Royal Commission into Misconduct in Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry Report

mubd1234 on 05/02/2019 - 11:45
Last edited 05/02/2019 - 13:35 by 2 other users

Moved to Forum: Original Link

An enthralling 1000-page read! Perfect for those nights where you just can't get to sleep.

A maximum of 5 copies can be ordered per party.

Mod: As per description above, this was originally posted as a deal/joke post. Moved to forums so discussion on this subject can continue.

PDF Copy available via this link

Key Points

  • The final report recommends financial watchdogs consider criminal charges against unnamed organisations linked to the "fees for no service" scandal.

  • ASIC will become the primary conduct regulator overseeing superannuation.

  • The Government has now agreed to create a national farm-debt-mediation scheme that would assist borrowers to address financial difficulties that have caused loans to become distressed.

  • The Government will establish a so-called compensation scheme of last resort to allow consumers and small businesses, who have been failed by financial firms, to have their cases heard.

  • Some of the mortgage-broking industry's worst fears are contained in the final report, with the commission recommending the industry move from a commission-based to fee-based model.

  • Buying a Car: The final report recommends moving to a deferred sales model, meaning customers could think about whether they actually need the extra insurance.

See ABC article for more information

Financial

Related Stores

Royal Commissions, Australian Government
Royal Commissions, Australian Government

Comments

  • kekw on 05/02/2019 - 13:00

    not a deal, be a wise oz with brain (ozb)

  • Seraphin7 on 05/02/2019 - 13:01

    C'mon man.

    Seraphin7 on 05/02/2019 - 13:01 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • 2ndeffort on 05/02/2019 - 13:04
    +4

    Was going to download it and read it to see if it affects me but it all sounds far too complicated. luckily a financial planner from the bank volunteered to download it and read it for me and has recommended that the best way ahead for me is to buy more life insurance, income protection insurance, take out another mortgage, 3 more credit cards, a line of credit against my house and lease 4 cars!! I asked why and he said it was far too complicated to explain, better just to trust in the professionals!!!

    • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 13:13
      +3

      See, you say this as a joke because a person would have to be an absolute idiot to take that kind of advice. And yet we're letting people off the hook for doing precisely that.

      • StonedWizard on 05/02/2019 - 20:30
        +4

        As someone who works in the undustry.

        You’d be amazed how many people put blind faith in the “professional” without even doing their own research or understand the product.

        A lot of people think since it’s a “professional” and they’re paying a fee the person is always right. There’s good and bad people in every profession.

        But no matter how recommended people are. Everyone should still do their own research to make sure what they’re being told is correct.

        • Kangal on 05/02/2019 - 22:18

          Yeah, but public schools don't teach about taxes, superannuation, or mortgages.

          There's some hypothetical examples in Mathematics, but nothing really useful. One might come to think, the government might want to keep its citizens somewhat stupid.

          • Ghost47 on 06/02/2019 - 22:01
            +1

            @Kangal: Do any schools teach that kind of thing?

            If anything I'd think parents would have to teach kids that kind of thing in general discussions at the dinner table. I know if I was a parent I'd do that (i.e. fill in the gaps that aren't taught at school).

            • Kangal on 07/02/2019 - 15:58

              @Ghost47: I'd wager most parents don't know, hence why we have alot of accountants here. So it's not feasible to begin with.

              Besides, in general teachers are better at "teaching". And children are more motivated to learn around their peers, and if marks and bribes are involved doubly-so.

              In worst case scenario, kids learn something twice.
              In best case scenario, the next generation of adults are much more ready for real-world issues that will affect them.

              • Ghost47 on 07/02/2019 - 16:05

                @Kangal: Seriously? That's disturbing if most parents don't understand taxes, super or mortgages (although I do believe that there are many, many people in this country who are not financially literate).

                Whilst I agree that teachers are better at teaching, you shouldn't expect teachers to teach your child everything. There are valuable life lessons to be taught at home.

                • Kangal on 07/02/2019 - 19:16

                  @Ghost47: Welcome to the Modern Era, lol.
                  Yes, I too don't agree with it like you. However, the system is setup as such adults are no longer intelligent in social responsibility.

                  Your children are now parented by the school and TV, both parents work full time, your accountant does all your financials, your broker does your mortgage, you barely afford your living standards, ready to heat meals and junk food are common, social media/gaming for "hanging out".

  • hippyhippy on 05/02/2019 - 13:06
    -2

    thanks OP … got 10 … will heat the house for a few nights!

    hippyhippy on 05/02/2019 - 13:06 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • Popo on 05/02/2019 - 13:26

      Name does not checkout or have the hippies of 2019 just given up?

  • louuisc on 05/02/2019 - 13:07

    A epic waste of the tax payers' money - both the report itself and the hard copy delivery

  • pawan1993 on 05/02/2019 - 13:08
    +1

    Waste of resources for the hard copy. If you really want to read it then grab the soft copy instead.

  • dr death on 05/02/2019 - 13:11

    dont waste paper please

  • IMadeYouReadThis on 05/02/2019 - 13:12

    Please don't order if you don't need it! Just download the pdf

    • PvsNP on 05/02/2019 - 13:19

      I need it! Free toilet paper! or Fire wood!

  • grababargain on 05/02/2019 - 13:13

    Money don't grow on trees

  • KBZ on 05/02/2019 - 13:14
    +1

    Jezzus this should have never been posted as a 'deal'. Waste of resources. I hope no one who never needed one doesnt order one for the 'lols'.

    KBZ on 05/02/2019 - 13:14 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 05/02/2019 - 13:29
      +1

      Almost as silly as the Queen portrait 'bargain'.

  • PvsNP on 05/02/2019 - 13:18
    -2

    All those worried about their tax $$$ going to waste, get rid of politicians or pay them minimum wages!

    • No ONE on 05/02/2019 - 14:57
      +1

      And how do you do that exactly?

    • HighAndDry on 06/02/2019 - 10:46
      +1

      You get what you pay for. You want Maccas serving staff level of competence in politics, this is how you get it. Though to be fair, we're barely a step above that anyway.

      No - the real solution would be the opposite - higher pay for politicians and public servants, but to tie that pay to performance metrics. And a ban on any other form of financial contributions or lobbying money, and a removal of the current crazily-generous pension system for politicians.

  • DU99 on 05/02/2019 - 13:18
    +2

    wait till the movie version comes out

    • snvl on 05/02/2019 - 17:28

      I don’t watch horror movies

  • spy on 05/02/2019 - 13:19
    +1

    At utter waste of taxpayers money and precious environmental resources. Please only order a copy if genuinely needed and if a PDF won’t suffice.

  • Omitsukasa on 05/02/2019 - 13:20

    Very wasteful.

    Omitsukasa on 05/02/2019 - 13:20 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • ozguy on 05/02/2019 - 13:21

    Hmmm. Two reams of hard copy delivered free! Read it of course, but remember to act like a responsible adult and
    think of the environment when you are done reading and partying.

    Recycle! Fire starters, biodegradable bubble wrap alternative, litter tray liner for dog and cat lovers, note paper, paper aeroplanes, so many possibilities.

    And be sure to share the OzBargain link with any of your tree hugging friends, just for a friendly laugh.

    And just quietly, I think Printmanagement / Rothfield Print & Image Management will love this thread!

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 05/02/2019 - 13:58

      Given it's almost certain to be made of plantation paper, the best thing you can do is put it on a shelf to get old, as it is a store of carbon, meanwhile the trees planted to take the place of those harvested for the books start the cycle again, pulling yet more carbon from the air.

  • Robin2012 on 05/02/2019 - 13:29
    +1

    thanks
    order one to study it

    • burningrage on 05/02/2019 - 13:41

      Order 350931 successfully submitted

      I need to study it too.

  • kaleidoscope on 05/02/2019 - 14:12

    https://youtu.be/Nq1Uv-qFls8

    after reading the 1000 pages…

  • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 14:13
    +5

    Great piece on the ABC of all places on this:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-05/banking-royal-commiss…

    "People have got to somehow get their head around finance, [We can't] hold everybody's hands like a little baby because they don't understand. For goodness sake … you need to find out where your super is, what it's doing, what your options are. You need to find out how to get a loan, how to get financial advice. It's fairly simple stuff."

    Can't really put it any simpler or better than that. People need to take some responsibility for their own financial decisions.

    • petry on 05/02/2019 - 15:47
      +1

      like big kim and his yank subs - still employed great pension - zero responsibility. Hypocrisy at its finest

    • Jikx on 06/02/2019 - 12:28

      Yes.. UNLESS they went to a "financial advisor" for professional advice as to their super/investments, and walked out with their super being rolled into a stupidly high fee fund and a swab of insurance which is not fit for purpose.

      Which is what bloody always happens when you go to one.

