Senior female bankers don’t conform to stereotypes and are just as ready to take risks

From The Conversation.

There’s a popular theory called the “Lehman Sisters Hypothesis” that says well known bank failures (like the Lehman Brothers collapse) wouldn’t have happened if there were more female staff in management. Our research suggests that increasing female staff is, on its own, unlikely to change the way risk is managed in banks.

The Lehman Sisters Hypothesis relies on the research-proven fact that women are, on average, more risk averse than men. It implies that bringing more women into banks will lead to better risk management and reduce the possibility of bank failure or scandal.

While female staff may be more risk averse on average, our research shows many of them are just as risk tolerant as their male counterparts. These are the women who tend to make it to the management roles where risk management decisions are made.

It’s important to note that women already comprise more than half the workforce in the banks we analysed, but they are under-represented at senior levels and in institutional banking. This is the arm of banking that offers complex financial advice and services to large institutions.

From July 2014 to August 2016 we collected survey responses from 36,223 employees from ten banking institutions headquartered in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Our unique data set encompasses a cross-section of staff in all business lines and levels of seniority.

Using survey methods, we asked bank employees to self-report their risk management behaviour. For example, we asked about compliance with risk policy, speaking up about practices that may be inappropriate and reporting risk events. People will often not admit non-compliance, even in an anonymous survey so we took great care with the wording to illicit a truthful response. For example, one of our questions read:

Sometimes I need to bend the rules in order to get my work done (Agree/Disagree).

Using similar survey methods we also assessed the extent to which each staff member was risk-loving or risk averse – in other words, their individual risk tolerance. We found people who are more risk loving are generally less likely to display good risk management behaviour.

Once we accounted for differences in risk tolerance, women are no more likely than men to behave well.

We found older workers are more likely to exhibit good risk management behaviour, even after accounting for the tendency for older people to be more risk averse. For example they are more likely to question business practices that may create poor outcomes down the track, such as making risky loans or selling products to customers who don’t fully understand them. Perhaps older workers, having lived through so many economic cycles and scandals, simply “get” risk management more than the young.

We also studied the risk culture in more than 300 different units within the banks. Risk culture is the perception among employees that risk management is genuinely valued and practised. So it’s not just a glossy statement on a website to satisfy regulators but the “way we do things around here”.

Our results show there isn’t any relationship between the gender mix of the units and the risk culture. We also didn’t find any association with the gender of the leaders of business units and risk culture.

The problem with the ‘Lehman Sisters Hypothesis’

The hypothesis assumes all women are risk averse, yet women themselves are a diverse bunch. We found that risk tolerance varies between men and women when they are at junior levels but these differences disappear as you climb the corporate ladder. At senior levels the women are just like the men in terms of risk tolerance, so the way they manage risk is also similar. More women who behave like men does not change anything.

Risk tolerance by seniority in banks. Author provided, Author provided

In order to prosper in a stereotypically masculine culture female staff may need to have stereotypically masculine attributes, or they may need to adapt to the culture around them.

Essentially it all comes down to gender stereotypes. Risk-taking is a stereotypically masculine attribute, not a feminine one, but these days women are increasingly not conforming to this stereotype. This may help explain our findings regarding women in management positions in banks.

In a study published in 2011, researchers Renee Adams and Patricia Funk examined a sample of directors, finding that female directors are significantly more risk loving than their male counterparts. In other words, the women who make it to the very top don’t conform to gender stereotypes. Not surprising when you think about it.

The research literature on organisational culture suggests that cultures form in response to the business environment – as a way of ensuring success in that environment. To suggest that bringing in a few more women is going to change things is naïve to say the least.

In fact it’s far more likely that the reverse will happen. New workers are unlikely to succeed if they do not share the values of the existing culture. Indeed the process of selection will make it hard for “different” staff to even enter the organisation.

Creating a culture that values risk management is a huge task for banks all over the world. The global crisis that began in 2007 was a wake-up call that the focus on short-term profits had gone too far. Subsequent reforms to risk management practices and regulations have been radical and far-reaching.

I would like to think that women have earned their place in the modern banking workforce and we need to continue efforts to ensure they reach the senior roles they richly deserve. Women should be welcomed on their own terms, regardless of whether they conform to traditional feminine stereotypes, whether they wear skirts or trousers. But let’s not expect women, by themselves, to change the culture of banks.

Author: Elizabeth Sheedy , Associate Professor – Financial Risk Management, Macquarie University

“We’re making banking better for Australia”

The Australian Bankers’ Association has launched an advertising campaign “We’re making banking better for Australia” today as well as three extensions to their better banking programme.  Here is the advert released today:

Australia’s leading banks have announced new initiatives to deliver better products and services to customers, building on last year’s reforms that address concerns with the culture in banks.

The Better Banking program has been launched to build on the initiatives announced last year and introduce new initiatives reflecting research conducted in 2016 into what customers like and don’t like about banking, and what is needed to make banking better.

The new initiatives include:

  • A renewed commitment to support customers in financial difficulty, including making our financial hardship support programs more accessible and working with financial counsellors to support the setup of a new debt repayment service to help people manage multiple debts.
  • Providing more support to farmers and small businesses by introducing new best practice standards on valuation practices and how banks appoint receivers. We will also work on developing financial literacy resources and tools for small businesses and farmers to help them maintain and grow their business.
  • Helping customers better understand how they can switch accounts and banks by holding a roundtable in March with banks, consumer groups, and government representatives to identify customers’ underlying concerns about switching and how we can make it easier.

Chairman of the ABA and CEO of National Australia Bank Andrew Thorburn said: “Our focus is on our customers and ensuring as an industry we provide the right service and right products to meet their needs.

“We have heard the concerns of Australians and we are committed to taking action so that banking with all of us is a better experience.

“This program of initiatives is our commitment to continue to raise the standards, service and trust in our industry,” he said.

Deputy Chairman of the ABA and CEO of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Mike Hirst said: “All of these initiatives are designed to make it easier for customers to do business with banks and to ensure that, when things go wrong, banks will do the right thing and work with the customer to fix the problem.”

ABA Chief Executive Steven Münchenberg said this was a long-term commitment by the industry that started with listening to customer concerns and taking action.

“It includes the initiatives announced in April 2016 which banks are currently implementing, as well as products and services already offered by banks which we want to raise awareness of.

“For example, banks have a range of low cost and fee-free products and services to suit low income earners and retirees. Banks offer financial hardship support programs to help their customers through tough times. Banks also provide protection for customers who are the innocent victims of fraud. Many customers don’t know about these products and services, and we want to change that.

“Banks are also making a $1 billion investment in a new payments system to allow payments and transfers to happen in ‘real time’, overcoming the current delays when money is transferred from one bank account to another,” Mr Münchenberg said.

Other initiatives in the Better Banking program include:

  • The appointment of customer advocates in each bank, to prioritise and escalate complaints. Major banks have appointed their advocates and other banks will have theirs in place before the end of March, ahead of the original bank commitment by June.
  • Improved protections for whistleblowers, which will be in place from July.
  • An independent review of the Code of Banking Practice (‘Khoury Review’), which will assess the existing Code and identify areas where banks’ standards could be improved. The findings of the independent review are expected in early February.
  • Banks have agreed to identify and share information about financial advisers with a history of poor conduct, to help stop these advisers moving around the industry. The ABA’s Reference Checking & Information Sharing Protocol has been published and will be operational by the end of February.
  • Banks are also expanding the protocol to apply to bank employees. This will build on banks’ existing recruitment practices by adding standardised questions on conduct background checks for prospective employees, and will be published in March.
  • An independent review of product-sales commissions and product-based payments in retail banking (‘Sedgwick Review’) is moving into its final stages with a call for public submissions on the Issues Paper. The findings of the review on how banks pay and reward their staff are expected in early April.
  • New resources about banking, including a list of the most common types of bank fees and how to avoid them, and a step-by-step guide on how to make a complaint with your bank.
  • Support for the Federal Government’s financial adviser professional standards legislation currently before Parliament, and funding to establish the new professional standards body to help fast-track the adoption of the new standards across the financial services industry. The legislation will impose higher minimum education and entry qualifications, ongoing professional development obligations, and a mandatory code of ethics.
  • Advocating for the introduction of a new compensation scheme for consumers who have received poor advice from a financial adviser so they aren’t left out of pocket if that adviser goes out of business. This will help rebuild trust and confidence in financial advice, not just financial advice provided by banks.
  • Banks are backing a new ‘one-stop-shop’ external dispute resolution system to make sure disputes are resolved faster, easier and cheaper for customers. Professor Ian Ramsay is currently conducting a review of the system for the Federal Government.
  • Banks are also supporting the introduction of a new industry funding model for ASIC and improvements to the breach reporting framework to strengthen regulation of the financial services industry.

An advertising campaign began today to inform the community about the Better Banking program.

“We’ve heard our customers, and we’re taking action,” Mr Münchenberg said.

Further details are available at betterbanking.net.au.

ANZ dumps accelerator payments

From Australian Broker.

Sales staff at ANZ have been told of a new bonus overhaul in an announcement that follows the release of the Sedgwick review’s Issues Paper on banking remuneration.

Speaking to the Australian Financial Review, Catriona Noble, managing director of retail distribution Australia at ANZ, said that satisfaction would be deemed a more important metric than sales targets when calculating staff bonuses.

She also confirmed the dumping of accelerator payments which reward staff with a higher rate of commission as sales volumes increase.

The overhaul will also eliminate financial gateways which incentivise cross-selling targets through pre-defined conditions.

The risks of both forms of payment were highlighted in the Issues Paper on Remuneration in Retail Banking released on Tuesday (17 January).

ANZ’s new incentive plan will come into force on 1 April and use a “balanced scorecard” approach, the AFR reports. This system will give a 70% weighting to customer and teamwork metrics and a 30% weighting to sales targets.

“Discretionary incentive payments will be based on a Banker’s whole-of-role performance relative to their peers (i.e customer, people, financial, risk/process measures, and our ANZ Values),” an ANZ spokesperson told Australian Broker.

“This new way of determining incentive payments will better recognise those who are performing strongly across all aspects of their role, with emphasis on both objectives (what is achieved) and values (how it is achieved). This will increase the focus and weighting on the customer as an important measure.”

The bank decided to keep a certain levels of sales targets after conducting a trial over 10 branches in which sales targets were eliminated entirely. End results found that sales numbers declined across deposit products, home loans, wealth management and business products.

With this information, ANZ decided to combine both customer outcomes and staff financial performance in its new scorecard.

“We felt it was important for our staff to have a strong desire to compete to have a customer choose us for a home loan,” Noble told the AFR. “This is not about creating a need to make a sale. But for a customer that has a need [for a mortgage], it is about making sure ANZ is their number one choice.”

To assess customer satisfaction, ANZ will conduct “A to Z reviews” with customers – an interview that assesses individual goals and needs to match the customer with the right products.

“We recognise the need to improve our ability to look after customers and meet their expectations, so customers can trust the bank, and [know] the solutions we recommend to them are appropriate and in their best interest and not just in the best interest of the bank,” Noble said.

She acknowledged that to implement these changes, ANZ leaders would have to be competent and capable as both coaches and evaluators of more subjective measurements such as customer satisfaction.

Former Aussie Home Loans mortgage broker permanently banned by ASIC

ASIC says it has permanently banned a former mortgage broker, from the credit and financial services industries.

The bans follow an ASIC investigation which led to the former mortgage broker with AHL Investments Pty Ltd (trading as Aussie), being convicted in Downing Centre Local Court on eighteen charges relating to home loan fraud. On each of the eighteen charges, he was convicted and released upon entering in to a recognizance of $1,000 with the condition that he be of good behaviour for three years (refer: 16-293MR).

ASIC’s investigation found that he provided documents in support of eighteen loan applications knowing that they contained false or misleading information.

The applications contained letters which purported to be from the applicant’s employer. These documents were false and in most instances, the loan applicant had never worked for the particular employer.

He has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of ASIC’s decision.

Background

On 5 July 2016, through his solicitor, he pleaded guilty to seventeen charges under section 160D of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (the Credit Act) and one charge under the former Section 33(2) of the Credit Act while he was engaging in credit activity on behalf of Aussie. Section 160D (and the former Section 33(2)) makes it an offence for a person engaging in credit activities to give false or misleading information or documents to another person.

