The Cliff Is Nearer Now… The Property Imperative Weekly 09 Feb 2019

Welcome to the Property Imperative weekly to the ninth of February 2019 – our digest of the latest finance and property news with a distinctively Australian flavour.   

This was a mega week in which the Royal Commission reported, mortgage brokers were crushed, the RBA cut growth expectations, and we saw more confirmation of the pressures on households. And NAB lost both its Chairman and CEO. So let’s get started.

Read the transcript or watch the video.

The final report from the Royal Commission was disappointing, in that whilst 20 plus companies will be referred for potential criminal proceedings, and NAB was called out for not getting it, and the 76 recommendations may be worthy, – we discussed the recommendations in more detail in our post “A Banking Royal Commission Special Report” , the report failed to address two critical issues. Hayne has left lending practices where they are (yes, the banks have tighter standards now, at least temporarily, but he left the household expenditure measure benchmark question hanging) and failed to address the question of conflict between providing advice and selling financial services products, which was at the heart of the hearings. Too often advice let to customers buying products which maximised the income of advisors and firms, when they were not necessarily in the best interests of said customer.  See our post “Why The Royal Commission Report Is A Fail”. 

Paul Keeting, the architect of financial deregulation in the 1980’s was quoted as saying in the Australian “The royal commissioner should have recommended — this conflict between product and advice — be prohibited. This he monumentally failed to do. He should have acted upon the examination and the evidence of these serious conflicts of interest.”

Finance sector stocks when higher before the report was released, and some are suggesting insiders made $20 billion or so as a result. A leak was denied by The Government of course, but we are not so sure.  There were massive stock movements at 11:00 am on Monday, when remember the report was made public AFTER the market had closed at four PM.

Mortgage brokers got a shock, because their business models are potentially crushed. The Commission proposes that trail commissions – payments in subsequent years to brokers by banks for loans they introduced – should be banned – as quote “they are payments for no value”. And in due course brokers need to move to a fixed fee arrangement, paid for by the borrower, which would make the arrangement more transparent, but may restrict competition, and swing momentum back to the big banks, who would be set to benefit. I discussed this with mortgage broker and financial adviser Chris Bates – see “What Does The Hayne Report Mean To Mortgage Brokers And Financial Advisers?”.  They will also be given a requirement to act in the best interest of their clients, something which is assumed by many customers of brokers today, but which is not currently the case.

So, in summary, Hayne will be remembered more for the exposes in the hearings, where the bad conduct and criminal behaviour of the finance sector were revealed, rather than firm recommendations to make substantive changes. It mostly falls back to the institutions and regulators to heal themselves. I am less confident, so expect bad practice to continue.  NAB lost their chairman and CEO, they were both called out as not getting the problem in the bank – and it is possible that other heads will roll as criminal proceedings commence, but I suspect most will remain unpunished. 

The RBA had a big week, with Governor Lowe speaking at the National Press Club on Wednesday, and then releasing the Statement on Monetary Policy on Friday. Lowe’s view is that economic growth will slow a bit compared with previous forecasts – 3% this year and 2.75% beyond. He believes income growth will start to lift as the unemployment rate slides further. He thinks this will be enough to keep the economy ticking over. Despite this, there is now, he says equal weight to both a fall in the cash rate or a rise.  And in the SMOP, there was recognition that falling home prices may have a dampening effect on consumption and growth as the “wealth effect” dissipates.  Many suggest, this downside risk is still underplayed.  Plus, the new headline inflation number for June 2019 came it at a low 1.25% in the statement, which is a significant reduction.

Damien Boey at Credit Suisse said “We cannot help but feel that the RBA is missing something in all of this, hence its rather shallow downgrades to consumption growth forecasts, and its optimistic forecast for only a 10% reduction in residential investment this year. … If the Bank does not understand or admit to the nature of banking and credit problems, it will always think that the economy is healthier than it is. It will always have too high a view of the potency of rate cuts, and therefore delay them until the last minute”.

 Westpac’s Bill Evans said of the RBA’s move,  “This move to a balanced rate outlook is significant because it clearly establishes that the Bank is prepared to contemplate rate cuts – a position that has really only emerged since the housing markets have reversed. It is also consistent with changes announced by other central banks notably the US Federal Reserve.”  Of course, bond rates remain higher in the US than here, which is unusual, and signals higher bank funding costs ahead.  This was something which CBA signalled in their results out this week. So, I am expecting more out of cycle mortgage rate hikes ahead.

My own view has been for some time that cash rate cuts won’t have much impact, but thanks to the budget trends, there is capacity for quite big tax cuts to try and stimulate consumption. I expect the upcoming budget to start that trend, and there will be more fiscal loosening later in the year as the economy weakens.

The latest news on home prices is more of the same. Down, down, prices are down. CoreLogic’s 5-city dwelling price index slide another 0.24%. The quarterly declines are rising to 3.57% and values have fallen by 8.5% since their most recent peak, with Sydney down 12.5%, Melbourne down 9.0% and Perth down 16.7%. Remember these are averages, and in some areas, prices are down more than 20%; with more to come. And the auction results remain in the doldrums, on low volumes and clearance rates the national auction clearance rate dropped 5.0% to 42.8%.  In Sydney auction clearance rate fell by 4.2% to 49.5% though in Melbourne it rose a tad to 44.3%, both well below the trends from a year ago.

And by the way CBA senior economist, Gareth Aird showed the correlation between home prices and jobs growth, which goes counter to the RBA’s view that jobs momentum will support prices.  Another reason why we think prices will go on sliding.

All of this is in stark contrast to the ME Bank Household Comfort report out this week.  The most shocking chart was the high proportion of households who still think prices will rise. Only 13% of homeowners and 11% of investors expect the value of their properties to fall this year, versus 38% of homeowners and 52% of investors that believe property prices will rise either a “little” or a “lot”. Clearly more should be watching our shows. But then price growth expectations, are wired in – many have never seen falls – and the real estate sector, still are saying things are on the turn, and she’ll be right. Sorry, to disappoint, but there are more falls to come.  And by the way that same report said it was the renting sector who are felling more bullish as rents slide.

The ANU, as reported in the Australian, said that the average household has seen no gains in their after-tax income since the end of 2010, which was when the economy was emerging from the global financial crisis. According to ANU’s Centre for Social Research and Methods, the fall in the past three years was greater than during the last recession in 1991-92. In fact, living standards peaked in 2011. There was no improvement for the next four years, but incomes started falling behind rising living costs from late 2015 onwards. Many will not be surprised, and it helps to explain why we think household consumption will continue to fall.

