Banks urge caution on naming and shaming

banks/parliamentary-committee/

8 March 2017
| By Mike |
image
image image
expand image

The Parliamentary Committee overviewing the major banks has been cautioned by bank chief executives about moving too far and too quickly in naming and shaming financial planners and others whose conduct has been brought into question.

Responding to draft recommendations contained in the first report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ and National Australia Bank (NAB) expressed concern at some of the timeframes being proposed by the committee around Australian Financial Services License (AFSL) holders being required to publicly report regulatory breaches.

The committee recommended five-day timeframes – something which both banks suggested was impractical and would not allow appropriate time for investigation and disclosure to customers.

The banks also urged against the committee’s recommendation that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) should report the nature of the breaches and how they occurred, the names of the senior executives and the consequences for the senior executives.

The Commonwealth Bank response stated: “We believe it could be a breach of natural justice to ‘name and shame’ individuals before taking adequate time to properly investigate the alleged breaches”.

By comparison, the ANZ suggested that, instead, the Government might like to consider inserting a new accountability provision into the Corporations Act, stating: “This provision could recognise the circumstances in which individual executives should suffer personal consequences for serious failures of the AFSL holder to comply with the law”.

However where the committee’s recommendations covered financial planning breaches, the two banks concurred with better annual reporting of the overall quality of the financial advice industry, misconduct and the consequences of misconduct with licensees.

The banks noted, however, that enforcement outcomes were already reported by ASIC and that, generally, all clients were contacted by the banks when an adviser was banned.

The banks also noted that it needed to be recognised that some breaches were minor or inadvertent.

 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 week 3 days ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 month ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month 1 week ago

AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies. ...

3 days 11 hours ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

1 week 6 days ago

The inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory and broader wealth management companies by the Senate economics references committee will not be re-adopted. ...

2 weeks 6 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo