2 May 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> If you took the worst inmates from Long Bay Jail and placed them in these Boardrooms would anyone notice a difference?



I suspect there would be a positive improvement, consequent to the rigours of the criminal code of ethics.

Unlike the law abiding populace, criminals can be brutally effective at enforcing their own particular take on acceptable behaviour!


----------



## basilio (2 May 2018)

Macquack said:


> You are just a little bitch Tisme, slipping in that unnecessary comment.




Come on   Macquack.  When has Tisme *not* taken an opportunity to make some slimy gratutious dig at women, libs, gays , Muslims or any other of his special whipping boys.

He is just that sort of guy. Recognise him for what he is.


----------



## Tisme (3 May 2018)

basilio said:


> Come on   Macquack.  When has Tisme *not* taken an opportunity to make some slimy gratutious dig at women, libs, gays , Muslims or any other of his special whipping boys.
> 
> He is just that sort of guy. Recognise him for what he is.




You two go to gay clubs as Neil and Bob, the petticoat cowboys? 

Anglophobes  ....meh


----------



## PZ99 (3 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> Does anyone think it's kind of a coincidence that Catherine Brenner gets discredited and quick on its heals David Gonski is wheeled out with a new education model proposition?
> 
> It was David who mentored her and her sister and got them into the pigs at trough directors/chairman club; first up a seat at CocaCola.



If we're into Hollywood scripts maybe Catherine will jinx the Commbank?

After all, we all wish her well with her future endeavours 







Meanwhile data loss fallout predicted >http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...k/news-story/0d74b286f29ed651fe6a6de2d469fa60


----------



## Tisme (3 May 2018)

Macquack said:


> You are just a little bitch Tisme, slipping in that unnecessary comment.




Might upset your sense of whatever, but it's true.   You already denigrated women and relegated their status with that "little bitch" comment..... show you missus/close female what you wrote and see how it feels to be someone's "little bitch". 

You don't even know that patriarchal defenders like you are the reason women don't achieve the respect they deserve..... you are in the way.


----------



## Tisme (3 May 2018)

PZ99 said:


> If we're into Hollywood scripts maybe Catherine will jinx the Commbank?
> 
> After all, we all wish her well with her future endeavours
> 
> ...




The pressure on women to do the job, but at the same time expected to carry the burden of "the cause" must be tough. I've seen it first hand .... the decent from the 'world before her' into hard faced, take no prisoners biatch...and it's the women who tear each other apart in that scenario, with men reluctant to interfere due to maternal programming.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 May 2018)

Maybe Anna Bligh should go too. Trying to defend the indefensible must be tough. Still, I suppose the job pays well...


----------



## Tisme (3 May 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe Anna Bligh should go too. Trying to defend the indefensible must be tough. Still, I suppose the job pays well...




Of course Anna is very capable. I recall she was great friends of Ros Kelly, who had inroads into corporate boardrooms.


----------



## basilio (3 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> You two go to gay clubs as Neil and Bob, the petticoat cowboys?
> 
> Anglophobes  ....meh





Now now we are just good friends Tizzie !! 

And we are not Anglophobes. There are just certain people who make a point of getting up our nose and we need to have a good blow.


----------



## luutzu (3 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> Of course Anna is very capable. I recall she was great friends of Ros Kelly, who had inroads into corporate boardrooms.




Don't all politician have inroads into boardrooms? Why else would they make the kind of policies they do?


----------



## cynic (3 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Don't all politician have inroads into boardrooms? Why else would they make the kind of policies they do?



Yes,  but not all of them use erasable whiteboards for storage of highly critical and sensitive data.


----------



## luutzu (3 May 2018)

cynic said:


> Yes,  but not all of them use erasable whiteboards for storage of highly critical and sensitive data.




I don't know the context so it's lost on me


----------



## cynic (3 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> I don't know the context so it's lost on me



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/close-keating-ally-resigns-in-grants-scandal-1426241.html


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (15 May 2018)

RBA concerned about impact now.  They will cut before they rise IR

 ASIC and FOS need to sort these complaints out.


----------



## Darc Knight (25 May 2018)

"The Federal Court found Westpac had engaged in unconscionable conduct and breached the ASIC Act by attempting to manipulate the bank bill swap rate (BBSW) on four separate occasions."
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-24/westpac-rate-rigging-case/9794944


----------



## Darc Knight (28 May 2018)

Give a Man a Gun and he robs a Bank. Give a Man a Bank and he robs everyone!


----------



## basilio (18 August 2018)

The facts around the rip offs the Banks and Superannuation companies  have perpetuated on the public are...actually what we already knew.

On reflection isn't it true that anyone and everyone with a couple of brain cells realised that the banks and for-profit super companies were in the game for their interest, the salesmans cut, and the shareholders ? Customers and superannuants ?  A very distant last.

So now these  covert realities have become "facts" - facts which for ages past were rountinely denied by the CEO's down.  

Should someone be fired/be fined/ go to jail for theft ? Fraud ? Mismanagement ? Deception ? 
Are they too big to be hit ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...rings-go-from-dispiriting-to-galling/10133976

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...z-worried-for-superannuation-licence/10124790


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Should someone be fired/be fined/ go to jail for theft ? Fraud ? Mismanagement ? Deception ?




All of the above.



basilio said:


> Are they too big to be hit ?




No.


----------



## Tisme (19 August 2018)

basilio said:


> The facts around the rip offs the Banks and Superannuation companies  have perpetuated on the public are...actually what we already knew.
> 
> On reflection isn't it true that anyone and everyone with a couple of brain cells realised that the banks and for-profit super companies were in the game for their interest, the salesmans cut, and the shareholders ? Customers and superannuants ?  A very distant last.
> 
> ...




Which is why we need a Paul Keating, whatever the colour of his political flag, to ride in and lead the country with gusto and honesty.


----------



## basilio (19 August 2018)

This is good article for those who need reminding of why we had this Royal Commission as well as peeking at the  elegant range of rip offs our $10m per years Bank CEO's can conjure.

* The last thing anyone needs is industry super acting like retail funds – and now we have proof *
Greg Jericho
Who would have guessed the for-profit sector would be the one gouging its members? Oh that’s right, everyone bar the government

 @GrogsGamut 
Sun 19 Aug 2018 08.00 AEST   Last modified on Sun 19 Aug 2018 08.02 AEST

*Shares*
1334
 
* Comments*
 607 

Kelly O’Dwyer (right) wants to ‘lift industry super funds to at least the same standard’ as banks. The royal commission shows that’s the very last thing any government should be wishing to do. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
As we look on the events this week at the royal commission into the financial sector it is worth remembering that we are not hearing about the actions of banks and retail superannuation funds because the government wanted this news to be known.

Malcolm Turnbull scorned Bill Shorten in parliament last year when he asked if the government would set up a royal commission. Turnbull suggested: “What the leader of the oppposition is doing, in his gutlessness and in his pathetic populism, is promising years and years of lawyers.”

Turnbull continued: “The banks are not scared of a royal commission, sunshine. They have got plenty of lawyers and big law firms.”

You have to love the condescending use of “sunshine” – I guess if you are going to be wrong, you might as well be arrogant about it.

The week before the government did announce the royal commission, the minister for industry, innovation and science, Senator Matt Canavan, argued in a similar vein that it would “turn into a bit of a lawyers’ picnic and a waste of time”.

When announcing the commission, the prime minister kept insisting it was only necessary because “uncertainty, however, over the potential for such an inquiry is starting to undermine confidence in our financial system” and that “the reckless actions of Bill Shorten, the Greens and others” in calling for a royal commission were “harming economic confidence and putting that at risk”.

The treasurer, Scott Morrison, described holding the commission as “regrettable” – not because the actions of those in the financial sector had led to its need, but because “politics is doing damage to our banking and financial system”.

Peter Dutton then suggested the commission was good because it provided an opportunity to “have a look at some aspects within the industry super funds which have union members and whatnot on the board”.

So no doubt he was looking forward to these past two weeks where the royal commission has turned its eyes towards the superannuation sector.

Of course, to the surprise of no one except perhaps the minister for home affairs, it has found the retail side is a stinking cesspit, while the industry super funds have pretty much sailed through unscathed.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...cting-like-retail-funds-and-now-we-have-proof


----------



## Macquack (19 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Which is why we need a Paul Keating, whatever the colour of his political flag, to ride in and lead the country with gusto and honesty.



It was Keating's impulsive and naive policy of privatizing the Commonwealth Bank that started the rot. Our banking system was working just fine with the government owned Comm Bank a key player in the retail banking market. With the introduction of foreign banks, the power of the Reserve Bank was also diminished. The government owned Comm Bank kept the greedy private banks in check.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2018)

Macquack said:


> The government owned Comm Bank kept the greedy private banks in check.




Yep, like Medicare acts as a brake on the Health funds and State schools act as a brake on private schools.


----------



## Tisme (19 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, like Medicare acts as a brake on the Health funds and State schools act as a brake on private schools.




It's historical policies on lending excluded undesirables like unmarried or widowed women who didn't have a male to go guarantor.


----------



## basilio (20 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> It's historical policies on lending excluded undesirables like unmarried or widowed women who didn't have a male to go guarantor.




And the other banks didn't ?   I think not.
MacSquak observations on the role of the Commonwealth Bank to keep private banks honest in terms of fees, interest rates and so on is spot on. When the Common Bank went private all the brakes were off.  Bank competition was about
1) The biggest profits
2) The biggest executive salaries
3) The least number of  lower level staff.

I do remember through the 80's the rapacious nature of the superannuation funds spruiked by the banks, AMP, MLC and such. Breathtaking initial commissions as well as equally eyewatering trailing commissions. I thought it was "legal" larceny.

