Are We Facing Another Financial Sector Crisis?

At first blush the news at home and abroad appears to be steering us towards our most risky – scenario 4 outcome, where global financial markets are disrupted and home prices fall by 20-40 percent or more as confidence wains.

Some would call this GFC 2.0. So let’s looks at the evidence.

In Australia, as we predicted, a massive class action lawsuit is being planned on behalf of “Australian bank customers that have entered into mortgage finance agreements with banks since 2012”.

Law firm Chamberlains has been appointed to act in the planned class action lawsuit, which has been instructed by Roger Donald Brown of MortgageDeception.com in the action that aims to represent various Australian bank customers that are “incurring financial losses as a result of entering into mortgage loan contracts with banks since 2012”.

As the AFR put it – Lawyers’ representing up to 300,000 litigants are planning an $80 billion action against mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers and financial regulators in a class action that would dwarf previous actions. Roger Brown, a former Lloyds of London insurance broker, said he already has about 200,000 borrowers ready to join the action and has $75 million backing from UK and European investors. There has been a scam, he said about mortgage lending to Australian property buyers. “But the train has hit the buffers and there needs to be recompense.

As we discussed before, if loans made were “unsuitable” as defined by the credit legislation, there is potential recourse. This could be a significant risk to the major players if it gains momentum.  And more will likely join up if home prices fall further and mortgage repayments get more difficult. But we think individuals must take some responsibility too!

Next, we now see a number of the major media outlets starting to blame the Royal Commission for the falls in home prices, tighter lending standards and even damage to the broader economy. Talk about shoot the messenger. The fact is we have had years of poor lending practice, and poor regulation. But the industry and regulators kept stumn preferring to enjoy the fruits of over generous lending. The Royal Commission is doing a great job of exposing what has been going on. In fact, the reaction appears to be that what had been hidden is now in the sunshine, and it is true the sunlight is the best disinfectant.  Structural malpractice is being exposed, some of which may be illegal, and some of which certainly falls below community expectations. But let’s be clear, it’s the poor behaviour of the banks and the regulators which have placed us in this difficult position. Hoping bad lending remans hidden is a crazy path to resolution. At least if the issues are in the open they stand a chance of being addressed.

But it is also true that just a lax lending allowed households to get bigger mortgages than they should, and bid home prices higher, to be benefit of the banks, and the GDP out-turn, the reverse is also true. Tighter lending will lead to less credit being available, which in turn will translate to lower home prices, and less book growth for the banks. But do not lay this at the door of the Royal Commission. They are actually doing Australia a great service, in a most professional manner.

But that does not stop the rot. UBS came out today with an update saying that the housing market is slowing, with house prices falling and credit conditions tightening. Given the number of headwinds the market is facing; many investors are now questioning whether the housing correction could become disorderly. We expect credit growth to slow sharply and believe the risk of a Credit Crunch is rising.

They walk through the main areas, including tighter lending, interest only loans and foreign buyers. Specifically, they highlight that approved foreign investment in housing is down -65%. The Foreign Investment Review Board just released data for 16/17. The value of approvals to buy residential housing collapsed 65% y/y to $25bn in 16/17, the lowest level since 12/13, and mostly reversing the prior ‘super boom’. The fall was across both new (-66% to $22bn) and established housing (-59% to $3bn) – led by total falls in NSW (-66% to $7bn) and Victoria (-61% to $11bn.

They say that the collapse in 16/17 may be overstated because of the introduction of application fees in Dec-15 – meaning the fall in transactions is less pronounced. But, there is still likely to have been a drop in transactions, reflecting more structural factors including – the lift in taxes on foreigners; domestic lenders tightening standards for foreign buyers (effectively no longer lending against foreign sources of income or collateral); as well as tighter capital controls especially from China.

