Banks urge caution on naming and shaming

8 March 2017
| By Mike |
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

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Squeaky'21

My view is that after 2026 there will be quite a bit less than 10,000 'advisers' (investment advisers) and less than 100...

6 days 21 hours ago
Jason Warlond

Dugald makes a great point that not everyone's definition of green is the same and gives a good example. Funds have bee...

6 days 22 hours ago
Jasmin Jakupovic

How did they get the AFSL in the first place? Given the green light by ASIC. This is terrible example of ASIC's incompet...

1 week ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND