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.

Banking Royal Commission Will Investigate Lending Practice First

The first round of public hearings for the Banking Royal Commission will focus on lending, including mortgages, credit cards and car loans; we heard today during the opening session.

The Commission highlighted the large size of the lending market, and the significant number of submissions they have already received on misconduct in this area, including relating to intermediaries, commission and advice.

In addition, as part of the opening address, we were told that some of the major players were unable to provide the full range of misconduct information that Commission requested. Some players offered a few case studies, and were then asked to provide more detail over the past 5 years (as opposed to 10) but said they could not meet the required deadline.

Royal commission points to big bank dominance

From Investor Daily.

On Friday morning, commissioner Kenneth Hayne QC published a background paper titled Some Features of the Australian Banking Industry.

The paper points to the role of authorised-deposit taking (ADI) institutions, which hold 55 per cent of the total assets of Australian financial institutions.

It also points to declining competition in the the banking sector, with the number of credit unions falling due to consolidation and the major banks holding 75 per cent of total assets held by ADIs in Australia.

The paper notes that five of the 20 listed companies that make up the ASX20 are banks, noting that the major banks have “generally achieved higher profit margins than other types of ADIs”.

“The major banks earned a profit margin of 36.4 per cent in the June quarter 2017. Major banks’ net profit after tax in the June quarter 2017 was $7.8 billion,” noted the paper.

While the commission noted that precise international comparisons are difficult, it found that Australia’s major banks are “comparatively more profitable (as assessed by net income as a percentage of total assets) than some of their international peers in Canada, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK”.

“Similar conclusions can be reached for international comparisons for Australian major banks’ return on equity,” said the paper.


The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, will hold its initial public hearing at 10am this morning in Melbourne.  The hearing will be streamed lived through the Royal Commission’s website.

ABC The Business Does The Financial Services Royal Commission

An ABC segment on the issues facing the Royal Commission, with reference to poor lending practice,  including comments from DFA.

The royal commission — the one the Government still doesn’t want — opens its doors on Monday, February 12, and is sure to hear more harrowing stories of bad behaviour by banks.

It’s officially known as the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation, and Financial Services Industry. Given the big banks dominate the sector, it is really a royal commission into banks.

Even as the banks tell everyone who will listen they have lifted their game — and in some areas they have — the bad news stories keep on coming.

NAB waives customer confidentiality clauses for Royal Commission

NAB has waived customer confidentiality clauses which otherwise may have silenced customers wishing to give evidence to the Financial Services Royal Commission. Well done NAB!

 Sharon Cook, NAB’s Chief Legal and Commercial Counsel says:

If any of our customers want to make a submission to the Royal Commission we encourage them to do so and we will waive any confidentiality obligations they have agreed to when resolving an issue with NAB.

We are doing this because it is important to us that we support customers being heard by the Royal Commission.

We have also communicated to our people we fully support them making a submission to the Royal Commission if they would like to.

The other majors have taken a similar stance, though some are a little coy about whether staff may also speak out!

Irresponsible Mortgage Lending A Significant Risk For Seniors

From NestEgg.com.au

Surging property prices in Australia’s capital cities can be attributed to irresponsible lending, but it’s not just young buyers suffering the consequences, a consumer organisation has said.

In its submission to the royal commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Finance sector, the not-for-profit consumer organisation, the Consumer Action Law Centre (CALC) said the number of Aussie households facing mortgage stress has “soared” nearly 20 per cent in the last six months, and argued that lenders are to blame.

Referencing Digital Finance Analytics’ prediction that homes facing mortgage stress will top 1 million by 2019, CALC said older Australians are at particular risk.

The organisation explained: “Irresponsible mortgage lending can have severe consequences, including the loss of the security of a home.

“Consumer Action’s experience is that older people are at significant risk, particularly where they agree to mortgage or refinance their home for the benefit of third parties. This can be family members or someone who holds their trust.”

Continuing, CALC said a “common situation” features adult children persuading an older relative to enter into a loan contract as the borrower, assuring them that they will execute all the repayments.

“[However] the lack of appropriate inquiries into the suitability of a loan only comes to light when the adult child defaults on loan repayments and the bank commences proceedings for possession of the loan in order to discharge the debt,” CALC said.

The centre referred to a Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) case study in which retiree and pensioner, Anne, entered into a loan contract with her son Brian. The repayments were to be made out of Brian’s salary and Anne’s pension. The loan was requested in order to extend her home so that Brian could live with her.

Following loan approval, the lender provided more advances under the loan contract. The advances were used to pay off Brian’s credit debt and buy a car.

When Brian left his job to travel, Anne could no longer afford the repayments and the lender said it would repossess her home.

“Anne lodged a dispute with FOS. After considering the dispute, FOS concluded that Anne was appropriately a co-debtor in the original loan contract, as she had received a direct benefit from the loan (the extension to her home and therefore an increase in its value),” CALC said.

“However, FOS considered that she was not liable for the further advances as she did not directly benefit from the application of the funds. Even though the repayment of Brian’s credit card debts may have provided more towards the household income, FOS concluded that this was not a direct benefit to Anne.

“Neither was the purchase of a car for Brian, as there was no information to show that Anne used the car or relied on Brian to transport her.”

CALC also expressed concern that the Household Expenditure Measure (HEM) is not a robust enough living expense test.

Noting that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority shares their concern, the centre said the reliance on the HEM test raises concerns about the robustness of the actual measure.

“APRA states that it has concerns about whether these benchmarks provide realistic assessments of a borrower’s living expenses.

“In the same vein, ASIC has issued proceedings against Westpac in the Federal Court for failing to properly assess whether borrowers could meet repayment obligations, due to the use of benchmarks rather than the actual expenses declared by borrowers.”

CALC warned that over-indebtedness has ramifications for the economy but also for individuals and families.

Highlighting the link between high levels of debt and lower standards of living, CALC said it can have significant long-term effects as well, with the capacity to damage housing, health, education and retirement prospects

Financial Services Royal Commission To Hold Initial Public Hearing

The Royal Commission into Misconduct into the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry will hold an initial public hearing in Melbourne at 10am on Monday 12 February 2018.

An online form for submissions allows an individual or entity to make a submission to the Commission. The Commission will continue to receive submissions over the coming months and will advise when a deadline for submissions is set.

At this hearing the Commissioner and Senior Counsel Assisting will make short opening statements. No witnesses will be called.

The hearing will be held at Level 6, 11 Exhibition Street in Melbourne and will be open to the public although seating will be limited.

The hearing will be streamed live through the Royal Commission’s website and a transcript will be available shortly after the hearing.

Further information about the Royal Commission and Terms of Reference are available on the Royal Commission’s website.

Public Submissions

The Commission is inviting submissions from any individual or entity wishing to tell the Commission about misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation or Financial Services Industry.

The online form for submissions is now available on the Royal Commission website.

The Commission is required to conduct an inquiry. It cannot resolve individual disputes, fix or award compensation, or make orders requiring a party to a dispute to take or not take any action.

The online form has been designed to organise the information provided in a way that will guide the user, and help the Commission, by categorising the information in line with the areas of inquiry set out in the Commission’s

Terms of Reference.

The Commission may contact some individuals or entities that make submissions. The Commission will not be able to contact everyone who makes a submission but will ensure that all submissions are recorded, reviewed and used to inform the Commission’s work.

A Year In A Week – The Property Imperative 23 Dec 2017

In This Week’s Edition of the Property Imperative we look back over 2017, the year in which the property market turned, focus on the risks to households increased, and banks came under the spotlight as never before.

Welcome the penultimate edition of our weekly property and finance digest for 2017.

We start with the latest Government budget statement, which came out this week.  There was a modest improvement in the fiscal outlook, largely reflecting a boost in tax collections, including from higher corporate profits in the mining sector. But there was also a consumer shaped hole, driven by low wages, lower consumption and lower levels of consumer confidence. Yet, in the outlook, wages are predicted to rise back to 3%, and this supporting above trend GDP growth. This all seems over optimistic to me.

