ASIC action leads to Allianz refunding over $8 million in consumer credit insurance premiums and fees

ASIC says that Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (Allianz) will refund over $8 million in consumer credit insurance (CCI) premiums and fees including interest to more than 15,000 consumers.

This follows ASIC’s review of the sale of CCI by lenders in Report 622 Consumer credit insurance: Poor value products and harmful sales practices (REP 622), and forms part of ASIC’s broader priority to address harms and unfair practices impacting consumers in insurance.

Allianz’s refund relates to the sale of cover to consumers who were ineligible to make a claim for unemployment or disability, the sale of death cover to customers under 21 years of age who were unlikely to need that cover, and the charging of fees to customers who paid premiums by the month without adequate disclosure.

The remediation program covers certain CCI products issued by Allianz including mortgage and loan protection policies sold through financial institutions. These CCI products provided cover against the risk of consumers being unable to meet loan commitments because of death, injury, illness or involuntary unemployment.

To address these issues, Allianz will,

  • for ineligible sales of unemployment and disability cover,
    • refund premiums charged plus interest for active, cancelled or lapsed policies sold between 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2018;
    • reassess all withdrawn and declined claims where the consumer was ineligible for the policy at the time of sale;
    • invite consumers to submit a claim if they have not already done so and pay valid claims plus interest; and
    • continue to honour active policies and not rely on employment eligibility criteria as a basis to decline an unemployment or disability claim;
  • for sales of death cover to customers under 21 years of age,
    • refund all premiums charged plus interest for active, cancelled or lapsed policies sold between 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2018; and
    • preserve existing death cover for active policyholders on current terms without charging for it;
  • for monthly policy payment customers,
    • refund all administration fees and loading charged plus interest; and
    • correct any future direct debit amounts.

ASIC Commissioner Sean Hughes said, ‘Disappointingly, our work on the sale of CCI has highlighted widespread mis-selling and poor product design. This remediation outcome is only one of many examples where CCI has failed consumers.  We expect insurers to cease to sell insurance products that provide little or no value.’

‘We need a financial system that is fair. Insurers and other financial institutions need to rise to the challenge and embed the principle of fairness into their businesses to ensure we do not see any further instances of this kind of poor value product being pushed on to consumers’ added Mr Hughes.

Allianz will stop issuing new CCI policies from 30 September 2019. It will continue to fulfil its obligations to existing CCI policyholders. 

Allianz is expected to write to all affected consumers about their refund offer from October 2019. Consumers with questions about their cover should contact Allianz by email at here_to_help@allianz.com.au.

Background

ASIC’s recent review of the sale of CCI has resulted in refunds of over $100 million due to more than 300,000 affected consumers. On 11 July 2019, we released Report 622 Consumer credit insurance: Poor value products and harmful sales practices (REP 622) detailing our findings and setting minimum standards for lenders and insurers who issue or sell CCI (19-180MR).

ASIC is currently consulting on a proposal to ban the sale of CCI and direct life insurance through unsolicited telephone calls (19-188MR). The proposed ban aims to address unfair sales conduct and protect consumers from being sold products that they do not need, want or understand.

ASIC has also commenced investigations into a number of entities that have been involved in mis-selling CCI to consumers.

Separately, in 2018, Allianz refunded $45.6 million to 68,000 consumers for add-on insurance sold through car dealerships that were of little or no value (18-008MR).

APRA On The Changing Landscape – And What We Don’t Know

Interesting speech from Wayne Byers “Reflections on a changing landscape“. He discussed the ” extraordinary intervention” to save our banks a decade ago (in a footnote), significant in my view, for what it said, and for what it missed out. There is no mention that both NAB and Westpac required bailing out by the FED’s TAF after the GFC. An important little fact?

APRA’s activities have expanded significantly over the past five years. This has not been a smooth transition: the regulatory pendulum has swung between periods of significant regulatory change, and times when there have been demands to pare back. But overall there is no doubt that expectations of APRA have grown, and they have pushed us into new fields of endeavour. There is no sign that tide is going to turn soon.

I’m not sure what the issues de jour will be in five years’ time but there’s a very good chance they will not be the issues we think are most important today. The past five years has shown that what might seem unusual or out of scope today, can quickly become a core task tomorrow. Some of the topics that I have talked about tonight were not seen, five years ago, to be at the heart of APRA’s role.

In contrast, later this week we will publish our 4 year Corporate Plan and a number of them will be called out as our core outcomes, ranking alongside maintaining financial safety and resilience. 

If there is one lesson from the past five years, it is that – be it regulators or risk managers – being ready and able to respond to the demands of a rapidly changing landscape is probably the most important attribute we all need to possess.

But the footnote was the most interesting in my view. For what it said, and for what it missed out.

It is sometimes said the Australian banking system ‘sailed through’ the financial crisis. While the system did prove relatively resilient, there was extraordinary intervention necessary to keep the system stable and the wheels of the economy turning.

That included (i) an unprecedented fiscal response – one of the largest stimulus packages in the world;

(ii) an unprecedented monetary response – the official cash rate was cut by 425 basis points in a little over six months;

(iii) the RBA substantially expanded its market operations and balance sheet;

(iv) ASIC imposed an 8-month ban on the short selling of financial stocks; and

(v) the Federal Government initiated a guarantee of retail deposits of up to $1 million, and a facility for authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) to purchase guarantees for larger deposits and wholesale funding out to 5 years (indeed, at one point more than one-third of the banking system’s entire liabilities were subject to a Commonwealth Government guarantee).

As I have said previously, if all of the above was needed to keep the system stable and operational, then it is difficult to argue that the system sailed through or that some further strengthening of regulation was not justified.

He failed to mention the massive bail-out of our banking system from the FED and the fact that it was China’s response which supported our economy. The evidence suggests we were much closer to the abyss than was acknowledged at the time. Westpac and NAB both required support from the FED, as revealed in papers from the FED.

The US Dodd-Frank Act requires the US Federal Reserve to reveal which institutions it loaned money to under the various bail out programmes.

One of their programmes was the Term Auction Facility (TAF).

“Under the program, the Federal Reserve auctioned 28-day loans, and, beginning in August 2008, 84-day loans, to depository institutions in generally sound financial condition… Of those institutions, primary credit, and thus also the TAF, is available only to institutions that are financially sound.

Now of course the question is what does “financially sound” institutions mean. Well, look at the entire list – its long, but some of the names will be familiar. The FED data shows more than 4,200 separate transactions across more than 400 institutions globally between 2008 and 2010.

UK based Lloyds TSB plc received USD$10.5 billion – and was later partially nationalised by the UK government.

And another UK Bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) got US$53.5 billion plus and additionally US$1.5 billion for its exposures via ABN Amro after RBS bought it. That was nationalised too.

In Ireland, Allied Irish Bank needed US$34.7 billion of loans from the Fed between February 2009 and February 2010 . This is the bank bailed out via the Irish taxpayer.

And Deutsche Bank needed a massive US$76.8 billion in loans in total (and that bank continues to struggle today).

The list goes on. Bayerische Landesbank required a US$13.4 billion bailout from the state of Bavaria, but also borrowed US$108.19 billion between December 2007 and October 2009.

Where these banks sound?

And our own “financially sound” institutions National Australia Bank and Westpac needed help from the Fed. NAB needed around $7 billion in total (allowing for the exchange rate).

In fact NAB raised $3 billion from shareholders in 2008 to add capital to its business in parallel.

And in January 2008 Westpac said everything was fine with its US exposures, just one month after they got their first bail-out from the FED, worth US$90 million.

In fact, there was a long queue then, as the Fed spreadsheet shows that alongside Westpac, was Citibank, Lloyds TSB Bank, Bayerische Landesbank and Societe Generale, all of whom where bailed out by Governments in their respective countries.

Now, the RBA wrote at the time:

The Australian financial system has coped better with the recent turmoil than many other financial systems. The banking system is soundly capitalised, it has only limited exposure to sub-prime related assets, and it continues to record strong profitability and has low levels or problem loans. The large Australian banks all have high credit ratings and they have been able to continue to tap both domestic and offshore capital markets on a regular basis.”

