News Corp is quietly selling NAB home loans

In Finance, things are not always what they appear to be. The point made in the recent Productivity Commission report! See this excellent piece from of The New Daily showing NAB’s connectivity and influence across the home loan industry – a classic example of vertical integration and more.

Fans of Married at First Sight and My Kitchen Rules may have noticed over the past few days that popular property website realestate.com.au has started advertising a new product: home loans.

According to the ad, you can now go through the entire process of buying a house – from searching for properties and applying for conditional approval, to actually getting a mortgage – through the website.

This process will no doubt seem extremely convenient to many house hunters. And given the huge popularity of realestate.com.au – it claims to have 6.45 million visitors a month – take-up is likely to be high.

But there is something consumers really need to know about it. Realestate.com.au Home Loans is not an independent initiative. Far from it. It is a deal between Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which owns 61.6 per cent of realestate.com.au, and big-four bank NAB.

The first part of the deal with NAB

Last June REA Group, the company behind the realestate.com.au website, signed what it called a “strategic mortgage broking partnership” with NAB. Only now, though, has it started widely marketing this new deal.

So what is the nature of the deal? Well, on the face of it, realestate.com.au appears to be a mortgage broker in its own right. But that is not actually the case.

What REA Group is actually doing is piggy-backing on a mortgage broker called Choice Home Loans. In other words, while the branding may be realestate.com.au, the actual mortgage broking firm is Choice Home Loans.

And who owns Choice Home Loans? NAB does.

The second part of the deal

Another key part of the deal is that house hunters who use realestate.com.au can actually apply for “conditional approval” of a mortgage through the website.

Conditional approval allows you to bid for a property at auction, among other things. It must be provided by a mortgage lender. In this case, that mortgage lender is NAB.

So to re-emphasise the point – if you get conditional approval through realestate.com.au, it will be provided by NAB.

The third part of the deal

However, getting conditional approval with NAB does not commit you to a NAB home loan.

So what happens if you do buy a house through realestate.com.au? Well, you then have to pick a lender. And here you have a choice.

First, you could choose a realestate.com.au ‘white label’ loan. This is a loan that on the face of it looks like it is provided by realestate.com.au.

But once again appearances are deceptive. REA Group does not have a mortgage lenders’ licence. So while these loans may be branded realestate.com.au, they are actually provided by a nationwide mortgage lender called Advantedge.

And who owns Advantedge? NAB does.

If you don’t fancy the realestate.com.au home loan, there are other choices. First, there is a range of NAB mortgages.

And then, there is a list of mortgages from other providers – more than 30 of them, including big names like Westpac, ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie, ING, ME, UBank – the list goes on.

Oh, and by the way, that last bank mentioned – UBank – is also owned by NAB.

REA Group assures The New Daily that its (or, to be precise, NAB’s) mortgage brokers do not spruik the realestate.com.au, NAB or UBank loans to their customers at the expense of other loans.

But the rules around this are fairly fuzzy. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission told The New Daily that, while mortgage brokers must not mislead or misrepresent the products they are selling, they also do not have a “duty of care” to their customers.

This means there is a lot more leeway for favouring certain products.

Also, unlike financial advisers, mortgage brokers can and do take commissions from lenders. That’s why you don’t have to pay for their services.

So even if NAB/REA Group don’t sell you a NAB loan, they still get the commission.

None of this is illegal. But the depth of NAB’s involvement in the new service is not made clear on the website. And given NAB is a vested interest, consumers really need to know how deeply involved the bank is before they make one of the biggest financial decisions of their life.

Productivity Commission and Mortgage Brokers

From Australian Broker.

Productivity Commission chairman Peter Harris defended his agency’s criticism of broker commission in its report on competition in financial services, as he highlighted again the high cost of mortgage brokers.

Speaking at a Committee for the Economic Development of Australia event yesterday, Harris said more than $2.4bn is now paid annually for mortgage broker services.