He provided false employment documents to secure approvals for home loans, submitted to Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac), Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) and National Australia Bank (NAB) (refer:16-219MR).

On each of the eighteen charges, He was convicted and released upon entering into a recognizance of $1,000 on the condition that he be of good behaviour for three years (refer:16-293MR).

Since becoming the national regulator of consumer credit on 1 July 2010, ASIC has investigated in excess of 100 matters relating to loan fraud and has achieved many enforcement outcomes against the offenders. The outcomes range from undertakings by persons to voluntarily leave the industry, to bans and prosecutions.

To date, ASIC has banned, suspended or placed conditions of the licence of 80 individuals or companies from providing credit services (including 35 permanent bans). Through the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, ASIC has brought criminal prosecutions against 14 credit service providers; with 12 having been convicted of fraud or dishonesty offences relating to the provision of false and misleading information or documents to lenders in client loan applications.

Latest Banking Report Card Shows Some Progress

The third quarterly report on the progress of the Australian banking
industry in implementing its package of initiatives to better protect consumer interests was released today.

The six initiatives, announced by the Australian Bankers’ Association (ABA) on 21 April 2016, were:

1. Reviewing product sales commissions and product based payments;
2. Making it easier for customers when things go wrong;
3. Reaffirming support for employees who ‘blow the whistle’ on inappropriate
conduct;
4. Removing individuals from the industry for poor conduct;
5. Strengthening the commitment to customers in the Code of Banking
Practice; and
6. Supporting ASIC as a strong regulator.

The report says it is encouraging to see that the banks are continuing to take steps, including through the use of pilot studies, which are consistent with the objectives of the industry initiatives and overall purpose of the reform program.

Examples of such measures brought to the attention of this review include:

  • Westpac has elected to remove all product related incentives, including any incentives for referrals, for the 2,000 tellers in theWestpac branch
    network. From 1 October 2016, incentives for tellers are now based entirely on customer feedback.
  • ANZ has conducted a ‘test and learn’ pilot in one of its Retail Banking districts over the past 15 months to trial a different approach to front line
    incentives and measuring performance. During the trial staff performance measures and objectives were changed, with sales targets removed from incentive plans and replaced with customer-based metrics. ANZ has advised that the results, while not conclusive, lend support to the view that incentive plans may be best where they are based around whole of role performance.
  • CBA is establishing a process to proactively identify when customers are in vulnerable circumstances to tailor its processes based on their needs. The
    goal is to allow the bank to identify multiple areas across the organisation where those customers may need special attention, either in the processes they go through or in the outcomes they receive.
  • NAB has established a Voice of the Customer review to allow the bank to improve its own processes and make things easier for the customer going forward. This is a retrospective review, undertaken on resolved complaints, specifically so that the true voice of the customer is considered in the root cause analysis of customer complaints.

These case studies demonstrate in a very tangible way a commitment by individual banks to improve performance by varying existing policies and/or piloting new approaches, consistent with the industry objectives.

They also demonstrate the multi-faceted nature of some of the challenges facing the industry, and how pilot approaches can inform longer-term solutions and encourage banks more broadly to review opportunities for improvement consistent with the industry objectives.

The extent of changes required by individual banks is likely to vary significantly, but will not be known until after the industry policy positions have been settled.

It is increasingly apparent, however, that banks will need to reassess the clarity of their service commitment to customers in the light of the industry’s initiatives, with revisions reflected in bank policies, training and behaviours at all levels, if the desired outcomes of the industry reforms are to be achieved.

This year will be critical to the industry and individual banks in:

  • making the decisions and policy changes required;
  • instituting the arrangements necessary for implementing, and embedding the new approaches to achieve the industry objectives; and
  • reporting on progress so that customers, stakeholders and the wider community can be better informed about the impact of the industry’s initiatives.

The report says there remains a significant body of work to be completed, including:

  • to settle industry policy positions and staged approaches toimplementation;
  • for individual banks to review and, as appropriate, revise their policies andprocesses;
  • for such policies to be embedded successfully into banking practices; and
  • for sufficient information to be reported periodically on industryperformance, to build confidence that the initiatives are having the desiredeffects on institutional behaviour and customer outcomes.

