Speaking at a parliamentary joint committee hearing on ASIC oversight, Labor senator Chris Ketter noted to ASIC chair Chris Shipton that, of the 1,102 proceedings between 1 January 2008 and 30 May 2018, only 10 of those were against the major banks in that time.
He continued that of those 10, three were to Storm Financial and four to the bank bill swap rate manipulation, leaving three other proceedings affecting the major banks.
“Did ASIC have a reticence to take on the major banks?” Mr Ketter asked.
“The statistics are clearly there, and that is something that is, in part, triggering our enforcement review,” Mr Shipton responded.
“That is an important question. You are right to ask it. The royal commission is right to ask it. We are working to make sure that we have a very credible, robust and responsive answer. We want, and we intend to have, real deterrents when it comes to the big financial institutions.
“You can be absolutely assured that those terms of reference have been informed, enhanced and improved by the important questions, recommendations and observations of the royal commission.”
Mr Ketter then asked ASIC deputy chair Peter Kell the same question.
“Sure. I would say upfront that we accept that we need to have a greater focus in our litigation against the major institutions,” Mr Kell said.
“We have had a focus on seeking to change the way those businesses operate, get them to remove poor financial advisers and remediate their consumers where problems have emerged and so on.
“But I accept that that hasn’t always been accompanied by court-based litigation. As you have heard, that is an area where we need to increase our focus.”
Why wasn’t he grilled over their lack of attention to the rorts going on in ISA funds????? Probably because he was being ‘grilled’ by a Union stooge – oops, sorry, a Labor Senator about banks of course.
Australian Super has already advised it is freezing fund redemptions due to their property market concerns (i.e. their dodgy figures have finally started to catch up with them!). $22trillion of essentially ungoverned, unchecked retirement wealth fee gouging in the ISA spectrum with dodgy advice by their sales people, and that area is not a concern at all for ASIC? Kell smells, glad to see him go but I notice he put in place two ex-ISA stooges onto ASIC senior management roles as his parting gift for our profession.
How can All the Industry Super Funds call Property & Infrastructure both Defensive and Growth Assets?
Host plus has 15% of its so called Balance Funds Defensive component in Property and Infrastructure. The other 10% of Defensive Assets are in High Yield credit, Structured Credit (remember CDO’s that caused the GFC) and Alternatives (of which they do not disclose what assets they are).
[b]Effectively Hostplus’s default Balanced Fund has ZERO allocation to TRUE DEFENSIVE ASSETS. [/b]
How about you go check that out ASIC !!!!
This is NOT an “oversight” and everything which comes out of Kell’s mouth is choreographed and impotent.
Mr Kell is going to get a nice little job working for compliance in the CBA circa salary of $800K a year. That’s how it works. It’s just a cost of doing business for the banks.
Let’s now wait for the press release from the FPA. “We support ASIC decision to remove poor advisers” no mention of senior management.
The fact is, the Banking Royal Commission, basically plagiarised the submissions from the bank victims, 17 years of blood, sweat and tears in my case, to rake in 2.4 billion dollars from the banks! And how much for the victims, zero dollars? My case was against Commbank and Commsec. Isn’t it strange Commsec was the only Commbank sector not even mentioned? Insurance, banking, superannuation, loans, but no stockbroking? What a cover up! As if Commsec are not included in Financial Services, what a joke! Shame on them for their popular politics! They are only targetting the most people for the smallest amounts, not the serious crimes and larger damages. Individuals the banks targetted in major crimes are being ignored, for the “wider popular small crimes”! What a cover up, of securities fraud, theft, terrorism, collusion, and corruption, at the highest levels, involving politicians, corporate criminals, regulators etc.
How is it ethical for him (Kell) to take such a role? Screams corruption and nepotism to me. Maybe Kell should do an exam on ethics. As for being a lackey of the banks whilst at ASIC… he would be wise to depart from any contact with our financial services industry. My perception is that it is blatant favouritism for personal gain.
#$%&!! He still DOESN’T get it “…get them (the banks) to remove poor financial advisers.” It was the management you dimwit!
What do this even mean?
“You can be absolutely assured that those terms of reference have been informed, enhanced and improved by the important questions, recommendations and observations of the royal commission.”
And there we have it – ASIC will get hard on the big banks and AMP by targeting the advisers. How corrupt are they?
“We have had a focus on seeking to change the way those businesses operate, get them to remove poor financial advisers and remediate their consumers where problems have emerged and so on.
Yep of course it comes down to blaming the Financial Advisers.
CEO’s, Executives and Managers get off completely !!!!!!!
But wasn’t that what you were paid for , Mr Kell , uphold the law without fear or favour ?? You havent clearly done that so you should be sacked !!!!
Fees for no service Mr Kell – how about you refund your salary
So the departing Mr Kell says that ASIC “will now get them ( the banks) to remove poor financial advisers”. What about the MANAGEMENT ABOVE THE ADVISERS. When will they be sacked?
The last ASIC EU which put a bank out of business was in 1999 against Westpac because their advisers were telling clients they were no receiving commissions but only salary. One month of “re-training “and no sales.
No Different to the industry funds claiming their advisers are paid salaries don’t mention the insurance companies are still paying them commissions
management are a protected species, there are no bad advisers now, just bad, negligent, crooked and unethical management. but ASIC seem reluctant to believe this aspect. R C is therefore a waste of time