The commission’s draft report released in early February says that based on ASIC’s findings, lenders pay brokers an upfront commission of $2,289 (0.62%) and a trail commission of $665 (0.18%) a year on an average new home loan of $369,000.

“Some in the broking industry want to know why there is suddenly attention being paid to commissions. The sum I just cited, as a large apparent addition to industry costs since the mid-90s, by itself suggests a public analysis of why it is so large might be in order.”

Harris said the amount becomes problematic when some parties suggest that consumers do not bear this burden as they do not pay commission costs.

“Which is a comment surely made for Twitter – since anyone with a slight amount of common sense knows that somewhere in any product purchase, it is only a customer or a shareholder who could be paying this charge, unless offsetting costs have been stripped out,” he said.

Harris also cast doubt on industry changes to broker remuneration structures. He said that despite announced changes to parts of commission payment schemes, broker commission remains far from aligned with consumer interests.

He zeroed in on trailing commissions – which he said are worth $1bn per annum – and questioned their relevance.

“The industry itself has said that trailing commissions are designed to reduce churn and manage customers on behalf of banks. Despite the hint to the contrary, we do actually understand quite well why it might be in a bank’s interest and a broker’s interest to jointly limit churn,” said Harris.

“But not the customer’s interest – who is most probably paying for the service.”

Harris said the Productivity Commission preferred that banks imposed on brokers the duty of ensuring they act in consumers’ best interests, “perhaps via contract”.

“But we have no power to recommend what banks do for themselves, so we have instead a draft report that proposes regulation,” he said.

The commission is moving into the public hearing stage this week, and will submit its final report on 1 July.

Royal Commission Lists Case Studies For Hearing

The Banking Royal Commission says the first round of public hearings will be held in Melbourne at the Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building at 305 William Street from Tuesday 13 March to Friday 23 March.

They listed the range of matters they are exploring, from mortgages, brokers, cards, car finance, add-on insurance and account administration, with reference to specific banks, including NAB, CBA, ANZ, Westpac, Aussie, and Citi.

The first round of public hearings will consider aspects of the treatment of consumers by banking and financial services providers in connection with a number of credit products, including residential mortgages, car finance and credit cards. It will also consider the arrangements and practices of banking and financial services providers and their intermediaries.

The Commission presently intends to deal with consumer lending for the purposes of the public hearings by reference to the case studies set out below.

  Topic Case Studies
1. Residential Mortgages
  • NAB Introducer Program and fraudulent loan applications
  • Aussie Home Loans fraudulent brokers and broker arrangements
  • CBA accreditation of brokers and broker arrangements
2. Car Finance
  • Westpac/St George car finance practices
  • ANZ/Esanda car finance practices
3. Credit Cards
  • Westpac unsuitable credit card limit increases
  • Citi imposition of international transaction fees
4. Add-On Insurance Products
  • CBA credit insurance in connection with home loans, personal loans and credit cards
5. Credit Offers
  • ANZ unsuitable pre-approved overdraft offers
6. Account Administration
  • ANZ account administration errors
  • CBA unsuitable overdraft facilities and failure of automated systems

A number of consumers will give evidence of their particular experiences during the hearings. The entities that are the subject of consumer evidence will be informed by the Commission. A representative of a consumer advocacy group will also give evidence.

Further topics may be included and the list above will be updated accordingly before the hearings commence.

Commonwealth Bank lodges response to amended AUSTRAC and class action claims

Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) has today lodged with the Federal Court of Australia its response to the amended statement of claim filed by AUSTRAC on 14 December 2017 and its defence to the shareholder class action commenced by Zonia Holdings Pty Ltd on 9 October 2017.

In our amended defence in the AUSTRAC matter, we deny the majority of the 100 additional allegations.

In our defence of the class action matter, we categorically deny all allegations of liability.

We consider that we have complied with our continuous disclosure obligations at all times. There was no price sensitive information about the matters raised in the AUSTRAC proceeding that required disclosure.

AUSTRAC proceeding

 We understand that we play a key role in law enforcement and we take our anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML / CTF) obligations extremely seriously.

During the period covered by AUSTRAC’s claim and to the end of 2017, we submitted more than 19 million reports to AUSTRAC, including over 4 million last year alone. During the same period we submitted more than 40,000 suspicious matter reports (SMRs). We also fulfilled more than 20,000 requests for assistance from law enforcement agencies last year.

We have invested more than $400 million in financial compliance systems to counter financial crime over the past eight years and employ hundreds of personnel dedicated to detecting and disrupting financial crime.

Of the 100 additional allegations in AUSTRAC’s amended statement of claim, CBA denies 89 allegations in full and admits 11 allegations in part.

Taking into account the allegations in the original claim as well as the amended claim, our response to AUSTRAC’s claim is summarised below.

Late Threshold Transaction Reports (TTR)

We agree that we were late in filing 53,506 TTRs but we will submit that, for the purposes of penalty, these should be treated as a single course of conduct.

AML / CTF Program

We agree that we did not adequately adhere to risk assessment requirements for Intelligent Deposit Machines (IDMs) – but do not accept that this amounted to 14 separate contraventions.

We agree that our transaction monitoring did not operate as intended in respect of a number of accounts between October 2012 and October 2015.

Suspicious matter reports

 AUSTRAC alleges 230 contraventions concerning suspicious matter reporting (SMR) obligations. We admit we made errors in 98 instances in connection with our SMR obligations, although we say that there were less than 98 separate contraventions.  We admit that:

  • 53 SMRs were filed late;
  • a further 45 SMRs should have been filed (above and beyond the 264 SMRs we actually filed in relation to the syndicates and individuals identified in the claim).

We deny 132 of the allegations concerning SMRs.

Ongoing customer due diligence requirements

We admit 56 (in whole or in part) but deny a further 53 allegations concerning ongoing customer due diligence requirements.

Further detail can be found in CBA’s Amended Concise Statement in Response.

Class action

In its defence to the class action, CBA categorically denies all allegations of liability made against it.

The class action alleges matters including that, between 1 July 2015 and 3 August 2017, CBA failed to disclose to the market material information in relation to aspects of its AML/CTF controls that are the subject of the AUSTRAC proceeding. The allegations include that CBA failed to disclose that it was potentially exposed to an enforcement action by AUSTRAC.

CBA rejects the assertion that it had any price sensitive information in respect of its AML/CTF controls environment or the risk of the AUSTRAC proceeding, and maintains that it at all times complied with its continuous disclosure obligations.

CBA has historically had a good relationship with AUSTRAC, with which it collaborates extensively including through the Fintel Alliance and the AUSTRAC private/public sector partnership. AUSTRAC has acknowledged CBA’s contribution in this field, including by inviting the executive in charge of CBA’s financial crime prevention team as the Australian financial services delegate to participate at the Joint Experts Meeting of the inter-governmental Financial Action Task Force in Moscow in April 2017.

CBA first became aware of AUSTRAC’s proceeding on the day it filed its statement of claim with the Federal Court on 3 August 2017.

CBA says that at no time prior to 3 August 2017 did AUSTRAC tell us:

  • that it had decided to take any action against CBA; or
  • about the number or nature of the contraventions it would be alleging against CBA.

CBA takes its continuous disclosure obligations seriously and will continue to vigorously defend the claim.

Are Mortgage Brokers Conflicted?

From The Adviser.

The financial services regulator has backed claims from the Productivity Commission that “there are conflicts of interest” in the way that home loans are sold through mortgage brokers “where some of those mortgage broking firms may be owned [by lenders] as well”.

Speaking at the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on Friday (16 February), the Australian Securities & investments Commission (ASIC) was asked a range of questions about conflicts of interest in the financial planning industry.

Touching on ASIC’s recently-released report regarding vertically-integrated institutions and conflicts of interest, deputy chair Peter Kell noted that while it “probably wouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone to see that there would be some sort of bias towards internal or in-house products”, he added that ASIC’s question was to establish the extent of this and “whether that was associated, in some cases, with poor quality advice”.

He noted that financial planners, who are bound by a ‘best interests’ standards, are inherently conflicted – adding that some brokers are too.

Mr Kell said: “[T]here is an inherent conflict of interest — it’s not prohibited, but it’s a conflict of interest — when you have an entity which is a product manufacturer and a product distributor and when, at the end of the day, there is an obligation to act in the client’s best interest.

“The question is: how is that playing out in practice and how are those conflicts of interest being managed? That’s clearly one of the key aims of this report, to get a better picture around that.”

The deputy chair echoed claims made by the Productivity Commision in its draft report into competition in the Australian financial system, which argued that brokers who process loans through lender-owned aggregators could be facing conflicts of interest.

Mr Kell said: “All of us in one way or another have conflicts of interest in different parts of our professional lives.

“There are conflicts of interest that are there in the vertically integrated model [in financial planning] just like there are conflicts of interest, for example, that are there in the way that home loans are sold through mortgage brokers w[h]ere some of those mortgage broking firms may be owned [by lenders] as well.

“Some conflicts in remuneration have now been prohibited – that’s not what this is looking at. There are other conflicts in terms of the structure of businesses that are allowed. The key question is: are they being managed appropriately? Some of those conflicts might be associated with other sorts of benefits, which means you would say it’s better to manage them than to try and rule them out altogether.”

The new ASIC chair James Shipton said that “the same thing can actually [be] said with horizontal business loans”.

“There are conflicts that need to be managed both horizontally and vertically,” he added.

Difficult to get a yes or no’ on conflicted remuneration

When asked whether mortgage brokers should come under “conflicted remuneration laws”, Mr Kell said: “There’s been a lot of work done on this, so it’s difficult to get a yes or no answer, but we’ve obviously highlighted in our report that we think there are some aspects of the way that remuneration works in the mortgage-broking sector that would be better to take out of the sector because they raise unreasonable conflicts.”

For example, ASIC’s review into broker remuneration found that the current structure was generally sound, but suggested that lenders “move away from giving soft dollar benefits” to brokers as they “increase the risk of poor consumer outcomes and can undermine competition”.

At the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on Friday, ASIC was asked if it would seek to ban vertically-integrated models from financial planning.

Mr Kell said: “That wouldn’t really be our call. An interesting question might be whether the Productivity Commission will look at that issue. I think they’ve made a recommendation about ensuring greater transparency around ownership and ownership links – not just in this area but also in the mortgage-broking area.”

Mr Kell concluded by saying: “[I]n most of the areas we regulate we are not regulating for a particular business model. We are regulating for appropriate consumer outcomes and appropriate advice being provided or appropriate products getting into the right hands.”

This focus on ownership and conflicts of interest has been of increasing interest for the regulator, whose review into broker remuneration last year recommended that there be clearer disclosure of ownership structures within the home loan market to improve competition.

To reduce the impact of ownership structure, ASIC proposed that participants in the industry “more clearly disclose their ownership structures”.

However, the Productivity Commission has gone a step further by calling for a legal provision to be imposed by ASIC to require lender-owned aggregators to work in the “best interest” of customers.

Draft recommendation 8.1 reads: “The Australian Securities and Investments Commission should impose a clear legal duty on mortgage aggregators owned by lenders to act in the consumer’s best interests.

“Such a duty should be imposed even if these aggregators operate as independent subsidiaries of their parent lender institution, and should also apply to the mortgage brokers operating under them.”

NAB Job Cuts 1,000 Jobs as ‘Digitisation’ Takes Hold

From Investor Daily.

NAB staff were informed by chief people officer Lorraine Murphy yesterday that “the next phase in transforming our business is underway, as part of a three-year process”.

In November 2017, InvestorDaily reported on the major bank’s plans to cut 6,000 jobs and create 2,000 new digital-focused jobs by 2020.

A NAB spokesperson told InvestorDaily approximately 1,000 jobs will be cut every six months for the next three years.

InvestorDaily understands the exact number of job losses in the first half of 2018 will depend on the number of voluntary redundancies and redeployments into digital-focused roles.

“The proposed new structure will reduce the layers and complexity in the bank so that we can be simpler, make decisions faster and be even closer to our customers,” the bank said in a statement.

Ms Murphy said there was “no doubt” this transition was right for the bank business.

“We will acknowledge the contribution that people who are leaving us have made. We will show through our actions that we care,” said Ms Murphy.

Staff that leave the bank will have “world-class support” through the bank’s career transition program titled ‘The Bridge’, which will offer employees made redundant with six months of support and resources.

“We said we would provide the utmost care and respect for all of our people. This remains our priority,” Ms Murphy said.

“I encourage you to ensure that all of our people understand the changes and are supported, and that those who remain with us can deliver the type of bank we have promised our customers – a simpler, faster bank.”

InvestorDaily also reported on comments made by NAB chief executive Andrew Thorburn, who signalled the number of bricks-and-mortar branches was declining.

“What’s happening is that more and more customers are using their mobile device and online banking, and some branches are being used less and less and less,” Mr Thorburn said in November.

“And as that happens, like any business, we need to adjust.”

However, in a statement, the Finance Sector Union (FSU) expressed concerns that the job cutting “does not meet community expectations”, pointing out that with the royal commission underway, Australian banks are being watched closely and NAB should take this responsibility to “rebuild its brand”.

“This is not just 6,000 workers that will lose their jobs – it’s 6,000 people that will have to go home and tell their families they no longer have work,” said FSU national secretary Julia Angrisano.

Many of the workers whose jobs would be axed or made redundant will have been at the bank for years and were a driving force behind NAB’s profits, Ms Angrisano pointed out.

“It’s not like NAB is in trouble – they can afford to retrain their workers. They made $6.7 billion dollar profit last year,” she said.

“Post retrenchment support is too little too late, workers need to be re-skilled to move into the jobs of the future now.”

FactCheck: do bank profits ‘belong to everyday Australians’?

From The Conversation.

Following mounting pressure from Labor and some National Party MPs, the Turnbull government in December established a Royal Commission into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry. Public hearings are now underway.

At the same time, the Australian Bankers’ Association (ABA) has been running a national advertising campaign in which bank branch staff talk about who benefits from bank profits.

The advertisements – broadcast on national television, published in newspapers, shared on social media and displayed on ATMs – state that “nearly 80% of all bank profits go straight back to shareholders and the majority of those shareholders are everyday Australians who own bank shares through their super funds”.

The ABA says bank profits “don’t belong to the banks, they belong to everyday Australians like you”.

Is that right?

Checking the source

The Conversation contacted the Australian Bankers’ Association requesting sources and comment, but did not receive a response.

On the “Australian Banks Belong To You” campaign website, the association cites these references:

The “nearly 80%” figure refers to the dividend payout ratio of the 8 key Australian retail banks averaged over 2016 and 2017. The data are sourced from bank annual reports. The dividend payout ratio is calculated as the sum of the dividends paid divided by the sum of cash earnings.

According to the ATO more than 14.8 million Australians have at least one superannuation fund account (around 40% have more than one). It’s safe to say that many super funds invest in Australian bank shares as part of their portfolio.

This means that millions of Australians own bank shares.

Verdict

The Australian Bankers’ Association claimed that “nearly 80% of all Australian bank profits go straight back to shareholders”. While we can’t say whether that’s correct for all Australian banks, the statement is broadly correct for Australia’s eight largest retail ABA member banks over the last five years.

The association’s claim that “the majority of those shareholders are everyday Australians who own bank shares through their super funds” is reasonable.

But if you read those statements together as meaning 80% of profits go to Australian shareholders, that would be incorrect. That’s because a proportion of dividend payouts go to non-resident shareholders.

For example, if a dividend was paid on 31 December 2017 by Australia’s ‘Big Four’ banks, non-resident investors would have received between 21.21% and 26.5% of any dividends declared – meaning Australian investors would have received closer to 60% of profits.


Do ‘nearly 80% of bank profits go straight back to shareholders’?

The Australian Bankers’ Association (ABA) is an advocacy group representing the interests of the Australian banking industry. The ABA has 24 member banks, but the claim about what percentage of profits are paid to shareholders doesn’t cover all of its 24 members.

On the “Australian Banks Belong To You” campaign website, the ABA said it based its “nearly 80%” claim on “the dividend payout ratio of the eight key Australian retail banks averaged over 2016 and 2017”, with the numbers sourced from bank annual reports.

Dividends are cash payments that listed companies make to their shareholders. The cash payments are often made regularly. The “dividend payout ratio” is the sum of the dividends paid to shareholders in a year, divided by the sum of the cash earnings the company made.

In other words, the dividend payout ratio is the portion of corporate profits that are paid directly back to shareholders. Companies retain the rest of profits, usually to finance future growth.

While the ABA didn’t name the banks it based its claim on, the eight largest retail banks in the ABA are the Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank, ANZ, Westpac, Bank of Queensland, Bendigo Bank, Suncorp and Macquarie Bank.

If we look at dividend payout ratios for those eight banks since 2013, we can see that the overall average payout has consistently hovered around 80% for the past five years.

The same is true of the average payout of the ‘Big Four’ Australian banks – Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, ANZ and National Australia Bank.

In 2012, an outlying dividend payout caused the average dividend payout to appear abnormally high. In the preceding five-year period from 2007 to 2011 payout ratios were lower, as you can see in the chart below.

Do profits ‘belong to everyday Australians’?

The ABA claimed that of those bank profit distributions, the “majority” go to Australians, including “millions of everyday Australians who own bank shares through their super funds”.

The ABA did not define what it meant by “everyday Australians”. In justifying its claim, the ABA correctly cited Australian Tax Office data that shows that as of June 30, 2016, more than 14.8 million Australians had at least one superannuation fund account.

On its website, the ABA stated it’s “safe to say that many super funds invest in Australian bank shares as part of their portfolio”.

Superannuation funds do typically hold a balanced portfolio that represents the major members of the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). A typical superannuation portfolio might invest in bonds, and in a portfolio of the largest 200 stocks on the ASX, which would include the major banks. This can be subject to individuals’ investment preferences.

For example, say the fund invests in the largest 200 companies on the ASX, and invests in proportion to the companies’ size (that is – the largest companies get the largest investment). Then, the big four banks would be four of the five largest investments.

Obviously, not all superannuation accounts invest in bank stocks, and portfolios can be structured in different ways. For example, some superannuation funds allow their members to invest only in bonds, and people with self managed superannuation funds choose their own investments.

Some wealthy shareholders, and overseas shareholders, also benefit from holding Australian bank shares. As with all companies, shareholders benefit in proportion to their shareholding. Listed banks have no say over whether wealthy Australians, or overseas buyers, purchase their shares.

But it is fair to say that “millions of everyday Australians who own bank shares through their super funds” benefit from dividend payouts. – Mark Humpherey-Jenner

Blind review

The Australian Banking Association claimed that nearly 80% of all Australian bank profits go back to shareholders, and that the majority of those shareholders are everyday Australians who own bank shares through their super funds.

Those claims are valid when read independently, as set out above. But they should not be read together as indicating that nearly 80% of profits go to Australian shareholders.

The proportion of dividends that go back to Australians, either directly or through their investment portfolios, would be less than 80% of bank profits.

Reviewing the investor profiles of ANZ, CBA, NAB and Westpac shows that on December 31, 2017, Australian investment ranged from 73.5% to 78.79% across the big four banks, and institutional investment, which includes superannuation funds and other financial institutions, represented slightly under half of investors.

The high representation of domestic institutional holdings demonstrates the significance of bank shares in most investment portfolios, including superannuation funds.

Foreign ownership of Australian banks. NAB presents the data in a different way to the other banks. Author provided based on reports from ANZ, CBA, NAB, Westpac

So if a dividend had been paid on 31 December 2017 for Australia’s ‘Big Four’ banks, non-resident investors would have received between 21.21% and 26.5% of that dividend declared, meaning Australian investors would have received closer to 60% of profits. – Helen Hodgson

Author: Mark Humphery-Jenner, Associate Professor of Finance, UNSW; Reviewer, Helen Hodgson, Associate Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University

 

Credit Card Rules Tightened – Finally!

Credit card providers will be forced to scrap unfair and predatory practices – after the legislation passed through the parliament on Thursday.  However, the implementation timetable is extended into 2019.  It also included a package of other measures.

The reforms include:

Requiring affordability assessments be based on a consumer’s ability to repay the credit limit within a reasonable period (from July 2018).  This tightens responsible lending obligations for credit card contracts.

Banning unsolicited offers of credit limit increases (from January 2019). At the moment, whilst the law forbids providers from making these sorts of offers in writing, offers can be made by phone and other mediums. This loophole has been exploited, but will now be closed.

Simplifying how credit card interest is calculated, especially, banning the practice of backdating interest rate charges. Currently, some providers were attracting new customers with promotional low rate, or no rate offers, say for the first month. But, if a customer failed to pay off in full a credit card bill after the first month, the credit card company was often retrospectively applying the new interest rate to previous purchases. This was allowed in the banks’ small print, but the government said the practice did “not align with consumers’ understanding and expectation about how interest is to be charged”. This will be banned, from next year.

Requiring credit card providers to have online options to cancel cards or to reduce credit limits (from January 2019). At the moment, some card providers force customers to come into a bank branch to reduce limits or terminate cards, and when they did come in were often persuaded not to do it. The asymmetry between fast credit card approvals online, and slow cancellation will end.

The Treasurer said:

This legislation will protect vulnerable Australians from predatory behaviour which seeks to make a quick buck from people’s misfortune, and compound their financial hardship. This is the first phase of reforms outlined in the Government’s response to the Senate Inquiry into the credit card market, which seeks to put more power in the hands of consumers.

The Bill will also materially boost competition in the banking sector by allowing small lenders to call themselves banks; a significant change that will entice new lenders and challenger banks to enter the market. This will provide greater choice for Australians and put downward pressure on the cost of banking products and loans.

In lifting the ban on the use of the word ‘bank’, any lender with an ADI licence will now be able to market themselves as a bank, whether they have bricks and mortar branches or operate exclusively online. Off the bat, this reform paves the way for more than 60 current Australian lenders and credit unions to call themselves banks.

The Bill – the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) 2017 – also strengthens financial stability by providing the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) a new reserve power over the lending activities of non-banks. It modernises APRA’s legislative framework by making clear APRA’s roles and responsibilities under the Banking Act 1959.

This Bill accompanies the Turnbull Government’s Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which brings greater accountability to our banks by introducing tough new rules for banks and their executives, and the Crisis Management Bill, which strengthens APRA’s crisis management powers.

We discussed the implications of the Bail-in clauses recently, especially relating to bank deposits

 

Royal Commission updates online form

From The Adviser.

Following an article in The Adviser highlighting a ‘major flaw’ in the online form for the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, the commission has now updated the form to better reflect channel choice.

On Wednesday, The Adviser ran a story in which Queensland-based broker Nicki McDavitt warned that the figures cited by the initial hearing of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry could be wrong, after she identified what she called a “major flaw” in the commission’s online form.

The form asks users to identify the “nature of the dealings” in which misconduct took place.

However, the only option specifically relating to home loans fell under the category ‘mortgage broker’. Ms McDavitt therefore said that the commission’s figures on mortgage broker-related misconduct could be “false” as they may include information relating to bank branch home loans (and therefore be miscategorised).