NABs surveys this week also highlighted concerns among households. They said that anxiety increased most over the cost of living, and despite a healthy labour market, concerns over job security also climbed to its highest level since mid-2016.

“In terms of household finances, retirement remains the big worry, followed by providing for the family’s future, raising $2,000 for an emergency, and medical and healthcare costs”.

“Against this background, almost four in 10 Australians said they had experienced some form of financial hardship last quarter, the highest in two years.” And importantly spending plans are being curtailed, which will flow on to lower growth of course.

And our own mortgage stress data for January underscored the pressure on households.  The long grind in WA continues, with more households under financial pressure, but we are seeing further deterioration in other states too. The number of households in severe stress continues to rise. The latest RBA data on household debt to income to September fell a little to 188.6, but remains highly elevated. The housing debt ratio continues to climb to a new record of 139.6, according to the RBA.  This shows that household debt to income is still increasing.  This high debt level helps to explain the fact that mortgage stress continues to rise. Across Australia, more than 1,026,106 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 1,023,906), another new record. This equates to more than 31% of owner-occupied borrowing households. In addition, more than 25,750 of these are in severe stress (last month 22,000). We estimate that more than 63,000 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months, up 1,000 from last month. We continue to see the impact of flat wages growth, rising living costs and higher real mortgage rates.  Bank losses are likely to rise a little ahead. See our Video “Mortgage Stress Exists – Believe It!”

Despite the popular view that household finances are fine, in fact the continued accumulation of larger mortgages compared to income whilst costs are rising, and incomes static explains the issues we are now seeing.  Housing credit growth is running significantly faster than incomes and inflation and continued rises in living costs – notably child care, school fees and electricity prices are causing significant pain, this despite some relief at the bowser. Many continue to dip into savings to support their finances.   We are seeing a rise in households seeking help with their finances, including access to debt counsellors and other advice channels. WA is seeing very strong growth in cries for help!

Indeed, the ABC reported that the National Debt Helpline said calls had skyrocketed in Western Australia amid epidemic of financial stress. And we note that the Treasurer just announced a review of financial counselling: “ It will consider gaps and overlaps in current services and the adequacy of appropriate delivery models for future funding”.  Last week John Adams and I highlighted the possible link between mortgage stress and family violence, as suggested by the police.

And finally in our local round up, Business Confidence is also tanking according to Roy Morgan Research who released their Survey for January. They say that confidence has dropped to its lowest level since August 2015 and it was the worst January result ever. “The decline in Business Confidence to begin 2019 comes amidst a slew of poor economic news with significant declines in house prices in Sydney and Melbourne over the last 12 months now joined by lower than expected retail trade figures for December”. This is consistent with the NAB results we reported last week.

So, to the markets. Locally, the ASX 100 had a good run, as the Hayne effect dissipated. The index slid a little on Friday though thanks to the RBA’s downgrades, slipping 0.3% to end at 5,006.4, territory not seen since October, and up 3.56% on a year ago. The local volatility index was down 0.29% to 12.90, and 30.48% lower than a year back, reflecting a “risk on” peak back then.

Since the FED turned turtle on its interest rate policy, the markets confidence is roaring back. Not surprisingly, the ASX Financials Index was up this week, as banks were back in favour, despite a small fall on Friday, to end at 5,911.90, still 5.71% lower than a year ago.  Individual banks moved round a bit with ANZ up 0.11% on Friday to end at 26.89, down 2.79% from a year back. CBA also rose, up 0.93% on their results, which revealed strong capital but weaker margins and profit below expectation and ended at 74.75, which is 2.58% lower than a year back. NAB fell following the resignation of the CEO and Chairman, to end at 24.75. In fact, this is not the first time NAB has lost leadership after a crisis. Their shares are down 12.27% lower than a year ago, suggesting that relative to peers they have a lot to do to regain market confidence. Their quarter disclosure which came out on Friday, would have not lifted expectations, as again margin is under pressure, and capital fell. It will be interesting to see if the proposed divestments of NABs and CBA wealth businesses continue given Haynes weak recommendations. Strategy may yet be reversed. Westpac fell 0.33% on Friday to end at 26.79, and down 10.84% from a year back. They still have their wealth businesses. 

Among the regionals, Bank of Queensland rose 0.09% to 10.66, but is still 10.56% down from a year ago. Suncorp fell 0.22% to 13.61, up 3.73% from last year, and Bendigo and Adelaide Bank fell 1.59% to 11.15, up 0.36%. They may be more impacted by the proposals to charge customers for mortgage advice. AMP was down 1.21% on Friday, having had a small bounce from the Royal Commission report, because it will allow them to continue to run their advice and product businesses in tandem. AMP ended at 2.44 and remains 51.49% lower than a year ago. Macquarie fell 1.23% to 121.57, but is up 19.5% from a year back, benefitting from its international businesses.

Lenders Mortgage Insurer Genworth was up 1.62% on the latest results, which showed a strong capital position, even if mortgage delinquencies were a little higher, especially in NSW. They ended at 2.51 and is 10.58% lower than 12 months ago. Given lower mortgage volumes, their growth appears limited and if household pressures continue, we must expect more defaults ahead. Mortgage Choice, the aggregator, was hit by the Hayne recommendations on mortgage brokers this week, but rose on Friday, up 2.44% to 84 cents, down 62.61% from a year ago. Given they have advice businesses in their portfolio, I suspect they might do quite well from the changes, if they can morph their business effectively.

The Aussie ended the week at 70.91, up 0.04%, having been above 72 earlier in the week after the Hayne report came out. But the RBA’s neutral stance on future interest rates – signalling more trouble in the economy, dragged it back. We still expect further falls ahead. It is still 9.89% lower than a year ago.

The Aussie Gold Cross rate rose 0.49% to end at 1,853.59, up 9.97% on a year ago, while the Aussie Bitcoin Cross rose 4.88% to 4,672.3, down 53.42% on a year back.