But back to the Royal Commission. Ian Verrender has a very pointed article on the unconscionable behaviour of the banks/ for profit super providers. It will be interesting to see how many criminal chages (if any) come out of this commission.

*Banking royal commission: Superannuation swindle sees your savings boost bank bonuses*
By business editor Ian Verrender
Updated about 3 hours ago

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.

*Video:* AMP super under fire for poor returns (ABC News) 
*Related Story:* Banks face criminal charges and $1b bill in fee-for-no-service scandal
*Related Story:* Royal commission's superannuation hearings go from the dispiriting to the galling
*Related Story:* AMP superannuation customers to be refunded $32 million in fees
A sense of incredulity swept across his face, accompanied by a dash of incomprehension.

*Key points:*

Study suggests there has been $700 billion in super fees extracted since 1992
Total pool of superannuation is just over $2.6 trillion
AMP and the big four banks admit they've charged around $220 million in fees for no service

How could it be, he was asked, that an investor who put his money into an AMP superannuation account, into the safest possible investment there is — cash — could end up poorer?

And why is it that a deposit into an AMP bank account, into a cash facility, earns a significantly greater return than a cash investment in AMP superannuation?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...perannuation-fees-boost-bank-bonuses/10137904


----------



## Tisme (20 August 2018)

basilio said:


> And the other banks didn't ?   I think not.




It was the CBA being held up as a pillar of virtue in the conversation, not the other banks. I could have segued the content myself, comparing the bank to say, an LC Torana, but that would irrelevant too.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> It's historical policies on lending excluded undesirables like unmarried or widowed women who didn't have a male to go guarantor.




Yes, pretty straight laced in those days, but then women weren't the force in the workplace that they are now and their pay and conditions are still catching up.


----------



## fiftyeight (20 August 2018)

Just had a quick look at "Today Tonight" recent finance stories. 1 story that touches on the Royal Commission.

There are enough stories coming out about "the man" taking money from the poor aussie battlers TT and ACA should have enough material to run a story every night. If the sector of the population who watches such shows could be motivated we might actually get some real change out of this......maybe


----------



## Tisme (20 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, pretty straight laced in those days, but then women weren't the force in the workplace that they are now and their pay and conditions are still catching up.




They set the benchmark that other banks adhered to because if it was good enough for govt it must be good enough for the others... it was a virtual oligopoly. It was imperative to break institutional bias against women and the underclass and the sale of CBA did just that and opened up the markets ... I remember those days very well and the euphoria of people having a crack at stock markets for the first time ... some made gains others lost


----------



## sptrawler (4 September 2018)

Well the first to cop a slap, Westpac fined $35m, for dodgy loans.

https://thewest.com.au/business/ban...m-fine-over-shonky-loan-reviews-ng-b88949974z


----------



## luutzu (4 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> It was the CBA being held up as a pillar of virtue in the conversation, not the other banks. I could have segued the content myself, comparing the bank to say, an LC Torana, but that would irrelevant too.




You show 'em Tisme. Talking trash about your Paul like that.


----------



## sptrawler (4 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, pretty straight laced in those days, but then women weren't the force in the workplace that they are now and their pay and conditions are still catching up.



Yes they are a force to be reckoned with now, telling hubby to stay at home and sort out the house, while they go and forge a career for themselves. 
Yep it's a whole new paradigm out there now.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Yes they are a force to be reckoned with now, telling hubby to stay at home and sort out the house, while they go and forge a career for themselves.
> Yep it's a whole new paradigm out there now.




Well stand up for yourself man !


----------



## sptrawler (4 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well stand up for yourself man !



As if, my other half worked when she wanted, went to Uni when she wanted, had kids when she wanted.
I left school at 15, worked up to my level of incompetence and then retired, but I was just a selfish Ba$tard. 
I wish equality was around, when I got married.


----------



## DB008 (5 September 2018)

*Banking royal commission 'embarrassing' for 'inadequate'*
*bank regulator APRA, says Allan Fels*​The former boss of Australia's competition watchdog has savaged the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) over its feeble regulation and enforcement of the banking sector.

Professor Allan Fels, the inaugural chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, said APRA's responses at the Banking Royal Commission exposed it as "extremely inadequate".

In the most recent hearings, examining superannuation, APRA was forced to admit it had not commenced any court proceedings in that sector in the past 10 years.

Counsel assisting also pushed APRA on the priority it placed on the stability of super funds over the interests of super fund members, and why it avoided court cases when public action was a substantial deterrent to bad behaviour.

"It was made crystal clear in an embarrassing way at the royal commission … [APRA has] a long-term culture of weak law enforcement," Professor Fels told the Melbourne Economic Forum.

In a five-year period to 2008, APRA disqualified 133 people from being super trustees.

After 2008, APRA had to apply to the Federal Court to boot people out of the industry, and in the past decade they've done it just once.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-04/banking-royal-commission-embarassing-apra/10200028​


As everyone on this thread has already gathered, we don't have regulators in place that can make decisions for the good of the people. APRA is a toothless tiger. What we need is a American "SEC" type of regulator. However, lets not let the ACCC off the hook, they are also a weak at the knees.


----------



## Darc Knight (13 November 2018)

The heads of the Banks, ASIC and APRA are due to give testimony next. This is going to be interesting - under oath and all.


----------



## Darc Knight (13 November 2018)

Remember when Trump kept saying he wanted to give evidence to the Mueller Investigation. His Lawyers were so worried they did a mock interrogation. Afterwards his Lawyers were so shocked at Trump's propensity to lie that they contacted the Mueller Investigation team and told them Trump was incapable of giving evidence due to his inability to not lie 

You reckon these Bank heads aren't of a similar ilk


----------



## PZ99 (13 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Remember when Trump kept saying he wanted to give evidence to the Mueller Investigation. His Lawyers were so worried they did a mock interrogation. Afterwards his Lawyers were so shocked at Trump's propensity to lie that they contacted the Mueller Investigation team and told them Trump was incapable of giving evidence due to his inability to not lie
> 
> You reckon these Bank heads aren't of a similar ilk



They all answer to the same corporatocracy so they're absolutely the same.

I think we should occupy the banks


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2018)

DB008 said:
			
		

> As everyone on this thread has already gathered, we don't have regulators in place that can make decisions for the good of the people. APRA is a toothless tiger. What we need is a American "SEC" type of regulator. However, lets not let the ACCC off the hook, they are also a weak at the knees.




It's quite easy to make a government body a toothless tiger, just don't give it enough resources.

Judging by this government's continual refusal to hold a RC into banks until the last moment I would suggest that they have starved APRA and ACCC of funding.


----------



## Darc Knight (14 November 2018)

PZ99 said:


> They all answer to the same corporatocracy so they're absolutely the same.
> 
> I think we should occupy the banks




Warning, depressing post:

As the gap between the rich and the poor widens it's like you have to make a decision, either join the likes of Trump and be a ruthless sociopathic A or except your inevitable fall into the poorer class and the struggles it brings.
I had that reminder Monday, I thought if living means being an absolute A, do I really want to live. Sorry for the depressing post.


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Warning, depressing post:
> 
> As the gap between the rich and the poor widens it's like you have to make a decision, either join the likes of Trump and be a ruthless sociopathic A or except your inevitable fall into the poorer class and the struggles it brings.
> I had that reminder Monday, I thought if living means being an absolute A, do I really want to live. Sorry for the depressing post.



Why so glum?
We are fortunate to live in Australia, even if you end your working career with nothing to show for it, you will still  have a reasonable pension and some super to top it up.
Even if you don't work at all, there is welfare from cradle to grave, there isn't many Countries in the World that supply that.
It isn't only poor people that commit suicide, or get depressed, life isn't all about how many toys you can buy.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Darc Knight (14 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Why so glum?
> We are fortunate to live in Australia, even if you end your working career with nothing to show for it, you will still  have a reasonable pension and some super to top it up.
> Even if you don't work at all, there is welfare from cradle to grave, there isn't many Countries in the World that supply that.
> It isn't only poor people that commit suicide, or get depressed, life isn't all about how many toys you can buy.
> Just my opinion.




One bull market and hopefully I'm set.

You've been around awhile Homer, you reckon we're becoming more competitive and ruthless? Globalisation has brought more of the world's "ruthlessness" to our shores? We were the lucky country, isolated from a lot of the dog eat Dog happenings of some other countries?


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> One bull market and hopefully I'm set.
> 
> You've been around awhile Homer, you reckon we're becoming more competitive and ruthless? Globalisation has brought more of the world's "ruthlessness" to our shores? We were the lucky country, isolated from a lot of the dog eat Dog happenings of some other countries?



The reality is, years ago, most people worked. 
With the advent of technology, a lot of manual jobs have gone and society is trying to come to terms with it, people want the life they see on T.V but in reality there are less 'real' jobs to provide it.
The welfare cost is increasing, so those working have to be paid more, so they can be taxed more. This then causes a larger gap between the rich and the poor, so the welfare is increased, which is just a positive reinforcement loop.
There needs to be a reduction in consumerism, but due to human nature that won't happen. 
We never stop wanting, when we save and buy that something we just had to have, something else becomes the next must have thing.
The more money we get the bigger the must have object becomes.
The Worlds population is increasing, we can't all have everything we want.
Humans are funny creatures, we take a lot more than we actually need, just look at our rubbish tips. lol
Just my opinion, probably in the wrong forum, let alone the wrong thread.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> There needs to be a reduction in consumerism, but due to human nature that won't happen.
> We never stop wanting, when we save and buy that something we just had to have, something else becomes the next must have thing.




If consumerism ( the desire to spend) reduces below a certain threshold then so do company earnings people get laid off and spend even less and a recession looms.

