Clicky

Banks urge caution on naming and shaming

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.

Related News:

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.

 




Related Content

Big four banks could suffer as ‘neobanks’ rise

The growing trend towards digital banks and the introduction of open banking legislation this year could see the big four banks lose out to ‘neobank...Read more

APRA keeps CCyB on hold

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has decided to keep the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) for authorised deposit-taking inst...Read more

DomaCom partners with major bank

Investment platform operator, DomaCom has announced its partnership with one of Australia’s big four banks to launch a six-month pilot for fract...Read more

Author

Comments

Comments

The banks are more than happy to name and shame the coal face. Management who has been equally responsible for differing reasons have been left untouched and hidden or moved sideways. Justice,transparency?? OR concealing the truth to save the corporate brand. Insiders know the litany of mismanagement and about time those responsible are shown for what they are. After all, are not the CEOs stating we are sorry and have amended our ways or we found no evidence. Have a good look and listen and some surprises may appear.

Spot on Dave, its always the visible ones , the planners, that the banks will offer up as sacrifices ( plenty more where that came from) . The executives that set the KPIS and push , push for sales so they can get their bonuses are the teflon coated ones that just keep getting away with it, burn the planners out, get a new one, any compliance issues blame the planners that you sacked due to not meeting targets, and so it goes.

Good heavens! Bankers. Treated and spoken of in the same breath as financial advisers who we know are the absolute scum of the earth! We have to make sure this one doesn't get up. The honourable profession fallen to such abysmal & unfathomable depths. And none of it the fault of a single banker - oh the appalling travesty that has delivered us to the gutter of financial life.

Financial advisers can be fined, banned, suspended, jailed, prohibited from ever having anything to do with the industry again and sent to their own financial ruin. They have no control over their remuneration models - these are the fair game of anyone with a vested interest and an agreeable politicians ear. They are forced to ply their trade on a regulatory field that is outrageously uneven. They have no body to specifically represent their interests and every change delivered to the regulatory environment they operate in is championed by grandstanding politicians as 'making cheaper advice available to all Australians'. Hypocrites. And product manufacturers & research houses have never been responsible for a single failure in the industry - this is the exclusive domain of advisers chasing lucrative commissions. All of this is why we need to bring back the death penalty for advisers.

Welcome to our world bank Johnnies. We can only hope you finally get to be treated in the same manner as those you seek to distance yourselves from.

Add new comment