Overseas, at the close, the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined 0.25%, to 25,106.33 and is 1.11% up from a year back. The S&P 500 index gained 0.07%, to 2,707.88 and is up 0.91% from a year ago, It has risen more than 15 percent from 20-month lows in December, spurred by a dovish Federal Reserve and largely positive fourth-quarter earnings, as well as hopes for an eventual U.S.-China trade deal, despite lingering scepticism over the United States and China reaching a trade deal before the March 1 deadline. Of the S&P 500 companies that have reported quarterly results, 71.5 percent have beaten profit estimates but analysts now expect current-quarter profit to dip 0.1 percent from the year before, not grow the 5.3 percent estimated at the start of the year. The S&P 100 was down a little to end at 1.190.16, up 0.28% over the year. The CBOE Volatility Index, which measures the implied volatility of S&P 500 options, was down 3.97% to 15.72 and is down 40.97% form 12 months ago. The S&P Financials index was down 0.94% on Friday to 427.88 and remains 8.02% down from a year back. Bellwether Goldman Sachs fell 0.73% on Friday to 191.67 and is 24.89% lower than last year.

The NASDAQ Composite index climbed 0.14% to 7,298.20 on Friday and is up 3.35% from last year at this time.  Apple was up 0.12% to 170.41 and is 7.15% higher than last year. Google’s Alphabet fell 0.32% to 1.102.38 and is 4.78% than a year back. Amazon fell 1.62% to 1,588.22 but is 13.95% higher than 12 months ago and Facebook is up 0.57% to 167.33, down 7.66% from a year back. Intel fell 0.79% to 48.84 and is up 8.52% from last year.

Investors remain jittery about trade tensions between the U.S and China, which have been the catalyst for the global trade war that rocked equity markets. Although the sides met for talks last week in Washington, there have been no signs of progress. On Thursday, U.S. stock markets fell after President Trump said that he had no plans to meet with Chinese President Xi before March 2, when further U.S. tariffs are scheduled to be imposed.

The Feds pussy cat approach to future rate rises has seen the 10-year bond rate come back, and on Friday it was at 2.63, down 0.76%. The 3-month rate was at 2.42, up 0.41%.  The US Dollar index was up 0.13% to 96.64, up 7.04% from last year, while the British Pound USD slid a little to 1.2945 and is 6.71% lower than 12 months back.

The UK Footsie was down 0.32% to 7.071.18 as the Brexit discussions continue, and the deadline looms. Its down 2.55% from a year back. The Footsie Financials Index was down 0.84% to 646.19, down 3.85% from last year. The Euro USD was at 1.1331, down 7.53% from 12 months back. The European Commission has projected moderate growth in the EU in 2019, but economic uncertainty has dampened confidence. The forecast lowered its growth forecast for the eurozone to 1.9% in 2018, down from 2.1% in the November forecast. The report highlighted Brexit and the slowdown in China as key sources of uncertainty for European economies, adding that the projections were subject to downside risks.

Deutsche bank was down 2.56% on Friday, to 7.223 and is 40.09% down from this time last year. The Chinese Yuan US Dollar ended at 0.1483 and is 7.02% lower than last year. Crude Oil Futures rose a little, up 0.11% to 52.70 but remains 15.08% lower than last year at this time. 

Gold futures were higher, up 0.32% to 1,318.35, down 2.48% from a year ago, Silver was up 0.73% to 15.83 and is 3.04% lower than last year, while Copper was down 0.55% to 2.81, down 8.29% from 12 months ago. And finally, the Bitcoin USD ended the week at 3.716.9, up 8.17% but is still 54.69% lower than a year ago. The total capitalization of the derivatives markets at BTC/USD was $156 million US Dollars. Worth bearing in mind how small the market truly is!

So, we see the change in the wind which the Fed triggered earlier in the month flowing on to strong markets, despite the uncertainties around global growth ahead. Locally as the dust settles on the Hayne report, we expect bank stocks to remain volatile – remember there are still more criminal cases in the works – eventually. But meantime the focus will be on the Australia economy, as the leading indicators signal more trouble ahead, and the RBA plays catch up.

In this context, there can be little expectation of a rebound in home prices, nor a resurgence of lending for mortgages, I think the current settings will mean falls continue, and may accelerate. The next thing to watch for are “unnatural acts” fiscally speaking when the budget comes down in April, before a May election. Unless something unexpected resets the timetable.

Meantime, my advice remains be very cautious about property. There is no hurry to buy. Falling prices may offer opportunity later, but buying into a falling market, even at these low interest rates is tricky, and as I have indicated I expect more out of cycle hikes to come.  So, caution is the watch word. But the good news/bad news is the risk of a financial apocalypse has abated in favour of another round of debt creation – which postpones what may well be eventually a significant reset.  We will update our scenarios soon.

And before I go, a quick reminder that our next live stream event is now scheduled for Tuesday 19th February at 8:00 PM Sydney – here is the link to the reminder. You can ask a question live or send them in beforehand. I look forward to seeing you there.

And by the way, if you value the content we produce, please do consider supporting our efforts. You can make a one off donation via PayPal, or consider joining our Patreon programme. We really appreciate your support to help us continue to make great content.

NAB CEO and Chairman to go

To lose one is unfortunate, to lose two… well… Tough times for certain senior bankers!

In an ASX statement NAB said that CEO Andrew Thorburn will finish at NAB on 28 February, while Dr Ken Henry indicated that he would retire from the board once a new permanent chief executive had been appointed.

The NAB board said it will initiate a global search process for the chief executive role while actively considering a range of internal candidates.

In addition, it has asked director Philip Chronican to serve as acting chief executive effective 1 March until an appointment is made.

Mr Thorburn said it has been an honour to be the chief executive of NAB, and to have been part of NAB since 2005.

“I acknowledge that the bank has sustained damage as a result of its past practices and comments in the royal commission’s final report about them,” Mr Thorburn said.

“I have always sought to act in the best interests of the bank and customers and I know that I have always acted with integrity.

“However, I recognise there is a desire for change. As a result, I spoke with the board and offered to step down as CEO, and they have accepted my offer.”

Dr Henry said the board had recognised that change was necessary.

“The timing of my departure will minimise disruption for customers, employees and shareholders,” he said.

“This is naturally a difficult decision but I believe the board should have the opportunity to appoint a new chair for the next period as NAB seeks to reset its culture and ensure all decisions are made on behalf of customers.”

Mr Chronican said he was privileged to have been asked to step in as acting chief executive while the board selected a new chief executive.

“I recognise the important responsibility in stepping into this role at a difficult time for NAB,” he said.

“I am confident in our existing strategy to transform the bank to be better for customers and will work with everyone at NAB to earn the trust and respect of the community.”