What is needed is a better balance between spending and earnings so people carry less debt to get the things they want. The desire of banks to keep raising credit card limits for more profit only encourages extravagance. Credit card limits should be more tailored to peoples earnings so they are not encouraged to get into debt they can't pay back.


----------



## PZ99 (14 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If consumerism ( the desire to spend) reduces below a certain threshold then so do company earnings people get laid off and spend even less and a recession looms. What is needed is a better balance between spending and earnings so people carry less debt to get the things they want. The desire of banks to keep raising credit card limits for more profit only encourages extravagance. *Credit card limits should be more tailored to peoples earnings so they are not encouraged to get into debt they can't pay back.*



Well, they are, strictly speaking. Trouble is, people really just gotta have that plasma sized smartphone that everyone else has and they'll tell the bank as much BS as they can to obtain it.

Responsible lending is a two way street. I had to BS my bank to get my last home loan. Then I had to find extra work to pay it off. That was my own fault of course.


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Well, they are, strictly speaking. Trouble is, people really just gotta have that plasma sized smartphone that everyone else has and they'll tell the bank as much BS as they can to obtain it.
> 
> Responsible lending is a two way street. I had to BS my bank to get my last home loan. Then I had to find extra work to pay it off. That was my own fault of course.




That is the crux of the issue, we see it we want it, we should have it.
Like you say it is the individuals responsibility, to say no to oneself, or accept the responsibility for the decision.
Unfortunately these days, it seems there is always someone else to blame.


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If consumerism ( the desire to spend) reduces below a certain threshold then so do company earnings people get laid off and spend even less and a recession looms.
> 
> What is needed is a better balance between spending and earnings so people carry less debt to get the things they want. The desire of banks to keep raising credit card limits for more profit only encourages extravagance. Credit card limits should be more tailored to peoples earnings so they are not encouraged to get into debt they can't pay back.




There was a time, when people waited, untill they could afford it.
IMO the only people who should have a credit card, are those that don't need one.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2018)

sptrawler said:


> There was a time, when people waited, untill they could afford it.
> IMO the only people who should have a credit card, are those that don't need one.




Nice one. 

I ripped up my credit card years ago and just have debit cards now.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (19 November 2018)

if you go by reports on ABC that Canberra making calls to banks to lend

the executives would be loving this, everybody wants responsible lending

the states going to take big hit on stamp duty


----------



## sptrawler (19 November 2018)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> if you go by reports on ABC that Canberra making calls to banks to lend
> 
> the executives would be loving this, everybody wants responsible lending
> 
> the states going to take big hit on stamp duty




They are certainly getting into a wedged situation, the Government that is, they will end up becoming a bank themselves. lol
On the one hand they are saying Australians have too much debt, but don't want them to stop buying houses, and want them to borrow to put on solar panels then add batteries.

I hope they are doing background checks and ability to repay checks, on all these people, they are going to lend money to for solar panels and batteries.
I hope they are being responsible lenders, and telling these people that the price of batteries may fall and the actual outcomes, may not be as good as holding off the purchase.
 It certainly is an interesting time in Australia's history. IMO

https://www.qld.gov.au/community/co...ns/solar-battery-rebate/loans-for-solar-apply

https://reneweconomy.com.au/victori...ion-in-rebates-loans-for-rooftop-solar-19774/

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-a...-grants-for-home-battery-installations-49440/


----------



## basilio (28 January 2019)

More consequences from the Royal Commission into the banks. Could certainly have an effect on bank shares.

Is it fair to let international lawyers get a piece out of our banks rather our local lawyers ?

*Litigation funder sets up shop in Australia to profit from banking royal commission*
By senior business correspondent Peter Ryan
Posted about an hour ago





* Photo:* AMP is amongst the first of many institutions likely to be sued after the royal commission. (ABC News) 
*Related Story:* Wealth managers' remediation costs set to soar
*Related Story:* AMP profit and dividends slashed as scandal costs mount
*Related Story:* Three questions the banking royal commission has to answer
The world's biggest litigation funder has set up shop in Australia to get a slice of the booming class-action business, including some high profile cases stemming from the banking royal commission.

*Key points:*

Burford Capital is funding the Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan class action against AMP
There are several competing legal class actions against AMP around "fees for no service" and the firm's share price collapse
Burford, the world's largest litigation funder, says some lawsuits arising from the financial crisis are still running, a decade on
US-based Burford Capital is already bankrolling one of the potential class actions against troubled wealth manager AMP, which has had its reputation and market value smashed by royal commission revelations, including the "fee for no service" scandal.

Burford chief executive Chris Bogart said the decision to back the AMP class action being run by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan is "an important foot in the door" in entering Australia's lucrative litigation market.

"We're going to have to build that business from scratch and it's going to require an investment of money and resources," Mr Bogart told the ABC from Washington.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...alia-to-profit-from-royal-commission/10755130


----------



## IrishDigger (28 January 2019)

Excellent summary by The Age,

https://www.theage.com.au/business/...ef=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_business

and of course I could watch Ms Orr all day long.


----------



## Tpbal (1 February 2019)

IrishDigger said:


> Excellent summary by The Age,
> 
> https://www.theage.com.au/business/...ef=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_business
> 
> and of course I could watch Ms Orr all day long.



Not a bad review, also this one https://www.theage.com.au/business/...ien-proportions-20190130-p50ukx.html#comments

Imho, none of these reports seem to tell me the banks are going to suffer a major drop in revenues from this inquiry. I know they have to clean up their act, and act ethically, but the recent impact on the banks share prices seems to suggest to me that the banks are going to lose a lot of money by being "forced" to act ethically. Taking the other side of that - are they really making massive returns from acting unethically alone ? I dont think so. ( please - i am not saying they are nice guys, just that they dont make most of their revenue from being bad guys )

My own expectation is that lending standards will be tightened. But again, how much do their bad lending standards support their bottom line. Not much i think.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (1 February 2019)

Where's the evidence of poor lending standards?

The case of westpac vs ASIC has no result yet as the judge would not sign off on the agreement asic and wbc made

A "friend of the court" would not sign off penalty either as they don't believe responsible lending rules were breached

Been witch hunt, class warfare that is going on around the globe.

Banks charged dead people account fees, how could that happen?


----------



## Tpbal (1 February 2019)

I don't doubt some of this is a class warfare based inquiry.

FWIW I have stuck my neck out a little and gone long on NAB.

From Reuters today
_
Bank inquiry expected to target retail lending in major report 
* CBA has the most consumer and mortgage debt on its books 
* Bank shares hit by inquiry, CBA expected to recover the least 
By Byron Kaye and Paulina Duran 
SYDNEY, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Australia's biggest bank has for years generated blockbuster profits by focusing on retail customers and home mortgages while its competitors sought to build exposure to business and farm lending, even forays offshore. 
But Commonwealth Bank of Australia's grassroots strategy may now be its undoing, investors and analysts say, as a powerful government inquiry promises to bring unprecedented regulatory attention — and new rules — to the country's banking market. 
Investors are pricing in curbs on major income generators for retail banking expected to flow out of the Royal Commission’s final report which will be handed down on Monday. 
Practices including ongoing "trailing" commissions used to reward sales staff, and overly optimistic methods to determine how much money a retail customer can borrow are expected to be targeted, both areas where analysts say CBA has more exposure than its "Big Four" rivals - National Australia Bank , Australia and New Zealand Banking Group and Westpac Banking Corp . 
CBA also has the highest proportion of mortgages and credit cards in its overall debt book. 
"Being forced to have tighter lending standards will impact all of them, but it will probably impact CBA more," said Matthew Ryland, portfolio manager at Greencape Capital, which holds bank shares. 
CBA declined comment because it was in a blackout period ahead of its half-year results announcement on Feb. 6. 

SHARES HIT 
As the Royal Commission made headlines last year with witness accounts of customer rip-offs across the financial services sector, shares of all the major retail banks fell in anticipation of enforced structural changes that would result. A housing downturn and global equities turbulence further weighed. 
CBA has fallen less than its rivals since the start of the inquiry but 14 analysts polled by Refinitiv predict it will lag an expected rally after the commission recommendations. 
Analysts on average have a 12-month target price for CBA just 4.2 percent higher than its current value. 
Shares of NAB, the least consumer-focused bank and largest business lender, are seen rising 18.8 percent from their current level, while ANZ, which also has less exposure to consumer lending, is forecast to rise 13.1 percent. 
"They are mainly business banks so growth will probably be better for them," said TS Lim, a banking analyst at Bell Potter Securities. "For the likes of (CBA), they are very, very dependent on interest income, and the wholesale funding cost is creeping up slowly." 
Citi estimates CBA has made 80 percent of its profit growth in the past two years from home mortgages, and now has CBA as the only big bank without a "buy" rating. Of the majors, CBA has the most "short" positions, or shareholdings of people betting the stock price will fall, according to Australian stock exchange data. 
At the inquiry last year, CBA chief executive Matt Comyn said the bank had started applying stricter reviews to check people's ability to pay home loans, checking applicants' expenses individually rather than using a formula to estimate out-goings. 
Should the Royal Commission recommend banning the formulas, CBA, which still uses that method on about 75 percent of loan applications, would be under pressure to spend more money improving its credit approval processes. 