In any case, according to the IMF, GDP is a poor measure of economic progress, with its origins rooted firmly in production and manufacturing. In fact, GDP misrepresents productivity and they say companies that are making huge profits from mining big data have a responsibility to share their data with governments.

The mortgage industry has seen growth in lending at around 6% though the year, initially led by investors piling into the market, but then following the belated regulatory intervention to slow higher risk interest only lending, momentum has switched to first time buyers, at a time when some foreign buyers are less able to access the market. A third of customers with interest-only mortgages may not properly understand the type of loan they have taken out, which could put many in “substantial” stress when the time comes to pay their debt, UBS analysts have warned. We have also seen a change in mix, as smaller lenders and non-banks (who are not under the same regulatory pressure) have increased their share. AFG’s latest Competition index which came out yesterday, showed that Australia’s major lenders have taken a hit with their market share now down to a post-GFC low of 62.57% of the mortgage market.

Household finances have been under pressure this year, with income growth, one third the rate of mortgage growth, so the various debt ratios are off the dial – as a nation we have more indebted households than almost anywhere else.  This is a long term issue, created by a combination of Government Policy, RBA interest rate settings, the financialisation of property, and the rabid growth of property investors – who hold 35% of mortgages (twice the proportion of the UK). The combination of rising costs of living, and out of cycle rate rises, have put pressure on many households as never before – and we have tracked the rise of mortgage stress through the year to an all-time high.

The latest MLC Wealth Sentiment Survey contained further evidence of the pressure on households and their finances. Being able to save has been a challenge for a number of Australians – almost 1 in 5 of us have been unable to save any of our income in recent years, and for more than 1 in 4 of us only 1-5%. Expectations for future income growth are very conservative – nearly 1 in 3 Australians expect no change in income over the next few years and 15% expect it to fall. Our savings expectations for the future are also very conservative – with more than 1 in 5 Australians believing their savings will fall. The “great Australian dream” of home ownership is still a reality for many, but for some it’s just a dream – fewer than 1 in 10 Australians said they didn’t want to own their own home, but 1 in 4 said home ownership was something they aspired to but did not think it would happen.

Of course the RBA continues on one hand to warm of risks to households, as in the minutes published this week, yet also persists with its line that households can cope, with the massive debt burden, as its skewed towards more wealthy groups. They keep referring to the HILDA survey, which is 3 years old now, as a basis for this assertion. They should take note of a Bank of England Working paper which looked at UK mortgage data in detail, and concluded the surveys tend to understand the true mortgage risks in the market – partly because of the methodology used.  They concluded “These results should make policy makers less sanguine about the developments in the UK mortgage market in recent years, which are traditionally analysed using these surveys”.

The latest report from S&P Global Ratings covering securised mortgage pools in Australia to end Oct 2017, showed 30-day delinquency fell to 1.04% in October from 1.08% in September. They attribute part of the decline to a rise in outstanding loan balances during the month, and many older loans in the portfolios (which may not be representative of all mortgages, thanks to the selection criteria for securitised pools). But 90+ defaults remain elevated – at a time when interest rates are rock bottom.

Banks are under the gun, as Government have turned up the pressure this year. There are a range of inquiries in train, from the wide-ranging Banking Royal Commission (which the Government long resisted, but then capitulated), and a notice requiring banks, insurance companies and superannuation funds to detail all cases of misconduct from 2008 onwards has also been issued. The scope includes mortgage brokers and financial advisers. Also the ACCC is looking at mortgage pricing, The Productivity Commission is looking at vertical integration, and we have the BEAR regime which is looking at Banking Executive Behaviour.  This week we also got sight of the Enhanced Financial Services Product Design Obligations, and of course the major banks copped the bank tax. There are also a number of cases before the Courts. This week, NAB said it had refunded $1.7 million for overcharging interest on home loans and CommInsure paid $300,000 following ASIC concerns over misleading life insurance advertising

This tightening across the board is a reaction to earlier period of market deregulation, privatisation and sector growth. But at its heart, the issue is a cultural one, where banks are primary focussing on shareholder returns (as a company that is their job), but at the expense of their customers.  Even now, the decks are stacked against customers, and the newly revised banking code of conduct won’t do much.  We think the Open Banking Initiative will eventually help to lift competition, and force prices lower. But, after many years of easy money, banks are having to work a lot harder, and with much more lead in the saddle bag. Meantime, it is costing Australia INC. dear.