Parliament to continue bank scrutiny

The royal commission may be over but Canberra’s scrutiny of Australia’s four major banks is still underway with another round of hearings planned for March; via InvestorDaily.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics will conduct public hearings in March as part of its ongoing investigation into the banks.

The committee has already held four rounds of hearings as part of its review and has made a suite of recommendations for reform.

Some of the recommendations have been adopted by the government, like the set up of AFCA and the BEAR regime as well as increased resources for the ACCC.

The committee also recommended the establish of the open banking regime, which will come into force later this year, that will make it easier for bank start-ups to enter the sector.

The committee is led by chairman Tim Wilson who said the hearings were important in the wake of the royal commission.

“These hearings provide an important mechanism to hold the four major banks to account before the Parliament.

“These hearings will, in particular, provide an opportunity to scrutinise the banks on the findings of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry,” he said.

Mr Wilson is currently under fire from the Labor party for his position as chairman of the committee due to his franking credit investigation.

Mr Wilson has been accused by Labor MP Matt Thistlethwaite of using the hearings to lobby and recruit for the liberal party.

“It’s unethical and an improper use of taxpayer funds.

“They were handing out fliers and encouraging members of the audience at the Sunshine Coast based forum to join the national Liberal Party,” said Mr Thistlethwaite.

Mr Thistlethwaite in the past has called the inquiry an abuse of the committee process.

“Liberal MPs are using taxpayer dollars to run around the country encouraging people to do their part and undermine Labor policy,” he said.

Tim Wilson has also been accused of unethical behaviour by Labor after a leaked audio tape allegedly had fund manager Geoff Wilson of Wilson Asset Management boasting about speaking to Mr Wilson MP.

The leaked audio had Mr Wilson telling investors that it would be nice if one of the hearings was on the same day as his own upcoming franking credit roadshow where he dismissed labor policy.

“I was saying it would be nice if one of the hearings could be on a day, we are doing a roadshow. Then we could do a little protest, we could have our placards and we could walk down there.”

There was indeed a parliamentary hearing at the same time as the roadshow; however, the audio as revealed by the Sydney Morning Herald did not include any indication that this was due to any conversation between Geoff Wilson and Tim Wilson.

Further there was alleged indiscretion because of Mr Wilson’s investments in a Wilson Asset fund; however, this is listed on Mr Wilson’s register of parliamentary interests.

Mr Wilson said the work of the inquiry was for the people of Australia and was necessary in assessing the impact what a franking credit regime change could have.

“There’s a material impact on their quality of life as a result of a change of law.

“What we’ve heard across the country is people will lose 20–30 per cent of their income regardless of who they are.”

RBA “Even Money” On Rate Rise Or Rate Fall

RBA Governor Philip Lowe, addressed the National Press Club today, providing an upbeat assessment of the economy. He was even money on the next rate move, but interestingly he blamed lack of supply of housing not credit supply, or low interest rates for high home prices. He believes wages will rise, eventually. And finally he down rated the international risks, such asset price bubbles, in favour of a arrange of more political risks. Mr optimistic.

And regulators are not be blamed for the poor outcomes from the finance sector, as highlighted by the Royal Commission.

The Aussie slid on the remarks.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the National Press Club. It is an honour to have been invited.

The media and the RBA have a special relationship. Most people in the community hear the RBA’s messages through the media. You report on what we say, you filter it and you critique it. We also help you with your work. The RBA is a reliable source of information and analysis on issues that your audiences care about, including interest rates, housing prices and jobs. This means we have a strong mutual interest in understanding one another. I hope that today will help strengthen that understanding.

This is my first public speech for 2019, so I would like to talk about the year ahead and some of the key issues that the RBA will be focusing on. I will first discuss the global economy and then turn to the Australian economy and particularly the outlook for household spending. I will finish with a few remarks on the outlook for monetary policy.

At the outset, I want to emphasise that we don’t have a crystal ball that allows us to see the future with certainty. I know many of you are looking for definitive answers to questions like, ‘Where will the cash rate be this time next year?’, ‘How much will housing prices fall?’, ‘When will wages growth reach 3 per cent?’. They are all good questions. The reality, though, is that the future is uncertain. None of us can say with certainty what will happen.

What the RBA can do, though, is highlight the issues that are likely to shape the future, explain how we are thinking about those issues, and discuss how they fit into our decision-making framework. That is what I hope to do today.

The Global Economy

I will start with the global economy, because what happens overseas has a major bearing on what happens in Australia. My main point here is that while some of the downside risks have increased, the central scenario for the world economy still looks to be supportive of growth in Australia.

It is worth recalling that 2018 was a good year for the world economy. Growth in the advanced economies was above trend in the first half of the year, unemployment rates reached their lowest levels in many decades, inflation was low and financial systems were stable (Graph 1). These are positive outcomes. We should not lose sight of this.

Graph 1: Advanced Economies - Unemployment Rate
Graph 1

There was, though, a change in momentum in the global economy late in the year. This change was particularly evident in Europe and it was also evident in China. It has been widely reported in the media, but it is important to keep things in perspective.

Some slowing in global growth was expected, given that labour markets are fairly tight and the policy tightening in the United States was aimed at achieving a more sustainable growth rate. So, I have been a little surprised at some of the reaction to the lowering of forecasts for global growth, which has been quite negative. We need to remember that the IMF’s central forecast is still for the global economy to expand by 3.5 per cent in 2019 and by 3.6 per cent in 2020 (Graph 2). If achieved, these would be reasonable outcomes and not too different from the recent past.

Graph 2: Global GDP Growth
Graph 2

What is of more concern, though, is the accumulation of downside risks. Many of these risks are related to political developments: the trade tensions between the United States and China; the Brexit issue; the rise of populism globally; and the reduced support from the United States for the liberal order that has supported the international system and contributed to a broad-based rise in living standards. One could add to this list the adjustments in China as the authorities rein in shadow financing.

The origins of these diverse issues are complex, but there is a common economic element to some of them: that is, the extended period of little or no growth in real incomes for many people. In a number of countries, growth in real wages has been weak or negative for years. Advances in technology and greater competition as a result of globalisation also mean that many people worry about their own future and that of their children. Politicians, understandably, are responding to these concerns. Time will tell, though, whether the various responses help or not. I suspect that some of them will not.