So the question is did APRA and the RBA know what was going on?

And my question more generally is how prepared are we for a similar crisis now – given the changed economic and geopolitical forces in play?

Older Australians Mortgage Debt Up 600 per cent; Impacting Mental Health

Between 1987 and 2015, average real mortgage debt among older Australians (aged 55+ years) blew out by 600 per cent (from $27,000 to over $185,000 in $2015), while their average mortgage debt to income ratios tripled from 71 to 211 per cent over the same period, according to new AHURI research.

The research, Mortgage stress and precarious home ownership: implications for older Australians, undertaken for AHURI by researchers from Curtin University and RMIT University, investigates the growing numbers of older Australians who are carrying high levels of mortgage debt into retirement, and considers the significant consequences for their wellbeing and for the retirement incomes system.

‘Our research finds that back in 1987 only 14 per cent of older Australian home owners were still paying off the mortgage on their home; that share doubled to 28 per cent in 2015’, says the report’s lead author, Professor Rachel ViforJ of Curtin University.

‘We’re also seeing these older Australians’ mortgage debt burden increase from 13 per cent of the value of the average home in the late 1980s to around 30 per cent in the late 1990’s when the property boom took off, and it has remained at that level ever since. Over that time period, average annual mortgage repayments have more than tripled from $5,000 to $17,000 in real terms.’

When older mortgagors experience difficulty in meeting mortgage payments, wellbeing declines and stress levels increase, according to the report. Psychological surveys measuring mental health on a scale of 0 to 100 reveal that mortgage difficulties reduce mental health scores for older men by around 2 points and an even greater 3.7 points for older women. Older female mortgagors’ mental health is more sensitive to personal circumstances than older male mortgagors. Marital breakdown, ill health and poor labour market engagement all adversely affect older female mortgagors’ mental health scores more than men’s.

‘These mental health effects are comparable to those resulting from long-term health conditions,’ says Professor ViforJ. ‘As growing numbers of older Australians carry mortgages into retirement the rising trend in mortgage indebtedness will have negative impacts on the wellbeing of an increasing percentage of the Australian population.’

High mortgage debts later in life also present significant challenges for housing assistance programs. The combination of tenure change and demographic change is expected to increase the number of seniors aged 55 years and over eligible for Commonwealth Rent Assistance from 414,000 in 2016 to 664,000 in 2031, a 60 per cent increase. As a consequence the real cost (at $2016) of CRA payments to the Federal budget is expected to soar from $972 million in 2016, to $1.55 billion in 2031. The unmet demand for public housing from private renters aged 55+ years is also expected to climb from roughly 200,000 households in 2016, to 440,000 households in 2031, a 78 per cent increase.

There are also challenges for Government retirement incomes policy. The burden of indebtedness in later life is growing; longer working lives and the use of superannuation benefits to pay down mortgages are increasingly likely outcomes.

AFCA to name financial firms in determinations

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority will begin naming financial firms in its published determinations to increase transparency in the financial sector and enhance consumer confidence.

The change comes following the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

AFCA undertook a public consultation and submitted an application to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to change the AFCA Rules. 

AFCA Chief Ombudsman and CEO David Locke said AFCA is committed to being open, transparent and accountable to the public.

“AFCA plays an important public role and we recognise that transparency in our data and decisions is essential to rebuilding trust in the financial sector,” Mr Locke said.

“We already publish decisions on our website, but we have been unable to name the financial firms involved. 

“We welcome ASIC’s approval to change our Rules, which will allow us to now name financial firms in decisions we publish on our website.

“This is an important change, and the public will now be able to access increased information about the actions of financial firms.”

AFCA is working with ASIC to determine the start date for the naming of financial firms. Further updates will be provided when available.

From ASIC:

ASIC has approved changes to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) Rules to allow the scheme to name financial firms in published determinations. 

In its first six months, AFCA received 35,263 complaints. About 4,500 to 5,000 complaints are currently expected to be finalised each year by way of determination. While the publication of determinations has been a longstanding feature of the external dispute resolution schemes in Australia, the names of firms involved in financial services, superannuation and credit complaints have not been published to date. 

