Banks and insurers not capable of self-regulation says union

The Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) bans on conflicted remuneration need to be expanded to include the sale and service associated with all financial products and should encompass the remuneration of bank executives, according to the Finance Sector Union (FSU).

In a detailed submission to the Senate Economics Committee inquiry into Consumer Protection in the Banking, Insurance and Financial Sector, the union has pointed to the major banks having talked the talk on reforming their practices without actually having walked the walked.

It said that when confronted with the discovery of wrongdoing within their organisations, the banks had resorted to a “playbook” of trotting out standard lines about acknowledging concerns and fingering a few rogue employees before activating lobbyists to limit regulatory enquiries.

Related News:

Referencing this, the union submission has directly countered the self-regulatory approach being argued by both the Financial Services Council (FSC) and the Australian Banker’s Association, arguing that “the sector is not capable of change through self-regulation”.

“Workers have seen their industries transform from one that provided the money, financial security and systems that facilitated the operation of the economy to one where the corporations that they serve now dominate the economy,” the submission said. “Competitive forces and the demands of the investor will continue to prevent a fundamental realignment of the industry without legislative force.”

The FSU rated as a high priority extending the FOFA ban on conflicted to virtually all remuneration in the financial services sector, and then argued strongly for the removal of the “balanced scorecard” exemptions.

It said all conflicted remuneration should be banned from the industry, including from executive remuneration systems and that a duty of care should be imposed “that requires all financial intermediaries, their employees and agents to only provide appropriate products and/or services taking the customers’ circumstances into account”.

“Each institution should be required to ensure all employees and agents who provide advice, products or services to a customer are properly trained and accredited to provide the appropriate products or services. The same obligation should apply to the managers of the employees in question,” it said.




Related Content

Lines of communication sound between major banking groups

BNP Paribas is expanding on its digital strategies and offerings around customer experience and taking advantage of collaborative open lines of commun...more

Automation disrupting comprehensive advice

The automation of the compliance process is beginning to disrupt the comprehensive financial advice model, with the number of scaled advice statements...more

Will data mining kick more goals?

As it becomes increasingly necessary for planners to provide goals-based strategic advice, Malavika Santhebennur asks if big data can help them custom...more

Author

Comments

Comments

Oh my!! I had to wipe a tear from my eye from laughing so hard. Union worried about 'corruption' as a reason for non-self governance, that is rich. Where do they get their material? These guys should book a spot in March in Melbourne for the Annual Comedy festival, surely they can't believe anyone takes them seriously?

all of these institutions are corrupt, both government and industry. In today's Australian, excerpts of e-mails between the banks and ASIC on how to word the press releases relating the the FP industry. They are all in cahoots. Its no wonder SMSF are being set up at the rate of knots and direct investments prevail - who would want to cede control to those people - even if I got a worse return, at least you are in control.

God that's rich (and pathetic) coming from a Union!!

Add new comment