Their base case is for a small fall in prices ahead, and assumes house prices fall by 5%+ over the coming year and that bad and doubtful debts increase only modestly given the current very benign credit environment. but they also talk about a downside scenario which reflects a more disorderly correction in the housing market (ie a Credit Crunch) and could result in approximately 40% reduction in major bank share prices. This is likely due to credit growth falling more substantially, by ~2-3% compound and credit impairment charges rising significantly as the credit cycle turns. This scenario would put pressure on bank NIMs. Litigation risk from class actions for mortgage misselling is also a tail risk. Dividends would need to be cut in this scenario. Given the leverage in the banking system, accurately predicting the extent of a downturn is very difficult, as was seen in 2008.

And the reason they still hold to their milder view is the expectation that the Government will step in to assist, and slow the implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission.  To quote Scott Morrison on 2GB radio on 23d March.

If banks stop lending, then what do people think that is going to mean for people starting businesses or getting loans or getting jobs or all of this. In the budget papers, the Treasury have actually highlighted this as a bit of a risk with the process we are going through. We have got to be very careful. These stories are heartbreaking, I agree, but we have to be also very cautious about, well, how do we respond to that. What is the right reaction to that? Is it to just throw more regulation there which basically constipates the banking and financial industry which means that people can’t start businesses and people can’t get jobs, people can’t get home loans. Or do we want to move to a smarter way of how this is all done and I think in the era of financial technology in particular there are some real opportunities there. We are going to continue to listen and carefully respect the royal commission, not prejudge the findings, but be very careful about any responses that are made because this can determine how strong an economy we live in over the next ten years and whether people get jobs and start businesses.

But in essence, expect some unnatural acts from the Government to try to keep the bubble going a little longer. All bets are off the other side of the election.

And the third risk, and the one which takes us closest to GFC 2.0 is what is happening in Italy. I am not going to go back over the history, but after months of wrangling, Italy’s political crisis has a hit an impasse, with new elections now increasingly likely. The country faces an institutional crisis without precedent in the history of the Italian republic. Its implications extend well beyond Italy, to the European Union as a whole.

Since an election on March 4, there have been endless vain attempts to form a government – with the likely outcome changing every 24 hours. By mid-May, the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the League, both populist parties, had come together to draft a programme for government featuring tax cuts and spending plans. But it sent shivers down the spines of those contemplating Italy’s public debt – running at over 130% of GDP – and threatened the stability of the eurozone.

The appointment of Carlo Cottarelli, a former official from the International Monetary Fund, as prime minister on May 28 was merely a stop-gap measure until fresh elections in the autumn. His government will almost certainly fail to win the necessary vote of confidence required of all incoming governments upon taking office. This means that it will be unable to undertake any legislative initiatives that go beyond day-to-day administration.

ITALY’S president, Sergio Mattarella had originally planned to put a former IMF economist, Carlo Cottarelli, at the head of a government of technocrats, tasked with steering the country back to the polls after the summer. But Mr Mattarella was reportedly considering changing tack after meeting Mr Cottarelli on May 29th amid growing evidence of support in parliament for an earlier vote. Not a single big party has declared its readiness to back Mr Cottarelli’s proposed administration in a necessary vote of confidence.

So the president is expected to decide on May 30th whether to call a snap election as early as July in an effort to resolve a rapidly deepening political and economic crisis that has sent tremors through global financial markets.  There was also concern that the populist parties could win a bigger parliamentary majority in the new election, creating a bigger risk for the future of the eurozone.

In a sign of investors’ concern, the yield gap between Italian and German benchmark government bonds soared from 190 basis points on May 28th to more than 300. The governor of the Bank of Italy, Ignazio Visco, warned his compatriots not to “forget that we are only ever a few steps away from the very serious risk of losing the irreplaceable asset of trust.”

The yield on two-year debt has risen from below zero to close to 2% and Italy’s 10-year bond yields, which is a measure of the country’s sovereign borrowing costs, breached 3 per cent on Tuesday, the highest in four years. At the start of the month they were just 1.8 per cent. Italy’s sovereign debt pile of €2.3 trillion is the largest in the eurozone

The Italian stock market was also down 3 per cent on Tuesday, and has lost around 13 per cent of its value this month.

But these movements need to be put in some context. The Italian stock market is still only back to its levels of last July, after experiencing a strong bull run since later 2016.

In 2011 and 2012 Italian bond breached 7 per cent and threatened a fiscal crisis for the government in Rome. Yields are still some distance from those extreme distress levels.

George Soros was quoted in the FT:

The EU is in an existential crisis. Everything that could go wrong has gone wrong,” he said. To escape the crisis, “it needs to reinvent itself.”  Mr Soros said tackling the European migration crisis “may be the best place to start,” but stressed the importance of not forcing European countries to accept set quotas of refugees. He said the Dublin regulation — which decides which nation is responsible for processing a refugee’s asylum status, largely based on which country the individual first enters — had put an “unfair burden” on Italy and other Mediterranean countries, “with disastrous political implications.”  While austerity policies appeared initially to have been working, said Mr Soros, the “addiction to austerity” had harmed the euro and was now worsening the European crisis. US president Donald Trump’s exit from the nuclear arms deal with Iran and the uncertainty over tariffs that threaten transatlantic trade will harm European economies, particularly Germany’s, he said, while a strong dollar was prompting “flight” from emerging market economies.     “We may be heading for another major financial crisis,” he said.     Meanwhile, years of austerity policies had led working people to feel “excluded and ignored,” sentiment that had been exploited by populist and nationalistic politicians, said Mr Soros. He called for greater emphasis on grassroots organisations to meaningfully engage with citizens.

To play devil’s advocate, if Italy were to leave the Eurozone, the Lira would drop, hard.  Most probably Italy would default on debt, and this would hit the Eurozone banks hard, especially those in     German and French banks will be hit hard and they are saddled with about half the outstanding debt. Just like in the GFC a decade back, global counter-party bank risk will rise, and this time sovereign are involved, so it may go higher. The US Dollar will run hot, and there will be a flight to quality, tightening the capital markets, lifting rates and causing global stocks and commodities to crash, possibly a recession will follow.

In Australia, the dollar would slide significantly, fuelling stock market falls and a further drop in home prices, leading to higher levels of default, and recession, despite the Reserve Bank cutting rates and even trying QE.

Now the financial situation in Italy at the moment, a far cry from the height of the eurozone crisis in 2012, when it really did look possible that weaker member states would be imminently forced to default and the single currency would collapse. Then, that situation was finally defused when the head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, announced he would do “whatever it takes” to stop this break up happening, unveiling an emergency programme of backstop bond buying by the central bank. This reassured private investor that they would, at least, get their money back and bond yields in countries like Italy and Spain fell back to earth, ending the risk of a destructive debt spiral.

But the latest deadlock in Rome is nevertheless the biggest crisis in the eurozone since Greece last threatened to leave in 2015. And Italy is a much larger economy than Greece. If the third largest country in the bloc exited the euro, it is doubtful the single currency would survive.

Falling bank shares dragged down Europe’s main share markets. At the close the UK’s FTSE 100 fell almost 1.3%, while Germany’s Dax was down 1.5% and France’s Cac 1.3% lower. “It’s a market that is totally in panic”, said a fund manager at Anthilia Capital Partners, who noted “a total lack of confidence in the outlook for Italian public finances”. And the chief economic adviser at Allianz in the US said: “If the political situation in Italy worsens, the longer-term spill overs would be felt in the US via a stronger dollar and lower European growth.”

So whether you look locally or globally its risk on at the moment, and we are it seems to me teetering on the edge of our Scenario 4. This will not be pretty and it will not be quick. I see that slow moving train wreck still grinding down the tracks, with no way out.

Evidence from the banking royal commission looks like history repeating itself

From The Conversation.

Do banks learn from the past? From watching the questioning of elderly disability pensioner Carolyn Flanagan at the Financial Services Royal Commission, it seems not.

In the High Court of Australia on May 12 1983, one case tested the limits of a concept called “unconscionability”. This is a difficult area of law to prove, as the parties involved usually have signed a commercial agreement.

You are normally legally bound by what you sign, in the form of a contract. This was established in an English case in 1934 called L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd and has been since followed in UK and Australian law.

However, sometimes the law intervenes because the party signing the contract is at such a disadvantage that it is inequitable in the eyes of the court.

The 1983 case involved Mr and Mrs Amadio, who were Italian migrant parents. A bank manager went to their home and asked them to sign a mortgage (secured against their family home) for their son to open a business. No one explained that the son did not have the experience to run a business and that the outcome of not paying back the loan was to lose their home.

The Amadio family did not speak much English and no one provided a translator nor independent legal advice. The mortgage documents were signed on March 25 1977. The son soon failed to make repayments and the Commercial Bank of Australia, foreclosed on the parents’ property (the family home).

The High Court ruled in May 1983 that the bank had acted unconscionably and that the contract should be terminated on equitable grounds.

Over 30 years later, Westpac Bank is signing a guarantee for a daughter’s business loan, with an elderly and partially blind mother. As Commissioner Hayne noted, Ms Flanagan had signed the documents but not understood them or their consequences. The commissioner was unimpressed with any “independent advice” supposedly provided to the parties.

Westpac tried to regain the property as per the financial guarantee and did reach a settlement that Ms Flanagan could stay in the home until she sold it or passed away. This sounds very similar in law and facts to the Amadio decision.

The original unconscionable case of Amadio, was based on the law of equity (a branch of case law, based on concepts of fairness). This compares to federal and state government laws such as the Trade Practices Act 1974, which the Australian Consumer Law replaced in 2010. Section 20 of this law preserves the concepts of unconscionability under the “unwritten law” (a way of saying common laws and equitable laws).

More significantly, an unconscionable conduct laws were introduced to cover the provision of goods and services under the Commonwealth law in section 21 of Australian Consumer Law.

The government regulator that enforces such laws is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Unfortunately, as with many things, the law is more complex and if financial services are involved, then the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) also gets involved.

ASIC in its own legislation covers unconscionable conduct and misleading conduct. There are also other agencies that can have jurisdiction to investigate and bring legal actions as necessary, such as State Consumer Affairs Commissions or Small Business Commissions.

Unfortunately this appears not to have helped Carolyn Flanagan and many others who made submissions to the royal commission.

This is another great example of how we in Australia can have plenty of laws and regulations, but the real questions: are the laws actually enforced and do we ever learn lessons from history?

Author: Michael Adams, Dean, School of Law, Western Sydney University

The Future of ATMs (And The Banks’ Social Obligations)

I discussed the future of ATMs with Neil Mitchell on 3AW following the banks’ removal of withdrawal fees last year. Now many banks are removing these devices as usage falls, but should they have a social obligation (in the light of the Royal Commission)?

Fintech’s May Be The SME’s Champion

As the Royal Commission’s third round of public hearings casts the spotlight on Big Four banks and SME lending, Fintech Moula says another spotlight is cast on fintechs who have stepped up to address the gap in market left by banks and traditional lenders.

Moula CEO Aris Allegos said: “SMEs make up over 97% of Australian businesses, but have been neglected for so long. The big banks haven’t been able to cater to this market, which is why we’ve tailored our product to the specific needs of business owners. Our process focuses on eliminating the hurdles and lengthy application processes, delivering decisioning within 24 hours.”

“Moula has listened to the unique needs of a business providing funding relevant to their specific needs and circumstances.”

Banks’ underwriting still hasn’t adapted to the new lending landscape: applications involve cumbersome submissions, and documentation requirements are often prohibitive. The bulk of applications are reviewed manually, which take 6-8 weeks on average to process.

Notwithstanding, the cumbersome application process doesn’t mean banks are better able to approve a business loan. According to Digital Finance Analytics’ 2017 SME Survey, unsecured business loan applicants now face a 74% rejection rate, up from last year, where businesses had a 67% likelihood of being rejected by traditional lenders.

Responsible lending plays a huge part in Moula’s business model, which focuses on sustainable underwriting.

“At Moula, we’re backing good businesses to help them achieve their ambitions, and the only way to achieve this is through honest, transparent, and responsible lending.

“Transparency is at the core of our business model and a key value at Moula. We’re proud to be leading the market in defining best-practice transparency and disclosure.”

Financial system under ‘great threat’: ASIC

From Investor Daily.

The failures within the banking sector uncovered by the royal commission constitute a “great threat” to the financial system, says ASIC chairman James Shipton.

Speaking at the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors conference in Sydney yesterday, Mr Shipton was asked how seriously he was taking the threat to the financial system given the failures aired at the royal commission.

“I think the threat is great. As a former member of the finance profession – as a person who is proud to be a financier – I find it jarring and disappointing that this is [sic] circumstances in which we find ourselves,” he said.

“As a proud Australian who is returning from nearly 25 years overseas, it is very confronting that we find ourselves in this situation,” Mr Shipton said.

The misconduct discussed at the royal commission “must not stand, [it] must be addressed”, he said.

Mr Shipton also highlighted the “proliferation” of conflicts of interest in parts of the financial industry.

“It is clear to me that a number of institutions have not taken the management of conflicts of interest to heart,” he said.

“This is verging on a systemic issue. Indeed, it is the source of much of the misconduct ASIC has been responding to and which is being highlighted by the royal commission hearings.”

Mr Shipton expressed his “surprise” that many Australian firms have “turned a blind eye” to conflicts of interest as their businesses have grown.

“Too often, unacceptable conflicts were justified by firms on the basis that ‘everyone else is doing it’, even though it’s the right thing to do to end them.

“A business culture that is blind to conflicts of interest is a business culture that does not have the best interests of its customer in mind. Moreover, it is one that is not observing the spirit as well as the letter of the law,” he said.

More Regulation Wont Solve Banking’s Ethical Issues

From The Conversation.

The Financial Services Royal Commission hearings are illustrating both the weaknesses of human nature and of the culture and structure of the financial sector – regulated and regulator. The response to this has been more regulation and codes of conduct.

But we should also be considering our own ethics.

The time-honoured approach to removing ethical temptations to greed is to prohibit conflicts of interest. This goes way back beyond 1896, when the argument was made in a famous court judgment that “human nature being what it is, there is danger … of the person holding a fiduciary position being swayed by interest rather than by duty”.

Both superannuation and corporate law assume that conflicts of interest will persist, and that simple disclosure is enough to manage the problem.

But simple disclosure hasn’t been enough. The royal commission has unearthed many examples of banks and financial services companies both making and selling financial products to their customers, with the latter frequently suffering in the aftermath.

We are already moving away from the payment of commissions for personal financial advice, in favour of fees. But we need to go further. Europe is leading the way as it now forces banks and brokers to explicitly charge for the investment research they produce. We need to remove all conflicts of interests.

Flattening hierarchies and reducing temptations to arrogance

There are other time-honoured approaches to overcoming the temptation to arrogance. The power of leaders needs to be limited.

One organisational principle is subsidiarity, which calls for devolving power to the lowest level where it can be effective. The steep hierarchies of organisations in English-speaking countries create huge jumps in power at higher levels.

Boards need to act on this problem, but regulation could help by ensuring that independent directors have independent power bases and are less beholden to CEOs. If the CEO invites someone to sit on the board, for instance, it is extraordinarily difficult for that person to turn around and tell the CEO: “You are paid too much.”

Many European countries give seats on their boards to union representatives. This may go some way to explaining why executive remuneration is not nearly as steep in those countries.

Some companies in the United States have experimented with proportional representation of shareholders. This would mean that different directors can rely on support from different groups of shareholders.

The new Banking Executive Accountability Regime links pay to performance, but fails to address excessive levels of remuneration in the financial sector.

Codes of ethics and less regulation

We cannot remove all temptations, so we also have to try to provide people with more ways to resist them. One of these is an appropriate code of conduct: actively subscribing to a code of conduct has been shown to make people more likely to behave virtuously.

The Bankers’ Oath should be encouraged; maybe even made compulsory like the proposed financial advisers’ code.

While codes of conduct may help, the tsunami of financial regulation over the past few decades has swept aside much of the sense of personal accountability.

We would surely be better off without the half-million words that make up the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act and Regulations and the 2001 financial sector changes to the Corporations Act.

The royal commission has produced a paper on the latter legislation that illustrates its complexity and goes some way to explain why it has been a failure.

Reducing complex regulation would also free regulators to focus on enforcement. It may be that punishments comfort victims as much as they create incentives not to offend, but both are important. Successful prosecutions are important, so we need to deal with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s failures to prosecute, and its cosiness with the businesses it regulates.

Reduce the temptations, strengthen the principles of conduct and punish offenders. All good, but not enough for a financial sector that plays its proper role in a flourishing democratic society.

The role of the financial sector is to implement payments, allocate capital and provide financial security. In doing so it can make money for itself. But if making money is all it can think about, it should continue to be subject to ongoing and stringent scrutiny.

As with all ethical questions, we need to end with ourselves. In whatever way we make our living, can we reinvigorate our resolve, and the institutions in which we serve, to build a flourishing society?

Author: Anthony Asher, Associate Professor, UNSW

Ethical Investor Quits AMP

Australian Ethical has announced it will completely divest from AMP following revelations of “systemic prudential and cultural issues” at the royal commission. They will not reinvest until AMP demonstrates they have addressed their underlying issues. And they are watching the two of the four major banks they have holdings in, in the light of the findings from the royal commission too.

Explaining the rationale behind Australian Ethical’s decision, the fund manager’s head of ethics research Dr Stuart Palmer pointed to “systemic prudential and cultural issues” revealed at the royal commission.

“There have been serious breaches of AMP’s duty to clients, including ‘fees for no service’, failure to reprimand dishonest advisers and remediate clients, and keeping clients in expensive, inappropriate, legacy products and platforms,” Dr Palmer said.

“AMP knowingly and deliberately misled regulators and there is sufficient evidence to show that these breaches are not isolated incidents.

“Senior AMP leaders consciously chose to prioritise AMP’s short-term profit at the expense of clients’ best interests and compliance with the law. Evidence revealed during the royal commission demonstrates that senior executives were involved in the misconduct, despite staff voicing concerns and knowledge that their actions were in breach of their licensee duties.

“The information released by AMP since the conclusion of the most recent royal commission hearings (including at its AGM today) doesn’t give Australian Ethical reason to change the above assessment of the evidence presented to the royal commission,” Dr Palmer said.

Ultimately, Dr Palmer said, AMP’s actions are in breach of Australian Ethical’s ethical charter – leading to the decision to divest.

I followed up this announcement with a couple of broader questions to Dr Palmer.

Q:  The ethical behaviour of the other big banks are also shown to be found wanting in the RC – so is it likely that AE to do the same elsewhere, or is the fund not invested there?

Australian Ethical is underweight in the financial services sector due to its ethical charter.  However, it is selectively invested in some financial services organisations, for example, we invest in two of the ‘big four’ Australian banks: Westpac and NAB, but not CBA and ANZ.  We are closely monitoring the Royal Commission hearings and may revisit other investments depending on the evidence presented or findings of the Royal Commission.