The next report (Report 4) is scheduled to be delivered by 21 April 2017, 12 months following the industry announcement.

The ABA commenting on the report said:

The Australian Bankers’ Association has welcomed today’s release of Mr Ian McPhee’s progress report which showed banks are delivering meaningful change in order to rebuild community trust.

Mr McPhee has recognised good progress has been made by the industry, but also acknowledged there are a range of complexities with the initiatives and multiple stakeholders involved. The completion of some reforms is dependent on third party and government input.

The report also provides examples of how banks have taken early steps to improve practices, in areas such as how they pay staff and handle customer complaints.

ABA Executive Director – Retail Policy Diane Tate said it was encouraging that Mr McPhee had recognised banks’ efforts to make banking better.

“The industry is working hard to deliver on our commitments in the reform package. We have allocated additional resources where needed in order to maintain momentum.

“During the past quarter, a number of milestones have been achieved. For example, the industry released new guiding principles for banks to ensure their whistleblower protections meet the highest standard,” she said.

“Banks are improving the way they handle complaints with the appointment of customer advocates. The industry will also continue to support a new and improved external dispute resolution system, to simplify the current process and make it available to more consumers and small businesses.”

Ms Tate said the industry looked forward to receiving the final report from the independent reviews into retail bank staff pay and incentives, and bank conduct standards in the Code of Banking Practice.

“The findings of these reviews will be an important impetus for change. But we are not sitting on our hands. Banks are working on how they can improve their commitments to customers, including small businesses, and promote ethical behaviour of staff.

“We are also continuing to work on the best way to measure the success of our reforms,” she said.

 

Bank risk strategies not sufficient, says Sedgwick

From InvestorDaily.

Strategies used by Australian banks to minimise the number of poor customer outcomes as a consequence of remuneration structures are in some cases not effective, the latest Sedgwick report has found.

The Sedgwick Retail Banking Remuneration Review, released this week, looked at the current systems, processes and features that banks report they have in place, which are intended to reduce any risk of poor customer outcomes inherent in the design of bank remuneration structures.

The report found important issues “that may warrant further investigation” and illustrated particular examples of banks’ practices.

For example, non-financial staff performance measures used by banks to “mitigate the risk of inappropriate behaviour or mis-selling”, can actually “incentivise activities that are not necessarily in the best interests of customers”.

The report found that some banks measure tellers and managers on the number of customers who are told to complete a transaction via self-service channels rather than via the teller.

“Part of my behaviour metric in my scorecard is that 60 per cent of my customers need to walk out working (leaving branch with work to do). If they don’t, I am not giving the customer the tools to use digital banking – my behaviour has not given customer service,” one survey participant said.

The report, however, states that for some customers, such an approach may not be in their best interests.

“Indeed, one teller described this as a ‘self service industry’ not a customer service one.” the report said.

Another survey participant said, “One teller encouraged a customer to open nine separate accounts, which helped the branch meet its target for new accounts opened.

“Subsequently, after discussions with another teller, the customer closed the unnecessary 8 accounts. The second teller was reprimanded.”

The report raised further concerns with other current performance measures implemented by banks in order to mitigate the risk of poor customer outcomes.

“A strong and deeply embedded sales culture … is difficult to change quickly. Attempts to do so need to be sustained, credible and possibly dramatic to have an ongoing effect,” the report said.

The review encourages submissions, which can be lodged by 10 February.

Shocking claims aired in new bank report

From The New Daily.

A new report has exposed serious flaws in the way bankers are paid to sell financial products, but it stopped short of calling for an outright ban, prompting fears the bank-funded review will not go far enough to prevent dodgy sales and alleviate pressure on staff.

Perhaps more revealing than the conclusions of the issues paper, released on Tuesday, were the shocking whistleblower reports it contained.

One teller reportedly encouraged a customer to open nine separate bank accounts to help the branch meet a sales target. A second teller was then “reprimanded” for helping the customer close the other eight “unnecessary” accounts, according to the issues paper.

A bank employee confided that: “If I am not on my numbers by 2.00pm I know I will have to have a performance conversation.”

Another said: “I know that if it is Thursday and I haven’t made my target by Friday I will be performance managed on Monday.”