VERTICAL DISINTEGRATION 
All Australia's large banks including CBA sought to grow through the early 2000s by buying wealth management and insurance businesses and cross-selling a suite of services to customers. 
But while ANZ pursued an Asia strategy and NAB tried its hand in the United Kingdom, CBA fixed its domestic stronghold by buying Western Australian rural lender BankWest in 2008 and amassing a team of thousands of financial planners. 
When the banks reversed course around 2015 and began carving off non-core assets to avoid competition, CBA shed its insurance and fund management subsidiaries, as well as offshore retail banking businesses. 
It was left with a sales force and branch network larger than rivals which depended more on paying commissions to push products through brokers. 
At the bank's annual results in August, Comyn backed the strategy of focusing on its "leading retail banking franchise in the country which we're going to continue to invest in and strengthen further". 
It may not be all bad news for CBA and its investors, some of whom say CBA's sheer size may work in its favour during the uncertainty as customers stick to what they know. 
Windfalls from sales of non-core businesses are also on the cards. 
Analysts at Deutsche Bank expect CBA will return about A$3 billion to shareholders by 2020 as it completes the sales of various assets. 
"Some people would suggest that poses the biggest risk but that's not where we are," said Sean Sequeira, chief investment officer at Alleron Investment Management, referring to CBA's retail exposure. 
However, several analysts said the bank's retail-first strategy made CBA one of the most affected if the Royal Commission makes lenders disclose account-keeping fees, increase regulation of sales bonuses, or use enforce stricter controls to approve loans. 
"We favour the commercially-orientated banks (ANZ and NAB) over retail oriented ... due to the Royal Commission's focus on consumer lending and financial advice," Citi analysts said in a recent note. 
(Reporting by Byron Kaye and Paulina Duran Editing by Lincoln Feast) 
((byron.kaye@thomsonreuters.com; +612 9321 8164; Reuters Messaging: byron.kaye.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net; @byronkaye))_


----------



## sptrawler (2 February 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Where's the evidence of poor lending standards?
> 
> The case of westpac vs ASIC has no result yet as the judge would not sign off on the agreement asic and wbc made
> 
> ...



I guess, the Banks may not have been informed they were dead and or the accounts were not closed. This could probably happen if there is a contested will, or the person died intestate.
I would think even blind Freddy would see, that banks continuing to charge after a death certificate has been forwarded, could end up badly.
One has to keep in mind the media, love to put the shades they want, to a story.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I guess, the Banks may not have been informed they were dead and or the accounts were not closed.



The real question is whether, upon becoming aware that the person was dead, did the banks willingly refund whatever fees had been charged?


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (2 February 2019)

Exactly sptrawler. 

Somebody dies then the estate handles things from there. 

A bank has nothing wrong if the account is open and they charge whatever fees as set out in terms and conditions.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> A bank has nothing wrong if the account is open and they charge whatever fees as set out in terms and conditions.



An account certainly but it has been alleged they also charged dead people for financial advice. Pretty hard to justify that one. Even the worst financial adviser would surely notice that their client hasn't turned up to a meeting or that they're sitting in the room with a dead person.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (2 February 2019)

dont think that was happening. More like this Fee for Service stuff where people had yearly reviews attached to their account structure.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (3 February 2019)

ME bank lifts interest rates 18 pts last week, not much hysteria about


----------



## sptrawler (3 February 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> ME bank lifts interest rates 18 pts last week, not much hysteria about



I think everyone has worked out the Banks have to make money and things aren't looking good. So to complain, I think, is the furthest from the mind of most people.


----------



## bigdog (4 February 2019)

Report issued to all at 4:10 PM today after market closes

Odds are that their report will  takes the regulators, including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to task?

Well ASIC has reacted in a big way refer report below

https://www.smh.com.au/business/ban...-79308165&mc_cid=c26eca50b4&mc_eid=51f5acc433

*ASIC goes nuclear on CBA ahead of royal commission report*

*By Elizabeth Knight*
4 February 2019 — 12:49pm

It looks like no accident of timing that the corporate regulator has launched a nuclear strike against the Commonwealth Bank in the hours leading up to the release of Kenneth Hayne’s royal commission report into financial services.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has banned CBA's financial planning business, CFPL, from charging any fees or taking on new customers after the regulator determined that the bank hadn’t yet properly fixed the weeping sore of fees for no service.

The bank and the regulator have been engaged in a bitter battle over the issue for a year, with one deadline passing, an extension granted and a new deadline set.

This is more than a tug of war between the regulator and the regulated.

It has much to do with the public perception of both. ASIC’s efficacy as a regulator amid allegations it has been captive to those it polices has come under fire during the royal commission.

Firing a pre-emptive bullet at the CBA certainly appears like ASIC’s attempt to get some handle on the narrative. (ASIC says this timing wasn’t stage-managed but it can’t deny that it works well.)

ASIC clearly both ran out of patience and wanted to demonstrate its willingness to both bark and inflict a nasty bite.

Independent expert Ernst & Young had been ordered to monitor whether CBA was complying with the terms of a court enforceable undertaking from ASIC. At the end of January, another deadline passed, but CBA failed its assignment.

E&Y had delivered ASIC a report on whether CBA’s financial planning unit had taken reasonable steps to remediate customers impacted by the fees-for-no-service conduct and on the adequacy of its systems, processes and controls.

CBA also provided a written update to ASIC on the remediation program and work being done in relation to CFPL’s systems, processes and controls.

ASIC remained unconvinced.

CBA now has a new deadline - in four months - in which to fix its remediation of customers and its systems and process.

Given this planning business, which has around 300 salaried planners, has to operate without receiving any fees until ASIC gives the business the green light, there is now plenty of incentive for the bank to give the issue the priority it seems not to have done previously.

During the royal commission hearings, it was noted that for financial institutions, investing money into revenue-generating infrastructure seemed to be speedy enough, while spending to rectify past mistakes was tardy.

From a public relations standpoint, this is a shocking outcome for CBA. It has now been outed for not adequately complying with the terms of a court enforceable undertaking to get its systems, processes and remedies in order within the required period.

Chief executive Matt Comyn would clearly rather have responded to the royal commission’s report by being able to say that his organisation was sorry for the previous misconduct and had been proactively doing everything in its power to fix those affected clients and ensure it wouldn’t happen again.

That line of defence has now been blasted out of the water by ASIC.

Comyn, meanwhile, has to line up before media and investors this week to release the bank’s first-half earnings.

Meanwhile, bank stocks are holding up well during the last trading session ahead of the release of the royal commission report.

The big four are all up more than 1 per cent and well ahead of the broader market.

Tuesday will deliver the real test around whether the commission’s findings will provide a real dent in industry profits.


----------



## Ann (4 February 2019)

This is what is being said in international business news.
*The $360 Billion Waiting on an Australian Inquiry*

_Australian investors are about to get the final piece of a 13-month inquiry into the rampant misconduct at its biggest banks and financial firms that could set the tone for the nation’s stocks this week.

The report on financial companies -- which make up the biggest portion of the benchmark equity index -- is set to be released after the market closes on Monday.


The S&P/ASX 200 Finance Index, whose companies account for a little more than A$503 billion ($364 billion) in value, hangs in the balance as investors wait to see if the Royal Commission will make specific recommendations for action. Those could include criminal charges against bank executives, a call for lenders to be broken up to avoid conflicts of interest in offering financial advice, and a plea to regulators to take tougher action against wrongdoers............._


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (4 February 2019)

*For those looking for massive structural change, an overhaul of the regulators or a list of heads on sticks, commissioner Kenneth Hayne would have disappointed. There was little blood and gore, writes Adele Ferguson.
*
be interesting day tomorrow,


----------



## Ann (4 February 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> *For those looking for massive structural change, an overhaul of the regulators or a list of heads on sticks, commissioner Kenneth Hayne would have disappointed. There was little blood and gore, writes Adele Ferguson.
> *
> be interesting day tomorrow,



Perhaps the devil is in the detail and we may not know for a day or two until they can look at it closely. Interesting times!


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2019)

Ann said:


> Perhaps the devil is in the detail and we may not know for a day or two until they can look at it closely. Interesting times!



I think the real detail, will have to be decided in Parliament.


----------



## Ann (4 February 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I think the real detail, will have to be decided in Parliament.



As to whether they agree to adopt the recommendations? It will be a brave government who tries to overturn the suggestions. Do we know what they are yet?


----------



## peter2 (4 February 2019)

Banking business will go on as usual. They will implement a publish relations exercise saying they'll work for their customers. Bank lobbyists will do their work and many of the 76 recommendations will be watered down in the same way recommendations to "fix" the financial services many years ago were extinguished.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (4 February 2019)

Interesting press conferences.

Anna bligh quite happy. Bowen very short, really didn't have much to refute.

COmmissioner Haynne  surprised them i feel


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2019)

Ann said:


> As to whether they agree to adopt the recommendations? It will be a brave government who tries to overturn the suggestions. Do we know what they are yet?



The obvious one that stands out, is that mortgage broker's fees, will be paid by the customer, instead of the bank. So they will be an endangered species.
Also no moving employees to default super funds, by employer, that will annoy the industry funds.


----------



## PZ99 (4 February 2019)

Not much to see really. Futures spiked up 0.3% after close of trade.

Green tomorrow I reckon.


----------



## Ann (4 February 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Also no moving employees to default super funds, by employer, that will annoy the industry funds.



Sorry I have no idea what this means sptrawler, would you be a dear and translate for lesser mortals like myself?


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2019)

Ann said:


> Sorry I have no idea what this means sptrawler, would you be a dear and translate for lesser mortals like myself?



From the snippets I've read, it sounds as though the practice of an employer having a standard default super fund and new employees are automatically put in it, will not be allowed.
A lot of companies have a default super provider and these are often Industry Funds, as part of an enterprise bargaining deal. From memory.
I guess the unions like lots of Industry funds, it supplies a lot of employment.
Only my understanding of it, do your own research.

_By agreeing with the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that workers only be defaulted once into a superannuation fund in their life – not every time they change their employer – Justice Hayne has heaped pressure on Labor to resist the lobbying of Industry Super and back the changes.

The change is likely to see super funds starved of millions of new accounts that accrue fees and charges every time a worker begins at a new employer_.