Q: Is this a temporary or permanent decision, in that if AMP proved a change of behaviour, would the decision be reversed?

AMP, both before and after the most recent Royal Commission hearings, has taken significant steps to begin to remedy past wrongs and to safeguard against their recurrence. We hope that this and the further action planned by AMP will be effective over time to entrench a robust ethical culture right across the organisation. But we will remain divested until we are satisfied that this work has been fully and successfully implemented.

AMP Has Appointed David Murray as Chairman

AMP has announced that David Murray, former CBA chief executive and chair of the Financial System Inquiry, has been appointed as the new chairman of AMP.

Mr Murray will join the AMP board as chairman after the AMP 2018 annual general meeting on Thursday 10 May, on or before 1 July 2018.

Current executive chairman Mike Wilkins will return to the position of acting chief executive officer on that date.

Mr Murray was the chair of the Financial System Inquiry, which reported to the government in December 2014. He was also the chief executive officer of CBA between 1992 and 2005.

Mike Wilkins said: “We’re delighted to welcome a person of David Murray’s outstanding calibre to the Chairman’s role.  His appointment brings strong and experienced leadership to the company, strengthening our governance and our commitment to change.

“David has deep experience of financial services, particularly banking and wealth management, as well as the industry’s regulatory environment through his leadership of the Financial System Inquiry.”

“He brings a strong risk mindset and a clear appreciation of community expectations for AMP as well as the wider financial services industry. This is part of the reset that is necessary for the company and I look forward to working with David, the Board and management to rebuild public confidence in the company and to restore shareholder value,” he said.

David Murray said: “AMP employs almost 6,000 people many of whom are Australians serving its customers across wealth management, superannuation, financial advice, life insurance, asset management and banking.”

“It is a significant financial institution and needs to play a role within the Australian financial system which supports the building of trust and confidence in that system in the community. I look forward to working with the Board and executive management to support AMP’s people in achieving that outcome,” he said.

“As part of this, I am committed to meaningful board renewal but recognise the process must be measured so as to maintain the stability of AMP in the immediate future.  Restoring trust and confidence is not easy and does not happen overnight, but I am confident this can be achieved,” Mr Murray said.

AMP Says Sorry; But Fees for No Service an “Old Issue”

AMP has published a 28 page response to the issues raised by the Royal Commission.   They make the point that the fees for no service issue is old news. In addition, they down play the preparation of a Clayton Utz report into the issue and the firms misleading representations to ASIC.

They did unreservedly apologise for their financial advice failings relating to service delivery to customers and spoke about extensive action aims to ensure these issues “never happen again.”

This from Financial Standard.

Fees for no service is old news

The wealth management giant said fees for no service is an industry-wide issue and AMP has been the subject of an ongoing ASIC investigation since 2015. As part of the investigation, extensive details were disclosed to the regulator in October 2017, AMP said.

Fees for no service include instances where AMP charged fees due to an administrative error and through the practice of retaining fees during buy back arrangements known as “ring-fencing” and “the 90-day exception”.

“Between 2010 and 2016, of the 2417 register transactions that took place, 39 were Buyer Of Last Resort (BOLR) transactions which involved application of the 90-day exception,” the AMP submission said.”We have apologised to and refunded the fees to all customers impacted by the 90-day exception. The remediation totalled $850,000. To date, for the broader licensee fees for no service issue, we have remediated 15,712 customers, a total of $4.7 million.”

AMP acknowledged the process has been too slow and is committing additional resources to accelerate remediation.

The Clayton Utz report

AMP has reiterated to the Royal Commission that there is no evidence to suggest its board, including the former chairman and former chief executive, acted inappropriately in relation to the preparation of the a Clayton Utz report into fees for no service.

The board commissioned the report on 5 June 2017. It entailed interviews with 27 current and former employees, and a review of documents, AMP said.

“The report is an uncompromisingly direct 87-page review of the conduct of the advice business in relation to fee for no service matters,” AMP said.