A third said they feared for their job because they were not selling enough products. “If I do not meet my daily sales target I have to explain how I will catch up at morning meetings of the team. I am behind in sales of wealth and insurance products and need to catch up to keep my job.”

Another bank employee criticised the weasel words used to disguise sales tactics. “It’s no longer called ‘sales’ but ‘helping customers’. But everybody knows it is about selling. For example, the bank wants more accounts opened because it makes it harder for customers to leave.”

One whistleblower alleged that managers were put under even more intense pressure.

“Bank managers get ten times the pressure of the sales force. The manager has no power at all,” the informant said. “They receive multiple emails and teleconferences to talk about ‘the [sales] stats’.”

Another said some branches were “renowned for problem selling”, while others acted as “clean-up” branches that specialise in rectifying the problems caused by the “selling branches”.

Despite these claims, former public service boss Stephen Sedgwick, who is heading the review, found no clear evidence that sales commissions were creating “such significant systemic risks of poor outcomes for retail banking customers as would ­warrant the outright banning of product-based payments”.

His “tentative” finding, pending further investigation, was that “some banks should re-examine elements of their present practices, and I concur with those who believe it is appropriate to ­reduce the emphasis on product-based payments whenever possible”.

The review is one of three commissioned by the Australian Bankers Association in a seeming effort to fend off popular calls from Labor, the Greens and One Nation for a royal commission into bank misconduct.

The big four banks – CBA, Westpac, NAB and ANZ – are all ‘vertically integrated’, which means they create many of the financial products they sell.

To drive sales, many bank tellers are paid bonuses based on how many loans, credit cards and bank accounts they sell. Third parties, such as mortgage and life insurance brokers, as well as bank managers and senior executives also receive ‘incentives’.

The report found the average bank teller was paid a fixed wage below the Australian average (which is roughly $79,000). This is topped up with “variable reward payments”, which can be as high as $10,000 a month.

Consumer groups say these payments are far too opaque (they are rarely disclosed when a customer signs up) and may result in customers being pressured to buy unsuitable financial products.

Erin Turner, head of campaigns at consumer group CHOICE, said “everything we see” confirms that conflicted remuneration is hurting bank customers.

“We know that people are getting a raw deal in banking, whether that’s paying too much for a credit card to being mis-sold complex financial products that have a devastating impact on their lives,” she told The New Daily.

“We need more transparency, at a minimum.”

Ms Turner praised the Sedgwick report for providing more detail than she expected, but urged the review to release specifics, rather than broad overviews, of risky practices at particular banks.

“It’s really important for customers to know if they are going into a bank with a hard-sell sales culture or if they are walking into somewhere that’s going to treat them well as a customer and look after their needs first.”

Finance Sector Union national secretary Julia Angrisano echoed this concern, saying it was proof of the need for a royal commission with the power to subpoena documents.

“We’re pleased with the engagement so far with Stephen Sedgwick, but I am somewhat cautious that after almost six months there’s this idea that Sedgwick doesn’t have all the information he needs,” Ms Angrisano told The New Daily.

“There is an ongoing need for a royal commission to really dig deeply, with all the powers to compel all the information that’s needed, so we can properly examine the problems across the banking sector.”

Professor Peter Swan at the University of New South Wales, an expert in corporate governance, warned that incentives were inherently dangerous because they were “very effective”.

“Misapplied they can often lead to horrendously poor outcomes from the point of view of the consumer,” he told The New Daily.

“If you incentivise people, chances are they will devote all their efforts to those activities, and neglect other matters of importance.”

Professor Swan’s preferred fix was to align incentives closer with the interests of consumers, rather than ban them outright. An example might be a requirement for bank executives and tellers to sign up for the credit cards and home loans they sell.

Failing this, an outright ban might be preferable, he said. “I am sympathetic to the view that having no incentives at all may be better than having poorly-designed incentives.”

Suncorp Appoints a Customer Advocate

Suncorp has today announced the appointment of a Customer Advocate to drive better outcomes and experiences for its nine million customers.

Chief Customer Experience Officer, Mark Reinke, said the new function would work across the business to identify and deliver opportunities to provide even better services to customers.