More significantly, the revised Basel rules, though watered down, still tilts the playing field towards mortgage lending, and makes productive lending to business less attractive.  Also there is more to do on bank stress testing according to the Basel Committee. The regulation framework is in our view faulty.

One question worth considering, as the USA and other Central Banks lift their base cash rates, is whether there is really a “lower neutral rate” now. Some, in a BIS working paper have argued that Central Banker’s monetary policy have driven real interest rates lower, rather than demographics. But another working paper, this time from the Bank of England, comes down on the other side of the argument.  The paper “Demographic trends and the real interest rate” says two-thirds of the fall in rates is attributable to demographic changes (in which case Central Bankers are responding, not leading rates lower). In fact, pressure towards even lower rates will continue to increase. This is a fundamentally important question to answer. We suspect the role of Central Bankers in driving rates is less significant than many suspect, and structural changes are afoot.

Rates in Australia have stayed low this year, at 1.5%, despite the RBA saying this is below the neutral setting, and we expect the bank to move later in 2018, upwards. The rate of rise is now expected to be lower than a year ago, but the international pressure will be up. In addition, the US tax reforms will likely switch more investment to the US, and so banks, who rely on international funding, will likely have to pay more. So we still expect real rates to go higher ahead, creating more pressure on households. Also, of course as rates rise, the costs of Governments running deficits rises, something which will be a drag on the budget later.

Home prices continued to rise through 2017 in the eastern states, while in NT and WA they fell. Recent corrections in Sydney may be an indication of what is ahead in the Melbourne market too. Demand remains strong, but lending standards have been tightened, and investors are getting more concerned about future capital appreciation. This year building approvals were still pretty strong, in line with firm population growth. As an aside, an OECD report this week said that Australian property may well be a target for money laundering, and more needs to be done to address this issue.  Auction volumes continue to slide, and we have seen a significant fall in recent weeks.

So, this year we have seen changes in the financial services landscape, the property market is on the turn, and household’s debt levels are rising, creating financial stress for many. As a result, we expect many to spend less this Christmas.

Next time we will discuss the likely trajectory through 2018, but we wanted to wish all our followers a peaceful and restful holiday season. We have really appreciated all the interest in our work – through the year we have more than doubled our readership, thanks to you.

Many thanks for watching. Check back next week for our views on what 2018 may bring.

Update on Banking Royal Commission

The royal commission into the banking, superannuation and financial services industry official web site is operational, and you can subscribe for alerts there. The letters patient can also be found there which officially establishes the commission and it’s scope of inquiry. Intermediaries, such as mortgage brokers and financial advisers are included in the broad scope. The interim report is due no later than 30 September 2018.  The final report is due no later than 1 February 2019. The commission will be based in Melbourne.

A notice requiring banks, insurance companies and superannuation funds to detail all cases of misconduct from 2008 onwards has also been issued.

Investor Daily, says:

The Governor-General has issued the letters patent to former High Court judge Kenneth Madison Hayne AC QC formally establishing the royal commission into the banking, superannuation and financial services industry.

The letters patent requires the royal commission to inquire into the conduct of financial services entities, including “banks, insurers, superannuation trustees, holders of Australian financial services licences and intermediaries, such as mortgage brokers”.

In a joint statement, Treasurer Scott Morrison and outgoing Attorney-General George Brandis said commissioner Hayne has been authorised to submit an interim report to the Governor-General “no later than 30 September 2018”.

The final report of the royal commission must be submitted by commissioner Hayne “no later than 1 February 2019”.

“The financial system plays an important role in the lives of all Australians and we encourage all interested parties to engage with the royal commission,” the joint statement said.