“The board were not aware of the nature and extent of the interaction during the preparation of the report.”

There is also no evidence that Clayton Utz made any changes to the report that it did not agree with or that it did not stand behind the report.

“The extent of interaction between AMP and Clayton Utz has been overstated,” AMP said.

Misleading ASIC

AMP has accepted its communications to ASIC have been misleading. The communications regarded fees of certain customers not being switched off in connection with adviser buy-back arrangements and the 90-day exception.

“AMP accepts that any misrepresentation, even if inadvertent, to ASIC is unacceptable and must be corrected as soon as it becomes apparent. However, the number of separate misrepresentations referred to in the Royal Commission has been overstated,” it said.

“There were seven misrepresentations (in 12 communications). These were not new ‘news’. We had reported them in detail to ASIC in October 2017 and then to the Royal Commission.”

In terms of accountability, AMP pointed to its chief executive and chair stepping down; board directors taking a 25% pay cut for the remainder of 2018; and the strengthening of its advice governance framework in 2017 among other internal measures.

Scrutiny, Regulation and the Looming Credit Crunch

This from the excellent James Mitchell at the Adviser.

I’ve said before that the next downturn will, ironically, be triggered by regulation. Recent developments show this could soon play out.

This we week we’ve seen ANZ chief Shayne Elliott and RBA governor Philip Lowe both admit that lending is becoming more difficult.

On Tuesday, Elliott said that tighter controls around customer living expenses — an issue given extensive coverage during the first week of the Hayne royal commission – would slow lending down.

Later that day, the RBA governor issued a similar warning following its decision to leave rates unchanged for the 21st consecutive month.

“It is also possible that lending standards in Australia will be tightened further in the context of the current high level of public scrutiny. We will continue to watch these issues carefully,” Mr Lowe said.

These comments follow APRA’s decision to remove the 10 per cent investor lending speed limit in favour of debt-to-income curbs.

Exactly what these will look like remains to be seen, but the banking regulator expects ADIs to develop their own portfolio limits on the proportion of new lending at “very high” debt-to-income levels.

The problem with things like forensic evidence of customer living expenses and tighter restrictions on mortgage lending is that they will reduce credit availability.

About 10 months ago I wrote that “mortgages are the second largest pool of assets in Australia after superannuation. Messing with that could have serious implications. Particularly at a time when property price growth is moderating.

“The risk is that measures designed to strengthen the system could inadvertently weaken economic growth, consumer sentiment and the propensity for Australians to continue spending.”

That observation was made following the 2017 budget, when it was revealed that APRA’s powers would extend to the non-banks.

Former Pepper CEO Patrick Tuttle told me that such action would “accelerate a credit crunch” and a sharp correction in house prices.

But the stakes are higher now and the risks to mortgage growth have intensified. Customer living expenses are at the centre of this, but I doubt common sense will prevail when it comes to regulation and tighter policies.

Over the last few weeks I’ve spoken to a number of mortgage brokers, head groups and lenders about this issue.

On the record, they see more granular data around living expenses as a positive development. Off the record, they can’t stand the idea and anticipate a significant drop in volume.

One broker put it to me plain and simple: when a person gets a mortgage, they change their living expenses accordingly. They stop spending on rent, reduce their entertainment budget and work harder for that job promotion. In other words, they adapt to their new financial position.

Australians have a solid track record of paying down their mortgages. Arrears rates range from 0.76 per cent (ACT) to 2.5 per cent (WA).

While there have been no systemic problems in the Australian mortgage market, the banking royal commission is doing a great job of promoting a financial services industry rife with misconduct and risky behaviour. Which it is, to some extent, but how risky are the mortgages currently being written?

Are the banks tightening their lending policies because of risks, or is it simply a PR play to appease the regulators and the royal commission?

Either way, we can expect a reduction in credit availability and brace ourselves for what the knock-on effects of that will be.