The function will be led by Executive General Manager Customer Experience & Group Customer Advocate, Debra Tagg. Ms Tagg has been instrumental in designing new and improved customer experiences, developing and embedding customer culture and leading customer strategy and insights since she joined Suncorp in 2010.

“With her passion for delivering strategic customer programs across Suncorp and her strong background in customer service, Debra is the ideal choice to drive Suncorp’s focus for this role,” Mr Reinke said.

“She will be an integral part of all strategic programs that influence customer outcomes, as well as play a leading role in Suncorp’s Financial Inclusion Action Plan.

“We’re committed to increasing transparency and accountability around the decisions we are making for our customers every day. This new function will challenge our current processes, identify areas for improvement and make it easier for customers when things go wrong.”

Banking & Wealth CEO David Carter said the appointment delivers on a banking industry commitment to better protect customer interests, but will also cover Suncorp’s significant insurance business.

“Suncorp’s new business strategy is centred on delivering greater value for our customers, which this new function will help us achieve,” Mr Carter said.

“With new products and services coming online this year to transform how we help Australians manage critical decisions in their lives, a Customer Advocate will help to ensure our approach is grounded and delivering for our customers.”

The Customer Advocate will have direct access to our Group CEO & Managing Director and will build on Suncorp’s culture where all employees put customer advocacy at the heart of what they do.

ABA Responds To Independent Retail Banking Commission Review

The ABA, in a media release has responded to the paper which has been released, and which questioned whether good customer outcomes and product commission payments were possible. It warned that the use of upfront and trailing commissions and their effect on incentivising sales may potentially lead to poor customer outcomes.

The Australian Bankers’ Association has today welcomed the release of Mr Stephen Sedgwick’s issues paper from his independent review into commissions and payments made to bank staff and third parties.

“Banks want to ensure that they pay their staff to do the right thing by customers, and we will work on any areas that need improving,” ABA Executive Director – Retail Policy Diane Tate said.

“This review is part of an industry-wide look at some of the influences on culture in banks, such as leadership and people and performance management.

“In recent years banks have made changes to remuneration practices to place more of an emphasis on good behaviour rather than sales targets, in light of changing community expectations and regulatory requirements; however there is more to do.

“It is important that banks get the balance right between rewarding employees and getting the best results for customers.

“Banks have committed to changing or removing payments that could lead to poor customer outcomes,” she said.

“Importantly, the issues paper has not identified systemic issues warranting the outright banning of product based payments. However, the paper does highlight the importance of culture, good governance, performance management systems, compliance checking, and communications across the organisation and by management, as all related to remuneration.

“The ABA looks forward to providing another submission to Mr Sedgwick to help complete his review. This is a complex area with mixed views so we encourage interested parties to have their say,” Ms Tate said.

In addition to reviewing payments for the selling of retail banking products like deposit accounts and mortgages, the Sedgwick Review will also comment on overarching principles on how banks pay and incentivise all executives and employees.

More information on the Sedgwick Review is available at retailbankingremreview.com.au.

As I recall the ABA were central to the establishment of the review in the first place, (mitigating the pressure for an independent financial services review) and perhaps they are surprised that the independent review is questioning commissions! We shall see.

 

ASIC needs a win in 2017, but it’s not likely to come from the banks

From The Conversation.

In a pre-Christmas interview, Greg Medcraft, Chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), looked forward to 2017 and talked tough:

What we want for people to appreciate is that there is nowhere to hide (when it comes to corporate crime).

With new(ish) money from the government, ASIC plans to hire loads of new people and spend big on “data analytics”. [Has no one told ASIC about the problems Centrelink is having with “big data”?

Medcraft was fairly happy with ASIC’s track record in 2016,

In the 12 months to the end of June we undertook 1400 high-intensity surveillances, finished 175 investigations, convicted 22 criminals, jailed 13 people, removed 136 people from the financial services industry.

Sounds impressive until one realises that most of those prosecuted were small fry (dodgy car dealers and the like) and the big end of town has barely been touched. At best it received a tiny tap on the wrist.

2016 was not a good year for ASIC.

In February, the long running scandal of manipulation of the key BBSW base rate burst into the open thanks to investigative journalist Adele Ferguson, and in March, ASIC took ANZ to the federal court. The action against ANZ was repeated later in the year with similar civil proceedings against Westpac and later against NAB. ASIC has not denied that CBA remains in its sights in the BBSW case.