----------



## Ann (4 February 2019)

sptrawler said:


> From the snippets I've read, it sounds as though the practice of an employer having a standard default super fund and new employees are automatically put in it, will not be allowed.
> A lot of companies have a default super provider and these are often Industry Funds, as part of an enterprise bargaining deal. From memory.
> I guess the unions like lots of Industry funds, it supplies a lot of employment.
> 
> ...




How would this impact on the banks? I can see it would impact on the the super fund industry but they are separate from the banks, are they not? Tech/a you must know about this stuff....


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2019)

Here you go Ann, a summary just posted by the SMH:
_"The financial services industry is too important to the economy of the nation to allow what has happened in the past to continue or to happen again."

The following are some of the key recommendations made by Justice Hayne.

The banks:
_

_Require mortgage brokers to act in the best interests of the intending borrower, not the bank providing the loan. Breaching this law would result in a fine._
_Borrowers rather than lenders should pay the mortgage broker for their services._
_Lenders would be banned from paying trail commissions to mortgage brokers for new loans._
_Expand the Banking Executive Accountability Regime laws to track those responsible for any breach of lending laws._
_
Loading
Bank treatment of farmers and those with poor English skills:
_

_Establish a national scheme to mediate farm debts._
_Banks would be barred from charging dishonour fees on basic accounts._
_Amend the banking code of conduct so people in remote areas or those with poor English skills can access and conduct banking._
_Require banks not to charge default interest on loans secured by farm land in an area declared to be in drought or subject to other natural disasters._
_Have banks ensure managers of distressed farm loans are experienced agricultural bankers. Recognise that appointment of receivers on a farm loan is a "remedy of last resort"._
_Car dealers should no longer be exempt from national consumer credit protection laws._
_Financial Advice:
_

_Create a new disciplinary system for financial advisers, with all advisers required to be registered. A single disciplinary body would oversee the system._
_Grandfathered provisions of conflicted remuneration should be repealed as soon as possible._
_The current cap on commissions for life risk-insurance products should be reduced and ultimately set at zero._
_All remaining conflicted remuneration exemptions should be referred with a view to banning them outright._
_All banking licence holders be required to report "serious compliance concerns" about individual financial advisers to ASIC on a quarterly basis._
_
Superannuation:
_

_A single default super fund for all workers. People would be "stapled" to a single default account._
_Ban on advice fees deducted from MySuper accounts._
_Advice fees for non-MySuper accounts would be prohibited in most cases._
_Heavy handed selling of superannuation to be abolished._
_Referral to ASIC and APRA for possible action:
_

_Justice Hayne has referred to regulators a long list of companies for possible criminal or civil action. The 24 companies include Suncorp, ANZ, NAB, CommInsure, Allianz, AMP and ClearView._
_Insurance:

_

_Heavy-handed selling of insurance products would be banned._
_Funeral expense insurance policies would be defined as a financial product, bringing it under the oversight of ASIC._
_Impose a cap on the commission that can be paid to car sellers for add-on insurance products._
_Handling and settlement of insurance claims would be defined as a financial service._
_Loading
Culture and governance:
_

_All financial service companies would review at least once a year the design and features of their remuneration systems for frontline staff._
_All financial companies should assess their own culture and governance._
_The regulators:

_

_Retain ASIC and APRA but have them overseen by a new independent authority that would assess the two regulators to ensure they are carrying out their responsibilities._
_ASIC overhauls its approach to enforcement, with a focus on court action rather than infringement notices._
_ASIC should continue its annual reporting of breaches of financial service regulations but in future name the companies rather than just the type of breach._
_For those hurt by the finance sector:
_

_There should be a change to the way community legal groups helping those with financial complaints are funded, moving it to a more "predictable and stable" system._
_Compensation scheme of last resort for those unable to receive financial recompense from their institution._


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2019)

Ann said:


> How would this impact on the banks? I can see it would impact on the the super fund industry but they are separate from the banks, are they not? Tech/a you must know about this stuff....



The only way that would effect the banks, is if they are a default super provider.
Actually the banks haven't been impacted, in any major way, from what I have read.


----------



## Ann (4 February 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The only way that would effect the banks, is if they are a default super provider.
> Actually the banks haven't been impacted, in any major way, from what I have read.




Fascinating, a banking review which has no impact on banks! I wonder how much that cost?

Let's start watching the Corruption Index for Australia. I am thinking it will start to rise.


----------



## rogue1 (4 February 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Not much to see really. Futures spiked up 0.3% after close of trade.
> 
> Green tomorrow I reckon.




Didn't Friedandburnt say their proposed changes would come into effect in April of next year..?


----------



## qldfrog (4 February 2019)

Ann said:


> Fascinating, a banking review which has no impact on banks! I wonder how much that cost?
> 
> Let's start watching the Corruption Index for Australia. I am thinking it will start to rise.
> View attachment 91902



I disagree, fees for brokers etc will have a serious impact there are also referrals to maybe prosecution, and also the slap in the face for asic and apra.
My own dealing with asic making me view them as crook or incompetent as year after year they fine me for not returning form they do not send me and can not even manage to update a mailing address
So for these clowns to control banks effectively....
But do we really need a royal commission every month on any badly managed society issue.
Can we not have government doing a proper job?


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I think the real detail, will have to be decided in Parliament.




Yes, it sounds as though any changes, will be left up to parliament which is understandable.

From the SMH:
_However, the report stopped short of making any radical changes to responsible lending requirements, which should alleviate concerns about a credit crunch that could worsen the housing market or impact the economy_.


----------



## satanoperca (4 February 2019)

1. Royal Commission demeaned by the people, placing pressure of the govnuts 
2. Denied by incombent govnuts (LIBS)
3. Pressure mounts, banks accept the inevitable and request a RC on their terms, it - f--k me, isn't the job of the govnuts to set the requirements, but it seems the banks rule the govnuts
4. Royal Commission proceeds, with the purpose of determining the facts and where govnuts have failed to protect the people and/or have been corrupt in their behaviour, surprise, surprise
5. RC hands down findings to a govnut, that didn't want it in the first place
6. Govnuts do sweet f--k all with the results but do rack up a massive bill on the tax payer
7. New govnuts (Labor) have a choice to legislate some of the findings
8. They say they will when in power
9. Labor gets in power and does sweet f---k all.
10. Rinse and repeat for eternity 

Nothing will change, the system is corrupt. Once you accept that, you can play the system for your own benefit.
If you expect change, I hope you where born yesterday, as you will waiting a lifetime


----------



## bigdog (4 February 2019)

https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/five-minute-quick-take-on-the-royal-commission-findings

Three volumes






*Five minute quick-take on the Royal Commission findings*
Patrick Poke
Livewire Markets
https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/five-minute-quick-take-on-the-royal-commission-findings

With the results of the Hayne Royal Commission now available for all to see (final report here), fund managers, journalists, and bankers everywhere are scrambling to absorb the biggest impacts. Here, I'll summarize some of the key findings from my initial glance at the report (spoiler alert: the mortgage broking industry is hit _hard) _

*Is the broking industry broken?*

*Best interests duty* - mortgage brokers to be subject to the same obligation as financial advisors
*No commissions *- the report recommends that mortgage broking switch to user-pays, rather than the lender-pays system that currently exists
*Brokers as advisors* - though it allows for a "period of transition", brokers will eventually be subject to the same regulations and laws as financial advisors providing product advice to their clients.
*Financial advice*

*Fee arrangements* - any ongoing fee arrangements need to be renewed annually, and they must state the specific services to be provided. No fees can be charged without specific permission
*"Indepedent" financial advice* - Advisors will be required to provide a written disclosure statement to clients warning of a lack of independence
*Grandfathered commissions *- grandfathering of old commission arrangements to be repealed "as soon as is reasonably practicable"
*Life insurance commissions* - reduce, and ultimately remove conflicted life insurance commissions
*Reference checking *- all AFSL holders will be required to check references of advisors
*Reporting *- "serious compliance concerns" about advisors must be reported to ASIC quarterly.
*Superannuation*

*Trustees get a shake-up *- superannuation trustees will not be allowed to hold any other role or office other than those arising from their role as the superannuation trustee. A large number of trustees currently sit on multiple boards and/or hold other positions
*No hawking *- a blanket ban on all unsolicited selling of superannuation products
*One default account* - the report recommends implementing a system to ensure that nobody holds multiple default accounts
*No more special treatment for employers* - any act that has the purpose of getting an employer to nominate a particular fund as their default will be banned.
*Insurance*

*No hawking of insurance products *- similar to superannuation, no unsolicited offers of insurance products will be allowed
At more than 500 pages long, and with dozens of recommendations there are no doubt some key ones I've missed. However, these are the ones that stood out to me as most likely to get headlines in the coming days.

If there are any stand-out recommendations that you think I've missed, let us know in the comments below.

_EDIT: The Federal Government has announced that it will not accept the full crack down on mortgage broking for fears of harming competition_


----------



## satanoperca (4 February 2019)

bigdog said:


> _EDIT: The Federal Government has announced that it will not accept the full crack down on mortgage broking for fears of harming competition_




Read above


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2019)

bigdog said:


> *Superannuation*
> 
> *Trustees get a shake-up *- superannuation trustees will not be allowed to hold any other role or office other than those arising from their role as the superannuation trustee. A large number of trustees currently sit on multiple boards and/or hold other positions
> *No hawking *- a blanket ban on all unsolicited selling of superannuation products
> ...



Can't see labor agreeing to that.