Over recent months, the accumulation of downside risks has been evident in business and consumer surveys. It was also evident in increased volatility in financial markets around the turn of the year, with declines in equity prices and an increase in credit spreads (Graph 3). Since then, though, markets have been more settled and some of the earlier decline in equity prices has been reversed. This has been partly on the back of a reassessment of the path of monetary policy in the United States, with markets no longer pricing in further increases in US interest rates. There has also been a noticeable fall in long-term government bond yields.

Graph 3: United States Financial Markets
Graph 3

The adjustments in financial markets over our summer sometimes generated reporting that, to me, seemed overly excitable. I lost count of how many times I read the words ‘crash’, ‘plunge’ and ‘dive’. Yet there is a positive side to some of these adjustments, which gets less reported on. The risks associated with stretched valuations in some equity markets have lessened. So, too, have concerns that very low credit spreads could lead to an excessive build-up of risk. And risks in many emerging market economies have also receded, helped by the lower global interest rates and lower oil prices. So it is important to look at the whole picture.

For Australia, what happens in China is especially important. Growth there has slowed. From a medium-term perspective, this has a positive side, as it mainly reflects efforts to rein in risky financial practices and stabilise debt levels. But the slowing is probably faster than the government had hoped for, with the economy feeling the effects of the trade dispute with the United States and the squeezing of finance to the private sector. The authorities have responded by easing policy in some areas, but they are walking a fine line between supporting the economy and addressing the debt problem. There is also the question of how the economy responds to the policy easing.

More broadly, we cannot insulate ourselves completely from the global risks, but keeping our house in order can go a long way to assist. Our floating exchange rate and the flexibility we have on both monetary and fiscal policies provide us with a degree of insulation. So, too, does our flexible labour market. Ensuring that we have predictable and consistent economic policies, credible public institutions and a reform agenda that supports a strong economy can also help in an uncertain world.

The Domestic Outlook

I would now like to turn to the outlook for the Australian economy. Much as is the case globally, the downside risks have increased, although we still expect the Australian economy to grow at a reasonable pace over the next couple of years.

The Australian economy is benefiting from strong growth in infrastructure investment and an upswing in other areas of investment. The labour market is also strong, with many people finding jobs. This year, we will also benefit from a further boost to liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The lower exchange rate and a lift in some commodity prices are also assisting. Against this generally positive picture, the major domestic uncertainty is the strength of consumption and the housing market.

We will be releasing a full updated set of forecasts in the Statement on Monetary Policy (SMP) on Friday. Close readers of the SMP will notice that we will now be publishing forecasts for a wider set of variables than has previously been the case.[1] We hope that this helps people understand the various forces shaping the economy.

Today, I can give you a summary of the key numbers.

Our central forecast is for the Australian economy to expand by around 3 per cent over 2019 and 2¾ per cent over 2020 (Graph 4). For 2018, the outcome is expected to be a bit below 3 per cent. This type of growth should be sufficient to see further gradual progress in lowering unemployment.

Graph 4: GDP Growth
Graph 4

These forecasts are lower than the ones we published three months ago. For 2018, the outcome is affected by the surprisingly soft GDP number in the September quarter and the ABS’s downward revisions to estimates of growth earlier in the year. We are expecting a stronger GDP outcome in the December quarter, with other indicators of economic activity painting a stronger picture than suggested by the September quarter national accounts.

For 2019 and 2020, the forecasts have been revised down by around ¼ percentage point, largely reflecting a modest downgrading of the outlook for household consumption and residential construction. I will talk more about this in a moment.

The outlook for the labour market remains positive. The national unemployment rate currently stands at 5 per cent, the lowest in over seven years (Graph 5). In New South Wales and Victoria, the unemployment rate is around 4¼ per cent. You have to go back to the early 1970s to see sustained lower rates of unemployment in these two states. The forward-looking indicators of the labour market also remain positive. The number of job vacancies is at a record high and firms’ hiring intentions remain strong. Our central scenario is that growth will be sufficient to see a modest further decline in unemployment to around 4¾ per cent over the next couple of years.

Graph 5: Unemployment Rate
Graph 5

The other important element of the labour market is how fast wages are increasing. For some time, we have been expecting wages growth to pick up, but to do so gradually. The latest data are consistent with this, with a turning point now evident in the wage price index (Graph 6). Through our discussions with business we are also hearing more reports of firms finding it difficult to find workers with the necessary skills. In time, this should lead to larger wage rises. This would be a positive development.

Graph 6: Wage Price Index Growth
Graph 6

Given this outlook, we continue to expect a gradual pick-up in underlying inflation as spare capacity in the economy diminishes (Graph 7). However, the lower forecast for growth means that this pick-up is expected to occur a bit later than we’d previously thought. Underlying inflation is now expected to increase to about 2 per cent later this year and to reach 2¼ per cent by the end of 2020. The latest CPI data were consistent with this outlook. The headline CPI number was, however, a bit lower than we had previously expected, reflecting the decline in petrol prices that started late last year. We expect headline inflation to decline further this year as the full effect of lower petrol prices shows up in the figures.

Graph 7: Trimmed Mean Inflation
Graph 7

So that is the summary of the key numbers.

As always, there is a range of uncertainties, many of which will be discussed in the SMP on Friday. Today, though, I would like to focus on the outlook for household spending, which is closely linked to the housing market and the prospects for growth in household income.

Before I do that, I would like to touch on one related uncertainty that we have been paying attention to – that is the supply of credit. This is because a strong economy requires access to finance on reasonable terms. Over recent years there has been a needed tightening of credit standards. But the right balance needs to be struck. As lenders have sought to find that balance, we have had some concerns that the pendulum may have swung too far the other way, especially for small business.

In that context, I welcome the report of the Royal Commission and the Government’s response. The Commission’s recommendations that bear on credit provision are balanced and sensible, and should remove some uncertainty. I also welcome the Commission’s focus on: the importance of service – as opposed to sales – in the financial sector; the necessity of dealing properly with conflict of interest issues; and the importance of accountability when things go wrong. These are all issues I have spoken about on previous occasions. Addressing them is central to rebuilding the all-important trust in our financial system.

Housing Prices and Household Income

But back to household consumption and the housing market.

You might recall that 18 months ago, one of the most talked about issues in the country was the high and rising cost of housing. This was understandable. In some of our cities, purchasing a home had become a very difficult stretch for many people, and this had become a major social issue.

Today, the talk is about prices falling in our two largest cities. We have moved almost seamlessly from worrying that prices were going up, to worrying that they are going down.

There is no single reason for this change, but, rather, it is the result of a number of factors coming together.

One is that housing prices simply increased to the point in Sydney and Melbourne where demand tailed off, as purchasing a home had become very expensive and less attractive as an investment.

A second is that the building boom over recent times significantly increased the supply of dwellings. It took a number of years before the rate of home construction picked up in response to faster population growth, but eventually it did pick up. This explains much of the cycle.

A third factor is that the demand from overseas investors softened, partly in response to the Chinese authorities making it more difficult to move money out of China.

And a fourth factor is that lending standards have been tightened and credit has become more difficult to obtain.

Importantly, unlike most other housing price corrections, this one has not been associated with rising unemployment or higher interest rates. Instead, mainly structural factors – relating to the underlying balance of supply and demand – in our largest cities have been at work.

The question is: what effect will this change have on household spending?

Here, my earlier observation about not having a crystal ball is relevant. At this point, though, what we are seeing looks to be a manageable adjustment in the housing market. It is not expected to derail economic growth. The previous trends in debt and housing prices were becoming unsustainable and some correction was appropriate. We recognise that this correction will have an effect on parts of the economy. But our economy should be able to handle this, and it will put the housing market on a more sustainable footing.

There are a few considerations here.

The first is that the recent housing price declines follow very large increases in prices (Graph 8). Even after the recent declines in Sydney, prices are still 75 per cent higher over the decade. In Melbourne, they are 70 per cent higher. While the price falls are no doubt difficult for some, including people who purchased in the past couple of years, there are many people sitting on very significant capital gains and there are others who now will find it easier to purchase a home. And of course, in a number of cities and much of regional Australia, things have been more stable.

Graph 8: Median Housing Prices
Graph 8

A second consideration is that most households do not change their consumption in response to short-term changes in their wealth. Sensibly, many people tend to take a longer-term perspective. During the recent upswing in housing prices, the strategy of borrowing against the extra equity in your home looked less sensible than it once was, especially as debt levels rose. Some home-owners also see themselves as being part of the ‘bank of mum and dad’. This meant that they refrained from spending the extra equity so that they were able to help their children purchase their own property.

A third and perhaps the most important consideration, is that household income growth is expected to pick up and income growth usually matters more for consumption than changes in wealth.

For some years, growth in nominal aggregate household income has been unusually slow, averaging just 2¾ per cent since 2016 (Graph 9). For some home-owners, rising housing prices have provided an offset to this, even though the effect may have been smaller than in the past. As a result, aggregate consumption has grown faster than income for the past few years. But a shift is now taking place. Over the next year, we are expecting a pick-up in household disposable income to provide a counterweight to the wealth effects of lower housing prices.

Graph 9: Household Disposable Income Growth
Graph 9

Labour market outcomes are key to this assessment. Continued employment growth and higher wages growth should boost disposable incomes. The announced tax cuts should also help here. In our central scenario, consumption is expected to grow at around 2¾ per cent over the next couple of years, broadly in line with expected growth in disposable income. This is a bit lower than our earlier forecast for consumption.

There are, of course, other possible outcomes. Continued low income growth, together with falling housing prices, would be an unwelcome combination and would make for a softer outlook for the economy. Some Australian households have high levels of debt, so there is a degree of uncertainty about how they would respond to this combination. So we are monitoring things closely.

The adjustment in the housing market is also affecting the economy through residential construction activity and the spending that occurs when people move homes. Residential construction activity is currently around its peak level and the large pipeline of approved projects is expected to support activity for a while. Developers, though, are finding it more difficult to sell apartments off the plan, and lenders are less willing to provide finance. Sales of new detached dwellings have also slowed. The central forecast is for dwelling investment to decline by about 10 per cent over the next two and a half years.

Putting all this together, our economy is going through an adjustment following the turn in the housing markets in our largest cities. It is important that we keep this in perspective though.

The correction in the housing market follows an extended period of strength. It is largely due to structural supply and demand factors, and is occurring against the backdrop of a robust economy and an expected pick-up in income growth. Our financial institutions are also in a strong position to deal with the adjustment. Indeed, lending standards were strengthened as the upswing went on. From this perspective, the adjustment in the housing market is manageable for the financial system and the economy. This adjustment will also help increase the affordability of housing for many people. Even so, given the uncertainties, we are paying very close attention to how things evolve.

Monetary Policy

This brings me to monetary policy.

The cash rate has been held steady at 1½ per cent since August 2016. This setting has helped support the economy. The Reserve Bank Board has sought to be a source of stability and confidence while our economy adjusted to the end of the mining investment boom and responded to the shifting sands of the global economy.

Over the past couple of years, economic conditions have been moving in the right direction. The labour market has strengthened, and the unemployment rate has fallen and a further decline is expected. Inflation is also above its earlier trough, although it has not changed much over the past year. Our expectation has been – and continues to be – that the tighter labour market and reduced spare capacity will see underlying inflation rise further towards the midpoint of the target range. Given this, we have maintained a steady setting of monetary policy while the labour market strengthens and inflation increases.

Looking forward, there are scenarios where the next move in the cash rate is up and other scenarios where it is down. Over the past year, the next-move-is-up scenarios were more likely than the next-move-is-down scenarios. Today, the probabilities appear to be more evenly balanced.

We will be monitoring developments in the labour market closely. If Australians are finding jobs and their wages are rising more quickly, it is reasonable to expect that inflation will rise and that it will be appropriate to lift the cash rate at some point. On the other hand, given the uncertainties, it is possible that the economy is softer than we expect, and that income and consumption growth disappoint. In the event of a sustained increased in the unemployment rate and a lack of further progress towards the inflation objective, lower interest rates might be appropriate at some point. We have the flexibility to do this if needed.

The Board will continue to assess the outlook carefully. It does not see a strong case for a near-term change in the cash rate. We are in the position of being able to maintain the current policy setting while we assess the shifts in the global economy and the strength of household spending.

It has long been the Board’s approach to avoid reacting to the high-frequency ebb and flow of news. Instead, we have sought to keep our eye on the medium term and put in place a setting of monetary policy that helps deliver on our objectives of full employment, an inflation rate that averages between 2 and 3 per cent, and financial stability.

Thank you for listening. I look forward to answering your questions.

What Does The Hayne Report Mean To Mortgage Brokers And Financial Advisers?

I discuss the report with Chris Bates, mortgage broker and financial planner – he is not impressed!

Chris can be found at www.wealthful.com.au & www.theelephantintheroom.com.au plus via LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopherbates

Hayne fails to tackle banks’ structure

From The Conversation.

Every 10 to 15 years it’s the same.

Ever since financial deregulation in the 1980s we’ve had a finance industry scandal followed by an inquiry, a quick fix, and a declaration that it shouldn’t happen again.

In the early 1990s there were royal commissions into the A$1.7 billion Tri-continental/ State Bank Victoria collapse, the A$3.1 billion State Bank of South Australia collapse and the WA Inc collapse which explored the interrelated activities at Rothwells bank, the A$1.8 billion collapse of Bond Corporation and the A$1.2 billion siphoned from Bell Resources.

A decade later in 2003 Justice Owen reported on the A$5.3 billion collapse of Australia’s largest insurer HIH.

And now, bang on schedule, we have Kenneth Hayne delivering the final report of a royal commission into systemic misconduct in banking, superannuation and financial services industry to a government that voted 26 times against holding it.

There are two particularly striking things about the 10-15 year cycle.

One is the rhythm of public inquiries followed by reports, then (sometimes) trials, then books, then almost everyone forgetting (except for those personally scarred) only for problems to resurface later.

The other is that the times between have been punctuated by government-commissioned banking and financial system reviews: the 1991 Campbell Inauiry, the 1996 Wallis Inquiry, the 2010 Cooper superannuation review and the 2012 Murray Review . Each either missed or downplayed the links between poor governance, industry structure, systemic misconduct and prudential risk.

Has Kenneth got the frequency right this time?

Commissioner Kenneth Hayne’s 1000-page final report hasn’t gone far enough to end this cycle.

While his referral of 24 misdeeds for possible criminal and civil prosecution will help in righting past wrongs and perhaps focus the minds of directors and executives, the impact will be generational rather than permanent.


The flurry of prosecutions and actions will again reveal problems with the law – gaps in coverage, inadequate penalties and cases the law won’t allow to stand up.

Taken together the recommendations are a patchwork of measures that if implemented will over time be eaten away – and at some point will be dismantled – because the rationale for their adoption will be forgotten.

Even before they are implemented they will have to run the gauntlet of a massive subterranean lobbying effort from industry to water them down, something Hayne indicated he expected.

The deepest flaw lies unaddressed…

Even though Hayne emphasises the link between systemic misconduct, governance, structure and prudential (system-wide) risk, something that Treasury, the RBA and Australia’s three business regulator amigos, APRA, ASIC and the ACCC, have long rejected, he makes no concrete suggestions to tackle it.

As we have written previously, research tells us big systemically important shareholder-focused universal for-profit banks that cross-sell products are more profitable than smaller banks in the good times but are more prone to misconduct and to failure in the worse times.

Australia’s big four fit the bill – they’re big, they have been vertically integrated one-stop shops, they are very, very profitable and they are very focused on shareholder returns.

While the banks, apart from Westpac, have divested themselves of wealth management and insurance arms for now there is nothing stopping them reacquiring them in the future.

This means we are once again 10 or 15 years away from systemic misconduct resurfacing as big banks seek to become more profitable.

…and putting the onus on directors won’t much help

While heads might roll in yet another round of internal investigations to fix bank culture, it is wise to remember that as Adele Ferguson observed ANZ’s internal investigation of the Opes Prime collapse left the bigger governance lessons “unlearned”.

Directors and senior executives of failed companies continue to live charmed lives.

The directors of Babcock and Brown were cheered as they left the building, while friends and family of the disgraced One.Tel director Jodee Rich have resurfaced at Hayne and other public inquiries.

Some of the One.Tel directors have had long corporate careers. The former chair at of the collapsed Allco Finance Group Bob Mansfield went on to review the ABC.

As Adam Schwab bluntly put it, “corporate Australia is nothing if not forgiving”.

It’ll chase horses rather than close doors

Hayne is persisting with a chasing bolting horses approach to misconduct that relies on detection and enforcement.

We have argued this approach is just not as a effective as other alternatives such as two-tier boards and employee directors which have a better track record of keeping stable doors closed and horses tethered.


Without them we could very easily have another crisis and another royal commission in 15 to 15 years time.

Ireland has taken a been prepared to change corporate structures. After the meltdown of its financial system triggered by the end of a “classic vanilla property boom” its parliament legislated to appoint public interest directors to the boards of its failed banks.

These changes were designed to ensure banks directors put the public interest first, ahead of shareholders interests and even customers interests.

It’s beyond time we did it here.

Authors: Andrew Linden, Sessional Lecturer, PhD (Management) Candidate, School of Management, RMIT University; Warren Staples,

Warren Staples

Senior Lecturer in Management, RMIT University

RC – But What Of The Structural Issues?

As the dust settles following the final Royal Commission Report, its clear that the recommendations have carefully avoided the root cause of the wells of pain which the hearings revealed. In fact the force of evidence from those hearings will be what sits in the memory, not the final report. Perhaps some of this was created by the carefully crafted terms of reference, which made it hard for the Commission to get to root causes; perhaps deliberately?

The report puts the onus on financial institutions and boards to change the culture. Good luck with that, on past experience. Especially if bonus payments are a critical part of remuneration.

Criminal proceedings may follow, and more than 20 institutions are there, but these now are referred back to the very regulators who were found wanting in the first place. And cases though the courts will take years. Will any bankers actually cope it for their illegal behaviour – we doubt it. NAB appears to have been called out for special mention.

ASIC and APRA clearly failed in their respective (if confused) roles and getting greater clarity via a super-regulator may help. But I am not sure the twin peaks model works nor are the regulators sufficiently resourced; and the big missing in action figure is the RBA, who leads the Council of Financial Regulators, along side the Treasury. They drove the debt bubble, and the banks responded. This whole structure is complex, opaque and can be gamed. In the new world, ASIC it seems will have clearer leadership in terms of legal compliance; good luck with that!

Removing commissions from Mortgage Brokers (over time) makes sense as it is clearly a case of conflicted remuneration. And pushing towards a unified best interests duty across mortgage and financial advice makes sense. I still do not know why we have put up with two regimes for so long, it was an accident of history which ASIC should have addressed.

Anti-hawking rules for insurance and superannuation makes sense and should always have been there. SME’s need more protection than they have, but this was not recommended.

The BEAR regime, is centred around compliance, and its extension to insurance and wealth management helps, a little. But the basis of assessment remains narrow and is thus incomplete.

And the big question, which was hooked into the long grass, was structural separation, between product sales and manufacturer; and advice. This to me is a root cause of the conflicts and bad behaviour. Hayne says:

Enforced separation of product and advice would be a very large step to take. It would be both costly and disruptive. I cannot say that the benefits of requiring separation would outweigh the costs, and the Productivity Commission concluded that ‘forced structural separation is not likely to prove an effective regulatory response to competition concerns in the financial system’.

I observe, however, that the Productivity Commission recommended, and I agree, that commencing in 2019, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) ‘should undertake 5 yearly market studies on the effect of vertical and horizontal integration in the financial system’.

I am not persuaded that it is necessary to mandate structural separation between product and advice.

Now some entities have already jettisoned wealth management businesses for example, but consumers may well still face inherent and undisclosed conflicts. Our large opaque integrated financial services players remain just that.

Thus bankers can issue a sigh with relief, despite the estimated $6 billion + and counting remediation bill. And I do not see anything here to reverse the tighter lending standards which are now rightly in force, so expect mortgage growth, and home prices to slide further.

But the once in a generation opportunity to fundamentally reform the financial system has been missed, I am afraid, and as a result consumers will continue to pay more than they should for their financial services, big players will still dominate, and regulators will remain pussycats. Not a good outcome in my view.

We will see the Polys mouth words about “consumer trust and protection”, yet in practice do very little. I have a diary card for 5 years from now, for the next review, and one 5 years after that.

The Royal Commission Recommendations

The final report from the Banking Royal Commission has been released, and it makes interesting reading. Here is a brief summary of the 950 pages. More to follow.

At the high level, the greed driven attitudes of the industry are highlighted as leading to the poor practice and illegal behaviour. This was driven by high pressure sales tactics. As a result the community trust in the financial sector has been lost. Change is needed – and culture of the entities and their boards are at the heart of it.

Consumers must be treated honestly and fairly.

The Treasurer says it was a scathing assessment driven by greed and poor behaviour. The price paid was financial, but also hitting people directly. Trust needs to be restored, whilst keeping competition, and the flow of credit.

Consumers will benefit from better protection. It will raise accountability and governance, enhance regulation, and provide for effective remediation.

It does not remove the twin peaks model, (APRA and ASIC).

More than 20 referrals to the regulators for criminal charges. No individuals were named.

The report has 76 Recommendations covering a wide range of issues. The Government says its will “take action” on them all. (Does not mean full implementation).

Of note is the establishment of a new super regulator to sit across APRA and ASIC to gauge their effectiveness and clarify roles and responsibilities. The Federal Court will have extra responses to progress the referrals.

Mortgage brokers will have a best interests duty and trailing commission will be banned in due course (July 2020). In addition there is a recommendation to move to fee for service paid by customers though the Government is slowing any such change (a 3 year review in the view of the impact of competition).

There will be one account for new superannuation savers and fees to be banned from My Super accounts. Changes to the add on to insurance via a cooling off period.

A Compensation scheme of last resort.

Expansion of the BEAR cultural framework.

No changes to responsible lending – its all about policing and compliance.

Nothing on structural separation, or horizontal or vertical integration. So the industry structure remains untouched.

The legislative response seems muted, and delayed to kick the burden down the track, after the election.

So my take is some progress, but not as much as perhaps many will wish for….

ASIC requires Commonwealth Financial Planning Limited to stop charging fees for ongoing services

ASIC says Commonwealth Financial Planning Limited (CFPL) has failed to provide ASIC with an attestation and with an acceptable Final Report from the independent expert, both of which were required under a Court Enforceable Undertaking (EU) entered into with ASIC in April 2018 in relation to CFPL’s fees for no service conduct.

As a result, CFPL is now required under the EU to immediately take all necessary steps to:

  • stop charging or receiving ongoing service fees from its customers; and
  • not enter into any new ongoing service arrangements with customers.

The EU, which commenced on 9 April 2018 and was varied on 20 December 2018, required CFPL to provide to ASIC by 31 January 2019:

  • a Final Report by the independent expert, Ernst & Young, on whether CFPL had taken reasonable steps to remediate customers impacted by CFPL’s fees for no service conduct and on the adequacy of CFPL’s systems, processes and controls; and
  • to provide an attestation from a Commonwealth Bank ‘accountable person’ under the Banking Executive Accountability Regime as to CFPL’s remediation program, and the adequacy of CFPL’s systems, processes and controls.

On 31 January 2019, Ernst & Young issued its second report under the EU, identifying further concerns regarding CFPL’s remediation program and its compliance systems and processes – including that there remains ‘a heavy reliance’on manual controls, which ‘have a higher inherent risk of failure due to human error or being overridden’.  Ernst & Young recommended CFPL address these issues within a further 120 days. 

On the same day, CBA’s accountable person provided a written update to ASIC on the remediation program and work being done in relation to CFPL’s systems, processes and controls. Having regard to the concerns raised by the independent expert and the contents of CBA’s written update, ASIC considered that the notification did not meet ASIC’s requirements under the EU for an acceptable attestation.

As a result, ASIC’s requirement under the EU that CFPL stop charging or receiving ongoing service fees and not enter into any new ongoing service arrangements, has been triggered. ASIC included this requirement in the EU to ensure that if CFPL were not able to satisfy ASIC that the fees for no service conduct would not be repeated, CFPL would have to stop charging ongoing service fees so as to significantly reduce any further risk to clients. Existing clients will continue to receive services under their ongoing service agreements but will not be charged by CFPL.

ASIC has received CFPL’s confirmation that it is complying with this requirement to stop entering into new ongoing service agreements and to cease charging existing clients fees under these agreements. This requirement will continue until CFPL is able to satisfy ASIC that all of the outstanding issues have been remedied. ASIC will be monitoring CFPL’s compliance with this obligation.

ASIC has also been informed by CFPL that it is now in the process of transitioning its ongoing service model to one whereby customers are only charged fees after the relevant services have been provided. ASIC will monitor CFPL’s transition to the new model.

Background

Under CFPL’s remediation program overseen by ASIC, CFPL has to date reported to ASIC that it has paid approximately $119 million to customers impacted by its fees for no service conduct.