The civil actions over BBSW have been a disaster for ASIC.

First, having to take regulated banks to court is considered in regulatory circles to be a failure. If a resolution for misbehaviour cannot be imposed, it really should be negotiated as it has been in other base rate manipulation cases overseas, with more than US$10 billion of fines and remediation being imposed on international banks for manipulation of LIBOR.

Second the major banks have ASIC over a barrel, admittedly a barrel they chose to lie over themselves. Banks have much more money than regulators to employ legal heavy hitters to drag proceedings out, and have chosen to do so rather than risk a banking royal commission.

In March, another disaster befell ASIC when Adele Ferguson unearthed the CommInsure scandal in which the insurance subsidiary of CBA was found to have dudded policy holders out of insurance compensation that they were entitled to.

As regards CommInsure, ASIC not only should have been searching for the rampant misconduct that was unearthed by the media, it should have taken action over serious misconduct. However, ASIC did what ASIC does best – start a multi-year investigation, which at the end of 2016 has not gone very far.

In April, it got worse. In a “capability review”, the government found that ASIC was a dysfunctional, overworked and under-resourced organisation. With an election on the horizon, Kelly O’Dwyer, the minster responsible, kicked the can down the road, and, hanging Medcraft out to dry, renewed his contract for only 18 months, rather than the usual three years. However, O’Dwyer did reverse the ASIC budget cuts put in place by her predecessor.

In May, ASIC was involved in yet another example of financial misconduct involving major banks being blindsided by dodgy mortgage providers. To its credit, ASIC had initiated the case against the dodgy brokers in 2015, but utterly failed to address the due diligence problems that were unearthed at the major banks. Again, the small fry got fried and the big fish swam away.

The middle of the year was busy for ASIC, mainly keeping its head down during the federal election and ignoring calls for a banking royal commission to address, problems most of which ASIC should have been tackling anyway.

After the election, a new problem hit the headlines. The big four banks were found to have sold products to some customers through their adviser network, with a fee for ongoing advice, but the advice had never been given.

ASIC blamed the problems on “cultural factors”, a topic that Medcraft had been banging on about for some time but obviously has been able to do little about. The latest culprits are so-called “subcultures”, or basically staff who don’t listen to management. ASIC would have been aware of such problems if its staff had read the groundbreaking research on risk culture by Professors Elizabeth Sheedy and Barbara Griffin.

For ASIC, 2016 ended in embarrassment, with ANZ and Macquarie banks being held to account for manipulating base rates. It was the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), not ASIC, which punished the culprits. In his end of year interview, Medcraft said “fining ‘bad apples’ is OK but you have to deal with the tree”, but so far ASIC has given no clue as to what it is going to do about the trees in this particular instance of gross misconduct.

ASIC’s final act of 2016 was farcical. Just before Christmas, the regulator announced that it had accepted an “enforceable undertaking” from the CBA and NAB in relation to the banks’ manipulation of wholesale spot foreign exchange (FX) rates. Overseas, regulators have extracted more than US$10 billion of fines from multiple banks for the so-called Forex fraud and indicted traders, but ASIC could manage fines of only A$2.5 million for each bank to shut down the case, with no one held to account.

It puts in context Medcraft’s comment to the Australian that “If you think about enforcement, you have to have penalties which actually hurt. They can’t be a feather”. Feathery fines of a few million dollars will hardly cause the big banks to “hurt”, unless it’s from laughing.

In his first interview of 2017, Medcraft hinted that he was prepared to roll over and run up the white flag on BBSW. He signalled to the banks that the climb down over Forex showed he was “pragmatic” and that

we’re always open to a settlement … but any settlement has to be credible.

Unfortunately, ASIC has lost what little was left of its credibility in 2016. The regulator could do worse than listen to its own advice to banks:

It gets back to individual accountability. We have to make sure that, where it’s needed, you have a whole-of-management accountability, which is critical.

But if no one else pays attention to ASIC, why should it listen to its own advice?

Author: Pat McConnell, Honorary Fellow, Macquarie University Applied Finance Centre, Macquarie University