----------



## bigdog (4 February 2019)

*Correct link to the three report volumes to review if you like!*
https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2019-fsrc-final-report/







*Five minute quick-take on the Royal Commission findings*
Patrick Poke
Livewire Markets
https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/five-minute-quick-take-on-the-royal-commission-findings

With the results of the Hayne Royal Commission now available for all to see (final report here), fund managers, journalists, and bankers everywhere are scrambling to absorb the biggest impacts. Here, I'll summarize some of the key findings from my initial glance at the report (spoiler alert: the mortgage broking industry is hit _hard) _

*Is the broking industry broken?*

*Best interests duty* - mortgage brokers to be subject to the same obligation as financial advisors
*No commissions *- the report recommends that mortgage broking switch to user-pays, rather than the lender-pays system that currently exists
*Brokers as advisors* - though it allows for a "period of transition", brokers will eventually be subject to the same regulations and laws as financial advisors providing product advice to their clients.
*Financial advice*

*Fee arrangements* - any ongoing fee arrangements need to be renewed annually, and they must state the specific services to be provided. No fees can be charged without specific permission
*"Indepedent" financial advice* - Advisors will be required to provide a written disclosure statement to clients warning of a lack of independence
*Grandfathered commissions *- grandfathering of old commission arrangements to be repealed "as soon as is reasonably practicable"
*Life insurance commissions* - reduce, and ultimately remove conflicted life insurance commissions
*Reference checking *- all AFSL holders will be required to check references of advisors
*Reporting *- "serious compliance concerns" about advisors must be reported to ASIC quarterly.
*Superannuation*

*Trustees get a shake-up *- superannuation trustees will not be allowed to hold any other role or office other than those arising from their role as the superannuation trustee. A large number of trustees currently sit on multiple boards and/or hold other positions
*No hawking *- a blanket ban on all unsolicited selling of superannuation products
*One default account* - the report recommends implementing a system to ensure that nobody holds multiple default accounts
*No more special treatment for employers* - any act that has the purpose of getting an employer to nominate a particular fund as their default will be banned.
*Insurance*

*No hawking of insurance products *- similar to superannuation, no unsolicited offers of insurance products will be allowed
At more than 500 pages long, and with dozens of recommendations there are no doubt some key ones I've missed. However, these are the ones that stood out to me as most likely to get headlines in the coming days.

If there are any stand-out recommendations that you think I've missed, let us know in the comments below.

_EDIT: The Federal Government has announced that it will not accept the full crack down on mortgage broking for fears of harming competition_[/QUOTE]


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (5 February 2019)

Been an unnecessary whinge towards the big 4 and other institutions that make large $ profits because of their size

Hayne is a very experienced judge yet his team hasn't recommended anyone/business to face criminal or civil charges.

60 Billion in shareholder moneyhas vanished since the RC was announced, shareholders been the biggest losers. Probably a 5yr turn around for these companies.


----------



## PZ99 (5 February 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Been an unnecessary whinge towards the big 4 and other institutions that make large $ profits because of their size
> 
> Hayne is a very experienced judge yet his team hasn't recommended anyone/business to face criminal or civil charges.
> 
> 60 Billion in shareholder moneyhas vanished since the RC was announced, shareholders been the biggest losers. Probably a 5yr turn around for these companies.



For every loss there's a win. Hence the incentive to top up and gain some beer money


----------



## Junior (5 February 2019)

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has been in Financial Advice for 15 years, and also interacts with many mortgage brokers, these recommendations will have a massive impact on the industry, on advisers and on brokers.


----------



## sptrawler (5 February 2019)

Junior said:


> Speaking from the perspective of someone who has been in Financial Advice for 15 years, and also interacts with many mortgage brokers, these recommendations will have a massive impact on the industry, on advisers and on brokers.



I can understand exactly what you are saying, just because of some bad apples taking the pi$$ out of the system, all the rest become collateral damage.
A bit like me and the SMSF, franking credit debacle.


----------



## dutchie (5 February 2019)

Party Party Party !!!
at all the banks this morning


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2019)

Junior said:


> Speaking from the perspective of someone who has been in Financial Advice for 15 years, and also interacts with many mortgage brokers, these recommendations will have a massive impact on the industry, on advisers and on brokers.




The question is, will the consumers be better off ?


----------



## sptrawler (5 February 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The question is, will the consumers be better off ?



I think farmers will be, as for the rest of us, it's business as usual.
Getting loans will be harder, so housing will continue to slide, then Billy will get in and the slide will accelerate untill the bottom is reached. 
Which isn't a bad thing, prices in Mandurah W.A, are getting back to the prices 15 years ago. 
I was talking to a young single mum and she has just bought a 2 bed unit, $50/wk cheaper than renting, ah smell the roses.


----------



## jbocker (5 February 2019)

Seriously were mortgage brokers the problem????


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (5 February 2019)

Yes, Kenneth Hayne says a lot of trouble with those mortgages


----------



## Darc Knight (5 February 2019)

Financials up 4.8% and rising.


----------



## PZ99 (5 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Financials up 4.8% and rising.



Let's have another RC on insider trading


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 February 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> 60 Billion in shareholder moneyhas vanished since the RC was announced, shareholders been the biggest losers. Probably a 5yr turn around for these companies.



The thing about banks, the "big 4" especially, is that whilst privately owned they are quasi-government institutions in practice. First due to the role banks play in society and the economy and second due to the implied backing of government in the event they ran into major trouble.

As such, it's inevitable that politics is going to have some influence over their activities from time to time. Government doesn't own or run them but via regulation, or the threat of regulation, government policy objectives will at times dominate over corporate objectives.

Other companies in a similar situation which come to mind are in energy, particularly AGL, and aviation particularly Qantas. They have the attributes of being major players in critical sectors of the economy which are subject to significant regulation and the companies themselves tend to attract government attention.


----------



## Junior (5 February 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The question is, will the consumers be better off ?




The quality of service and advice will continue to improve.  

However, the cost of these services could blow out, as the layers of regulation & compliance on practitioners continue to mount.  This is the one major thing not properly addressed or considered in Hayne's report.

For example, Life Insurance commissions paid to advisers, used to be as high as 120% upfront.  They are now 77% and will fall to 66% soon.  Hayne recommends they are eventually cut to 0%.  This is all well and good, but the insurance companies simply do not pass on any of these savings to consumers....instead of paying advisers they simply retain the difference.  Many Life companies have in fact, increased premiums by anywhere between 10% and 30% over the past 3 years.

If commission rates were to fall to 0%, this means those who need personal insurance most (ie. those will little savings in the bank), simply may not be able to afford to seek advice, as advice is increasingly costly to provide and will require an upfront fee of at least $2,000, and then more fees for a review or to process a claim.


----------



## jbocker (5 February 2019)

jbocker said:


> Seriously were mortgage brokers the problem????






Toyota Lexcen said:


> Yes, Kenneth Hayne says a lot of trouble with those mortgages




OK, to my mind the banks still provided the deals (mortgages). Brokers do the legwork finding best deals, taking the place of mortgage personnel once employed within the bank.  The money the banks saved helped pay the brokers. So now the banks have lost the mortgage people and now don't pay the brokers, you the lender now pay the broker. 
Banks would be laughing at the broker fees saved and the brokering industry and the borrowers struggle in an already tougher world with the compilation of best mortgage deals.
I appreciate there was very likely a problem with some deals some brokers probably had with the banks and that some would have focussed for their own commissions. Belt those who did.
It may well be a better system having to pay the broker, but I think the onus will now rest with the broker and the banks wipe their hands of any issues future and past ie will remain unpunished for the past.
Good luck trying to sell property while this turbulence is added to the market.

I was actively looking to purchase but have recently decided to sit on my hands and cash 6 - 12 months, and hope foreign investment does not scoop the pool.


----------



## just_jay (5 February 2019)

I had 2 mortgage brokers. One was a recommendation from a friend. One worked for my accountant. My friend got a $100 gift card for the referral (this was before I even applied for loan). Both brokers got paid in commissions from the bank and when I asked one broker, how do you ensure you act in my best interests given you are paid by the bank? The answer was "oh, we get paid commission by the banks but there isn't much variation". So I believed her. At the same time, my accountant found out I was buying a property and told me to try his in house mortgage broker, no commitment/ obligation. So, I let them do the work. When they came back with options for me, I did a quick online comparison, and found a package that was at least 0.25% (a non bank) lower than what either had. After I queried the broker that worked for my accountant abt the high interest rates, he came back with another offer that was 0.12% lower than the initial offer. I dumped both brokers after that and signed up with the non bank mortgage provider. 

I never got any confirmations but I suspected that some banks/ mortgage providers provided much higher commissions than others. My loan was a simple one, low risk, not interest only and had a LVR of approx 80%. There shouldn't be such a variation in interest rates. I personally feel that a large percentage of brokers don't act in your best interests based on stories I have heard, but I am jaded about the industry in general. The non banks or the non ADRs may have a lower risk tolerance in terms of how much they will loan you, but it still doesnt hurt to do a quick online comparison yourself until the changes recommended in the Haynes report are implemented.


----------



## willy1111 (5 February 2019)

just_jay said:


> I had 2 mortgage brokers. One was a recommendation from a friend. One worked for my accountant. My friend got a $100 gift card for the referral (this was before I even applied for loan). Both brokers got paid in commissions from the bank and when I asked one broker, how do you ensure you act in my best interests given you are paid by the bank? The answer was "oh, we get paid commission by the banks but there isn't much variation". So I believed her. At the same time, my accountant found out I was buying a property and told me to try his in house mortgage broker, no commitment/ obligation. So, I let them do the work. When they came back with options for me, I did a quick online comparison, and found a package that was at least 0.25% (a non bank) lower than what either had. After I queried the broker that worked for my accountant abt the high interest rates, he came back with another offer that was 0.12% lower than the initial offer. I dumped both brokers after that and signed up with the non bank mortgage provider.
> 
> I never got any confirmations but I suspected that some banks/ mortgage providers provided much higher commissions than others. My loan was a simple one, low risk, not interest only and had a LVR of approx 80%. There shouldn't be such a variation in interest rates. I personally feel that a large percentage of brokers don't act in your best interests based on stories I have heard, but I am jaded about the industry in general. The non banks or the non ADRs may have a lower risk tolerance in terms of how much they will loan you, but it still doesnt hurt to do a quick online comparison yourself until the changes recommended in the Haynes report are implemented.