AFCA applied for approval to change their Rules to enable identification of firms following public consultation. Consumers who are party to a complaint will continue to be anonymised in all determinations. 

In approving this change ASIC took into account stakeholder feedback to AFCA’s public consultation and the statutory approval criteria. 

ASIC’s view is that naming firms in determinations can help identify conduct or market problems within firms or affecting specific products or services, as well as highlighting where firms have done the right thing. It will also enhance transparency and accountability of firms’ performance in complaints handling and of AFCA’s own decision-making. 

To support the new Rules, AFCA will shortly be issuing updated operational guidelines which set out examples of the circumstances in which a determination naming a financial firm would not be published. This includes where naming may expose confidential information about a firm’s systems or policies. 

Naming firms in AFCA determinations is part of a broader set of reforms aimed at increasing transparency in financial services. This includes Parliament giving ASIC power to collect and to publish internal dispute resolution (IDR) data at firm level.  The UK Financial Ombudsman Service has been naming firms in published determinations since 2013

Mortgage Broker Best Interest Draft Bill Released

The Treasure has released an exposure draft of the proposed Mortgage broker best interests duty and remuneration reforms.

The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mortgage Brokers) Bill 2019 — containing a new bests interest duty obligation on mortgage brokers, as recommended by Commissioner Kenneth Hayne in the final report of the banking royal commission.   Via The Adviser.

The bill states that brokers “must act in the best interests of consumers when giving credit assistance in relation to credit contracts”, meaning:

  • where there is a conflict of interest, mortgage brokers must give priority to consumers in providing credit assistance in relation to credit contracts,
  • mortgage brokers and mortgage intermediaries must not accept conflicted remuneration — any benefit, whether monetary or non-monetary that could reasonably be expected to influence the credit assistance provided or could be reasonably expected to influence whether or how the licensee or representative acts as an intermediary.
  • employers, credit providers and mortgage intermediaries must not give conflicted remuneration to mortgage brokers or mortgage intermediaries.

The draft bill, which is open for consultation until 4 October, notes that the duty to act in the best interests of the consumer in relation to credit assistance is a “principle-based standard of conduct” and “does not prescribe conduct that will be taken to satisfy the duty in specific circumstances”.

“It is the responsibility of mortgage brokers to ensure that their conduct meets the standard of ‘acting in the best interests of consumers’ in the relevant circumstances,” the bill states.

According to the bill, the content of the duty “ultimately depends on the circumstances in which credit assistance is provided”.

Examples of such content cited in the draft bill include:

  • prior to the recommendation of a credit product, it could be expected that the mortgage broker consider a range of such products (including the features of those products) and inform the consumer of that range and the options it contain,
  • any recommendations made could be expected to be based on consumer benefits, rather than benefits that may be realised by the broker (such as commissions);
  • in cases where critical information is not obtained when inquiring about a consumer’s circumstances, the broker could be expected to refrain from making a recommendation about a loan where there is a consequent risk that the loan will not be in the consumer’s best interests;
  • a broker would not suggest a white-label home loan that has the same features as a branded product from the same lender, but with a higher interest rate, because it would not be in the best interests of the consumer to pay more for an otherwise similar product; and
  • during an annual review, a broker would not suggest that the consumer remain in a credit contract without considering whether this would be in the consumer’s best interests.

In addition to the new best interests obligation, the draft bill requires a mortgage broker to “resolve conflicts of interests in the consumer’s favour”.

The bill states that “if the mortgage broker knows, or reasonably ought to know”, that there is a conflict between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the broker or a related party, the mortgage broker “must give priority to the consumer’s interests”.

As an extension to the best interests duty, the bill builds on remuneration reforms proposed by the Combined Industry Forum, which includes:

  • requiring the value of upfront commissions to be linked to the amount drawn down by borrowers instead of the loan amount;
  • banning campaign and volume-based commissions and payments; and capping soft dollar benefits.