However, the royal commission has today (14 February) updated the form to allow users to select ‘home loan/mortgage’ under the ‘personal finance’ option (see below). The mortgage broker option has also been updated to read ‘entity that arrange homed loan/mortgage’

Speaking to The Adviser following the change, Ms McDavitt said: “I’m absolutely thrilled. I’m thrilled that I was listened to and I’m thrilled that it has been changed.”

Ms McDavitt said the Royal Commission thanked her for bringing it to their attention as they had “not even realised that it was not even there” and brought it up with the web designers who changed it today (14 February).

“I said to [the contact]: ‘It does mean that those statistics that you have been flouting will be wrong’ and she acknowledged that it could be a risk, but said: ‘Thankfully we’ve caught it early’. And I said ‘yes’.”

The Adviser had asked the commission yesterday (13 February) for a comment on the issue and whether it would be changing the form, and received the following response: “The online submission process is working well and based on the number of submissions received to date, we are confident that those using the form have been able to identify correctly the nature of their dealings, including to identify home loans taken out with banks.

“We are also reviewing submissions as they come in to ensure that they are appropriately categorised.

“We are committed to ensuring that the information on our website is clear and easy to understand, so we will continue to review and improve the website going forward.”

The heads of both the mortgage broker associations had spoken to The Adviser this morning, both highlighting that they would be raising this issue of the online form error with the royal commission.

Speaking to The Adviser after the change, the executive director of the FBAA, Peter White, welcomed the change, but added that he believed the bank branches “still get off lightly, as the grouping/sections for arranging loans is highlighted separately for brokers, whereas the bank branches are not identified separately but rather in the cluster titled ‘Personal Financial’”.

He added: “This should read as ‘Personal Banking’ or the like, and then have the itemisation in brackets following it.”

No legal barriers for royal commission witnesses

From Investor Daily.

The initial hearing of the royal commission into banking, superannuation and financial services was held in Melbourne yesterday, and commissioner Kenneth Hayne QC had a stark warning for institutions.

All four of the major banks have confirmed they will waive non-disclosure agreements that could stop people from testifying to the royal commission.

But in comments during the hearing, Mr Hayne confirmed that even if they were not waived, confidentiality agreements (or ‘non-disparagement’ clauses) would not be a “reasonable excuse” to avoid a question in a hearing of the royal commission.

“It seems to me to follow that answering a notice or a summons would not amount to a breach of any confidentiality or non-disparagement clause,” Mr Hayne said.

Furthermore, under s6M of the Royal Commission Act 1902, no injury can be done to a person who gives evidence or produces a document under a notice or summons, he said.

“Suing the person would almost certainly fall within that prohibition,” Mr Hayne said.

“An institution which sought any form of legal redress against a member of the public or a whistle blower seeking to volunteer information to the commission in anticipation of the possible exercise of the the commission’s coercive powers would be taking a step which would very likely provoke two immediate consequences.”

First, the commission would be “very likely indeed” to exercise its compulsory powers to secure the information in question, Mr Hayne said.

“Second, the very fact that an institution sought to prohibit or prevent the disclosure of the information would excite the closest attention not only to the lawfulness of that conduct by the institution, but also what were the institution’s motives for seeking to prevent the commission from having that information,” he said.

Public submissions to the royal commission via the online form on its website are “very important to our work”, he said.

Indeed, the royal commission will be closely comparing the industry participant submissions about misconduct with public submissions, Mr Hayne said.

“One of the consequences of our adopting this sequence of action – of first asking industry participants to identity misconduct and conduct falling short of community standards and expectations and then asking the public to make submissions – is that it may help us to identify whether there is a gap between what industry participants now say is relevant conduct and what member of the public see as being relevant,” he said.

The royal commission made initial requests for information of industry participants on 15 December 2017, which were delivered on 29 January.

Further requests limited to events of misconduct identified over the past five years were made on 2 February, with answers sought by 13 February.