Maybe think of it like this...cba sell cba home loans, westpac sell westpac loans, a mortgage broker sell a variety of different lenders products...but normally only ones they get paid for. They don't have access to every loan available in the market place.

It is possible the lender you found wasn't on the brokers panel as they didn't pay a commission to the broker.

The broker should disclose their panel  of lenders to you, then they match your requirements and objectives to the lender on their panel that best matches it.

Sometimes due to policy issues the borrower doesn't qualify with the lender with the lowest rate.

And normally there are online lenders that have lower rates.

Brokers are sales people not advisors, they only provide advice to the extent that it assists a borrower to go with a loan they get paid for.


----------



## rogue1 (7 February 2019)

So NAB CEO has quit and there's a trading halt.

Does this mean the NAB shares are going to go into freefall..?


----------



## sptrawler (7 February 2019)

rogue1 said:


> So NAB CEO has quit and there's a trading halt.
> 
> Does this mean the NAB shares are going to go into freefall..?



IMO No, just a bit of housekeeping.


----------



## jbocker (7 February 2019)

rogue1 said:


> So NAB CEO has quit and there's a trading halt.
> 
> Does this mean the NAB shares are going to go into freefall..?



A freefall ..I wouldn't have thought so. I would expect that shareholders would want some heads to be rolled.
Then again who knows what the market does.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 February 2019)

rogue1 said:


> So NAB CEO has quit and there's a trading halt.
> 
> Does this mean the NAB shares are going to go into freefall..?



In my opinion no. Well tomorrow there might be some sort of shock reaction but not in the longer term.

Banking is a fairly stable and established sort of business and all the management team really needs to do is be successful versus competitors, not go broke and not get in trouble with regulators. On the latter point the outgoing management clearly failed so the prospect is one of improvement going forward rather than the wheels falling off with a new manager.

It's very different to a high tech company where the vision of those at the top drives the whole thing at least during the growth phase. Also very different to the flamboyant entrepreneur types determined to do things differently and that's their competitive edge. Banking is more like telling someone to walk A to B whilst remaining on the same road the whole way. One foot in front of the other, just keep repeating that, don't get lost and and don't take any shortcuts because you'll be in trouble with regulators if you do. 

There will be people with their hand up for the job and at least some of those will be capable.

Only prediction I'll make is that they'd likely be biased toward someone with no prior history with NAB (or any other Australian bank) for reasons of politics and the Royal Commission. Someone comes in from the UK or US or wherever and they can't possibly be blamed for anything in the past so it's a clean slate.


----------



## sptrawler (13 August 2019)

Well a big test case has been thrown out, thankfully the law see it as the borrowers responsibility, to decide IF they can afford a loan.
First place for common sense. 

https://www.theage.com.au/business/...ark-case-against-westpac-20190813-p52gii.html

From the article:
_The Federal Court on Tuesday dismissed the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's case against the bank after finding the regulator had failed to prove its case_. 
_ASIC had alleged Westpac had breached responsible lending laws on more than 260,000 home loan applications by using a benchmark known as the Household Expenditure Measure to assess and estimate a borrowers' expenses rather than reviewing their expenses individually to determine if they could service the loan.

In throwing out ASIC's case, Justice Nye Perram found a borrower could change some of their expenses after taking on a loan so that they could make payments_ .

This will have a big effect on remediation.


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2019)

Shonky loans, from another perspective, it is amazing how people come up with ways to steal money.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/ban...nab-suit-club-fraud-bare-20190821-p52j9f.html

From the article:
_NAB reported a cabal of staff to police in 2015 after uncovering the alleged fraud. An internal bank investigation found at least five branch managers in NSW had been allegedly involved in introducer fraud.

NAB and other big banks had been working to stem an increase in so-called liar loans as people went to great lengths to secure a home loan during the property boom.

Analysts at investment bank UBS have estimated that Australia's pool of liar loans could be as big as $500 billion - 30 per cent of the $1.7 trillion home loan market.

A liar loan is a loan that has been issued to a borrower after a bank is supplied with false information about the borrower’s income and employment history. Such an approach means many people who would not otherwise be approved for a loan receive one_ .


----------



## basilio (21 August 2019)

*$500 billion of liar loans* 

If I was looking at my books as a bank I'd be concerned as to how these people are currently tracking. Actually of course it would be even more interesting to see how these "liar loans" panned out over time. Do they actually end up having a higher failure figure than other loans ?


----------



## sptrawler (10 September 2019)

ASIC, has picked itself up, brushed itself down and is climbing into the ring for a re match.

https://www.theage.com.au/business/...sponsible-lending-ruling-20190910-p52pry.html
From the article:
_ASIC had taken the bank to court by arguing it broke the law in relation to about 261,000 home loan applications between 2011 and 2015, because the lender failed to take into account the customers' living expenses, instead relying on a statistical benchmark_.
_But ASIC says the ruling creates uncertainty over what is required of banks to make "reasonable inquiries" about a borrower's financial circumstances, and whether a loan is suitable_.
_A notice of appeal filed said ASIC was seeking to have Justice Perram's orders set aside, and for Westpac to pay ASIC's appeal costs _.

IMO I think more taxpayers money will be lost.
If ASIC wants to tighten the lending standards more than the statistical benchmark, it will have to come up with its own formula and enact it.
IMO it would be a breach of privacy for a Bank to delve into every last cent a person spends, there are certainly mixed messages, the Government can't tell welfare recipients how to spend taxpayers money, but banks can tell you how to spend your own money "I don't think so".
How much access would Banks have to be given to your personal details, more than the ATO, is my guess. I can't see the general public accepting that.
Just my opinion.

I think ASIC is on a hiding, to nothing. But it should be very interesting.


----------



## sptrawler (13 September 2019)

Is it just me, or does this sound like the biggest waste of taxpayers money yet?

https://www.smh.com.au/business/ban...ve-asic-s-westpac-appeal-20190913-p52qwq.html

I mean if ASIC wants to tighten the lending formula, tighten it, but to go to court to check if what you heard last time was correct, beggars belief.IMO
Someone needs a reality check.


----------



## sptrawler (30 September 2019)

Well here is the way our society has become weird, the Royal Commission blame the banks, maybe if they prosecuted the loan applicants for fraudulent information it would sort out the problem.

https://www.watoday.com.au/business...s-based-on-lies-says-ubs-20190929-p52vx5.html

From the article:
_The introduction of stronger responsible lending practices – including asking more questions of borrowers and seeking more documentation to support their claims – appear to have failed to reduce the threat to the banking system and economy posed by so-called "liar loans", according to the survey, which pointed to a record-high number of borrowers admitting their applications were "not completely factual"_.

The bank is to blame, for people telling lies, OMG I can't wait for ASIC to go back to Court. More of our money down the toilet IMO.
We will do anything, other than make people responsible for their own actions, the good old "virtue signalers".  their motto "Always find someone else to blame".


----------



## sptrawler (8 October 2019)

At last a reporter has woken up to the underlying problem with bank bashing.

https://www.theage.com.au/business/...s-debate-than-home-loans-20191007-p52yal.html


----------



## sptrawler (17 October 2019)

The fall out from the Royal commission and and ongoing bank bashing, is starting to bite, it is very difficult to understand how the Government wants Banks to be 'too strong to fail', yet don't want them to make money and be a public service. 
https://www.smh.com.au/business/ban...lian-banks-vulnerability-20191017-p531jn.html
It really is about time they moved on. IMO
I do hold bank shares.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (17 October 2019)

Spot on SP,  

The banks make stuff all really, top article.


----------



## sptrawler (17 October 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Spot on SP,
> 
> The banks make stuff all really, top article.



In reality the banks make very poor returns, when you factor in the amount of money invested, they are just a soft target.


----------



## sptrawler (22 October 2019)

A good article on Peter Costello's thoughts, re the banking sector, the penny has to drop soon with the politicians IMO.

https://www.watoday.com.au/business...ut-over-regulating-banks-20191022-p532yr.html


----------



## basilio (7 December 2019)

This is not about Australian banks but the story is appalling. 

*‘I lost my £193,000 inheritance – with one wrong digit on my sort code’ *
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...heritance-with-one-wrong-digit-on-my-sort-cod*e*


----------



## sptrawler (23 April 2020)

What a weird World we live in, the Banking Royal Commission slammed banks for lending money to those who may not be able to pay it back, ASIC took them to Court over it.
Also for not spending enough time checking the background of loan applications.
Now we have a situation, where they are being directed to fast track bridging loans to struggling businesses, WTF is happening.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...for-businesses-waiting-for-jobkeeper/12176632
From the article:
_Mr Frydenberg said the big four banks had agreed to special measures to help businesses pay their staff in the period before the payments arrive in the first week of May.

He said each bank would set up a "dedicated hotline" for businesses to get their hands on "bridging finance".

"They have also agreed to expedite the processing of all those applications to the front of the queue," Mr Frydenberg said.
"Go to your bank, ring their hotline, ask for that support, and that support will be forthcoming."

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the agreement was part of the Government's ongoing work to help businesses affected by the widespread coronavirus shutdowns stay afloat and continue to pay their employees.

Businesses across the country have reported mixed experiences trying to get cash out of the banks, with some saying they have been unable to get loans to pay workers while they wait for the Government's payment_.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (23 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> In reality the banks make very poor returns....



was thinking that, when putting up the AMP (truly shocking) _versus _XFJ (ho-hum) long-term graph over 20+ years. Of course that doesn't include dividends.


----------



## sptrawler (23 April 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> was thinking that, when putting up the AMP (truly shocking) _versus _XFJ (ho-hum) long-term graph over 20+ years. Of course that doesn't include dividends.



Yes the banks are back to GFC levels(except for CBA), the Government wants them too strong to fail, but don't want them making profits, if they do make profits they pay more tax than any other company, they have to be the moral overseer of peoples requests for loans, untill the Government needs them to throw the money out the door. It is a bit like don't do it, untill I tell you to do it.
Meanwhile they face prosecution from a Government department, for unconscionable conduct, it certainly is a mixed up World. IMO
Just my take on it, but it is a bit like my old man, he used to spend all the money, then blame mum when there wasn't any.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (23 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> .. the Government wants them too strong to fail, but don't want them making profits, if they do make profits they pay more tax than any other company, they have to be the moral overseer of peoples requests for loans, until the Government needs them to throw the money out the door.
> Meanwhile they face prosecution from a Government department, for unconscionable conduct, it certainly is a mixed up World. IMO



Big Building Societies.

Looking at the city skyline, I see Financial Services and Insurance Companies with big branding on tops of most of the buildings. Not many real companies that make things.

Simplify the tax law and they'd mostly shrink to unimportance.


----------



## sptrawler (23 April 2020)

The Banks are a bit like the police, everyone hates them, untill they need them.
Yet as is being proven now, they are the first port of call in an emergency.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2021)

The chickens are coming home to roost for some massive fraudsters.

How the NAB let them get away with it for so long just reveals how slack their internal controls are.









						Former NAB employee jailed for stealing millions in 'staggering' invoice scam
					

Former NAB employee Rosemary Rogers, who conspired to defraud the bank in a multi-million-dollar scam out of "greed, personal gain and self-gratification", is jailed for eight years.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## moXJO (27 January 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> The chickens are coming home to roost for some massive fraudsters.
> 
> How the NAB let them get away with it for so long just reveals how slack their internal controls are.
> 
> ...



4 years for millions of dollars, who needs a gun.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2021)

moXJO said:


> 4 years for millions of dollars, who needs a gun.




Right. Where has the money gone ?

Fork it up or stay in gaol for 20 years.


----------



## sptrawler (27 January 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> The chickens are coming home to roost for some massive fraudsters.
> 
> How the NAB let them get away with it for so long just reveals how slack their internal controls are.
> 
> ...



That is the problem with systems, the guy at the bottom of the department is checked all the way up, who checks the guy at the top of the department?
An independent auditor, they looks at the overall figures to make sure they tally, they don't look at individual receipts that is controlled by the guy at the top of each department.
If the guy at the top of the department is a crook, they go undetected for a long time, as many companies that have gone broke have found out.


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2021)

@SirRumpole this story, makes the $5m look like small change. 
Sounds like a former Queensland Crown Prosecutor, has been accused of having his hand in the biscuit barrel for $100m, well if you are going to do you might as well do it big.😂





__





						No Cookies | The Courier Mail
					

No Cookies




					www.couriermail.com.au


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2021)

sptrawler said:


> @SirRumpole this story, makes the $5m look like small change.
> Sounds like a former Queensland Crown Prosecutor, has been accused of having his hand in the biscuit barrel for $100m, well if you are going to do you might as well do it big.😂
> 
> 
> ...




I think he's been charged in PNG. Probably rubbed one of the local politicians up the wrong way.


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> I think he's been charged in PNG. Probably rubbed one of the local politicians up the wrong way.



One certainly hopes so, they still had cannibals until 2012 apparently.  Their cells might have lids on and you share a cell with a potato. 😂


----------



## sptrawler (12 October 2021)

Interesting that the fallout from the Royal Commission has settled and confusion is starting to creep back in to the narrative.









						Sex shop owners frustrated by banking ban
					

Legally operating businesses in the sex, adult and firearms industries say they are being denied services from banks and other financial companies.




					www.abc.net.au
				



From the article:
When Simon Mawson and his partner Monique Turmine bought an established adult shop in 2018, they could not get business accounts and payment facilities from the major banks.
NAB is the only bank that is upfront about not providing services to particular industries. A spokesman confirmed the bank did not provide banking services to brothels, but said it did provide services to some sex workers. CBA said it assessed applications for services on a case-by-case basis.

But the associations for sex workers, the adult industry and gun shops told the ABC that in practice, their members were routinely discriminated against when applying for financial services. Typically, they said, they were told their business was high risk, but most were refused services without any explanation.
Banks should not be the 'moral arbiter'​Kate Carnell, a former small business ombudsman and Liberal ACT chief minister, said the public would be surprised to know how widespread banking discrimination was. 

"It's broad-based, but I would have to say the sex industry and gun retail space, is the worst," she said.

The ABC has also reported on the "debanking" (financial discrimination), of cryptocurrency businesses. 

When Ms Carnell was ombudsman, she met with all four of the major banks to discuss the issue of financial discrimination against legally operating businesses. 

"They haven't changed their minds. It seems that they [banks] actually believe that they are the moral arbiter of our society," she said.

While Ms Carnell said banks should have the right to decide who they loan money to, basic banking services were essential for a business to operate.  

"They have no right to decide whether legal businesses can operate or not. And we're talking about businesses that operate inside the law, that pay taxes, do all the right things."

"They're pushing them into a cash-only-type economy, which isn't what we want at all. We want everyone paying appropriate tax operating in the legal system."


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2021)

Don't forget the coal in*dust*ry or the credit starvation thereof


----------



## sptrawler (12 October 2021)

PZ99 said:


> Don't forget the coal in*dust*ry or the credit starvation thereof



Yes funny how the narrative was, the banks have a moral and legal responsibility to be careful who they lend ,money to and what that money is used for (sex trafficking) or where it came from( money laundering).
Now the narrative is going back to, why are the banks being selective, who they lend money to.


----------



## basilio (12 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Yes funny how the narrative was, the banks have a moral and legal responsibility to be careful who they lend ,money to and what that money is used for (sex trafficking) or where it came from( money laundering).
> Now the narrative is going back to, why are the banks being selective, who they lend money to.




Perhaps the difference is that sex trafficking and money laundering are clearly criminal activities. 
Running an Adult Book shop isn't a criminal activity. Nor is sex work as such - unless there are elements of coercion , money laundering or sex trafficking.


----------



## sptrawler (12 October 2021)

basilio said:


> Perhaps the difference is that sex trafficking and money laundering are clearly criminal activities.
> Running an Adult Book shop isn't a criminal activity. Nor is sex work as such - unless there are elements of coercion , money laundering or sex trafficking.



Perhaps the difference is, the bank doesn't know what services are being sold inside the business, then it becomes too risky to supply financial and funding services. The legal ramifications, may not make the risk/reward worth the risk?
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-pay-for-child-sex-undetected-austrac-alleges


----------



## basilio (13 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Perhaps the difference is, the bank doesn't know what services are being sold inside the business, then it becomes too risky to supply financial and funding services. The legal ramifications, may not make the risk/reward worth the risk?
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-pay-for-child-sex-undetected-austrac-alleges




Interesting thought.  How closely should a bank assess the services of it's clientele to ensure they are not supporting illegal practices?

In that context I would have thought Crown Casino could have had the plug pulled when the money laundering practices came to light.  There may be a case for denying particular accounting firms access to financial services when it is shown they are enabling tax evasion and/or money laundering.But that doesn't happen does it ?

In fact there are laws around financial transactions which are  supposed to be followed by banks to ensure they aren't being used as money mules. Trouble is this is often too awkward in terms of losing profits. Far better to just charge higher fees to dodgy clients and look the other way.  That is what the Paradise papers found anyway.

The discrimination against individual small sex businesses is, I think, a bit different. Sole operator escorts aren't sex traffickers because clearly sex traffickers  don't allow their  workers to be sole operators !  Sex shops are quite legal businesses and again are generally sole operators. I suspect that it is easier to routinely bump off individual identifiable sole traders as distinct from  " Acme Corporation " which is a service industry has a turnover of $50m a year and pays significant  fees for it's accounts. I suspect accounting firms would set up shuch companies for a price









						It's sex discrimination: banks strip brothels and escort agencies of their rights
					

They are legal businesses that pay tax and have stringent rules and regulations. But that's not enough to allow them to bank their earnings.




					www.crikey.com.au


----------



## sptrawler (13 October 2021)

basilio said:


> Interesting thought.  How closely should a bank assess the services of it's clientele to ensure they are not supporting illegal practices?
> 
> In that context I would have thought Crown Casino could have had the plug pulled when the money laundering practices came to light.  There may be a case for denying particular accounting firms access to financial services when it is shown they are enabling tax evasion and/or money laundering.But that doesn't happen does it ?
> 
> ...



With access to internet streaming, knowing what is being streamed would be difficult, but if it was child based it would be highly illegal.
From what was in the article, it sounded as though supplying financial services to support any such activity, is frowned upon by the authorities.
It appears the banks have to have processes in place, to know that their financial services that interact with overseas have a duty to know what that money is being used or transferred for.
I guess the other option is to just not get involved, if it is too difficult to enact a suitable check system, there will always be someone wants their business.
After what happened to WBC, I don't think any of the big banks will want to be involved.

From the article:
_Westpac’s failure to obey anti-money laundering and counter-terror finance laws allowed a customer to make payments to a person in the Philippines who was later arrested for child sex trafficking and livestreaming child sexual abuse, the financial intelligence agency alleges._


----------