The proposed regulations also limit the period over which commissions can be clawed back from aggregators and mortgage brokers to two years and prohibit the cost of clawbacks being passed on to consumers.

The new provisions are scheduled for implementation by 1 July 2020.

ABC Joins The Cash Ban Dots

Hot on the heels of their previous post comes another article from ABC news which makes the link between the $10k cash ban, negative interest rates and the IMF. It’s titled “Banning cash so you pay the bank to hold your money is what the IMF wants“.

This is something which followers will know we have been highlighting for some time.

This theory … has not been plucked out of thin air.

It is based on repeated public papers and statements by the international body in charge of financial stability — the Washington-based International Monetary Fund (IMF).

A recent IMF blog entitled “Cashing In: How to Make Negative Interest Rates Work”, explains its motive in wanting negative interest rates — a situation where instead of receiving money on deposits, depositors must pay regularly to keep their money with the bank.

As the blog notes, during the global financial crisis central banks reduced interest rates.

Ten years later, interest rates remain low in most countries, and “while the global economy has been recovering, future downturns are inevitable”.

“Severe recessions have historically required 3 to 6 percentage points cut in policy rates,” the IMF blog observed.

“If another crisis happens, few countries would have that kind of room for monetary policy to respond.”

The article then goes on to explain that to “get around this problem”, a recent IMF staff study looked at how it could bring in a system that would make deeply negative interest rates “a feasible option”.

The answer, it said, is to phase out cash.

Victorian Liberals plans to oppose registration scheme for engineers

The construction union has slammed the Victorian Liberals plan to oppose the introduction of a registration scheme for engineers as reckless and irresponsible.

The Bill, currently before the Victorian Parliament would for the first time introduce a registration scheme for engineers in Victoria, ensuring only those properly qualified and accredited could undertake work.

CFMEU Construction and General Division National Secretary Dave Noonan said that the registration of engineers was an important first step in tackling the national crisis in the building and construction industry.

“The Liberals plans to oppose the registration of engineers in Victoria, a measure that would begin to address the national crisis in construction, is reckless and irresponsible.

“Just last week, independent research revealed the cost of repairing defects in residential apartments across Australia would cost a staggering $6.2 billion.

“Liberal opposition could cost the State and consumers billions. They’ll fight for deregulation at any cost.

“In Mordialloc, Victoria residents have just been advised that their apartments are no longer fit to occupy due to combustible cladding and significant fire risk. 

“We now have legislation that begins to address the issues of shoddy workmanship and defective construction work and the Victorian Liberals oppose it.

“Where is their commitment to helping the thousands of families who cannot live in apartments they’ve paid for, or face huge bills due to dodgy construction work and design?

Mr Noonan said that Victoria was in the extraordinary position of having no registration scheme for engineers.

“In Victoria, anyone can call themselves an engineer. Builders, electricians and plumbers all need to be registered but the people who design the buildings they construct do not.

“Construction workers who drive cranes, erect steel and build scaffold are required to have high risk licences to ensure site safety. Yet the Liberal Party doesn’t think engineers, who are crucial to site safety should be registered and accountable? They are again putting profits ahead of safety.

“The failure to register engineers and the failure of government regulation in the building and construction industry more generally goes a long way to explaining why we now have a crisis that is bringing the sector to its knees.

“It’s time for the Victorian Liberals to quit being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. Support the registration of engineers in Victoria now.”

The Future Of Cash – A Questionnaire

We look at the future of cash in the light of the emergence of a global digital currency, and the paper released for discussion by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/notes-and-coins/future-of-cash

New Zealand viewers have until 31st August to make a submission.

Time For A New Global Currency? – The Property Imperative Weekly 24 August 2019

The latest edition of our weekly finance and property news digest with a distinctively Australian flavour.

Contents:

Global Scene: 0.00 – Trade Wars: 1:08 – Gold: 8:00 – New Reserve Digital Currency: 10:51 – Global Markets: 15:30 Australia: 17:41 – Property Auction And Prices: 18:28 – First Time Buyers: 25:45 – Building Defects: 27:15 – Economic Data: 33:28 – Local Markets; 37:20 – Cash Ban: 43:45