      • HighAndDry on 06/02/2019 - 12:58

        Unless you're paying the financial advisor, they're a salesperson. Do you also take it as gospel what the sales people in shops tell you? And then complain that they successfully upsold you on a 65" OLED TV when you went in for a 55" LCD?

  • djmm on 05/02/2019 - 14:22
    +1

    It says my acc suspended. Wtf

    • pformag on 05/02/2019 - 15:14
      +1

      ignore it, just fill in the details and click submit. still works.

  • No ONE on 05/02/2019 - 14:50
    -1

    People should NOT order just because it is free. If you are going to read 1000s of pages, that is good. Otherwise do not waste paper.

    • bargainhunter87 on 05/02/2019 - 15:05

      yeah true…otherwise we will find ourselves in another Royal Commission on printing.

  • pformag on 05/02/2019 - 15:14
    +3

    Ill support the print industry by ordering the hardcopy.

    pformag on 05/02/2019 - 15:14 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • petry on 05/02/2019 - 15:38
    +1

    I wonder how long till they ban paper

    then you'll only get whats reported in the media

    take venezIwantyouroilforfreeandfuchavezeventhoughyouredeadala

    literacy like sovereignty dead concept

  • Gorodemon on 05/02/2019 - 15:41
    +1

    Who's paying for all these free hard copies? I think it's time to establish a Royal Commission into misconduct in printing industry.

    • petry on 05/02/2019 - 15:45

      nothings free someone always pays - who said that anyway..

    • CandyMan on 05/02/2019 - 21:52
      +1

      If you paid your tax you have paid for it. Grab yourself a well earned copy

  • burningrage on 05/02/2019 - 16:21
    +1

    The greatest irony in this circus is that we are living in a first world country and supposedly free but has the most things being banned here than any other first or second world countries.

    You cannot buy your desired pet, have to get it from shelter which if that is what people want, they would have gone there first.

    You cannot buy refuse tenant who wants to have pet even though it is your own house.

    You are not allowed to let banks pay for your application cost because thats trailing commission so you now have to pay for it in tunes of $5k as such.

    • gromit on 05/02/2019 - 21:05
      +1

      Banks weren't paying for the application costs, YOU were. These were all passed on through higher rates and fees across their loan portfolio's and gave the less scrupulous brokers reasons to point borrowers at what is best for the broker rather than the borrower. If you think you weren't paying that $5k you are kidding yourself.

      • duchy on 06/02/2019 - 09:41

        That’s absolutely correct. I don’t get why banks simply don’t offer heir best rates directly.

        • HighAndDry on 06/02/2019 - 10:36
          +1

          Because they incur more costs if they have to process all your documents, including advising you what are necessary, arranging them, making sure they're all in order, etc.

          Plus - when does any profit-seeking company/store ever start by giving you their best price? They're not a charity.

    • 2ndeffort on 06/02/2019 - 15:29

      Happily trade-off access to exotic pets for security, healthcare, schools, and hopefully freedom from being bullied by criminal strongmen. Honestly in nearly 52 years I can only think of 2 or 3 minor inconveniences in my life caused by pets. I dont think I would live in a 2nd world country for greater 'Pet' rights.

  • BigLeviathan on 05/02/2019 - 17:16

    Nice, now I can have the DIY ergonomic monitor stand for free….

    BigLeviathan on 05/02/2019 - 17:16 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • Donaldhump on 05/02/2019 - 18:17

    The promo code MASTERAU12 gives 12 percent off for master card users

    Donaldhump on 05/02/2019 - 18:17 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • proudwanderer on 05/02/2019 - 18:18

    Some of the mortgage-broking industry's worst fears are contained in the final report, with the commission recommending the industry move from a commission-based to fee-based model.

    Wish they could make real estate agents move to a fee-based model instead of a commission-based one!

    • plentifoo on 05/02/2019 - 18:32

      Real estate agents charge fees on ‰ of rental income where they're likely to only push a higher rent determined by the landlord rather than personal gain. That's still a fee based model. Commission based models usually only apply to salary based on sales volume.

    • HighAndDry on 06/02/2019 - 10:39
      +1

      How about people are allowed to charge what they want, and customers can agree or refuse like they already can?

  • Donaldhump on 05/02/2019 - 18:19
    +4

    my Wife did want a book for Valentine’s Day

  • tessel on 05/02/2019 - 19:28

    Kick the can down the road. Nothing will change.

  • bryans on 05/02/2019 - 21:00
    +1

    If you thought bankers were bad go do a royal commission on the corrupt building industry

    • 2ndeffort on 05/02/2019 - 21:13
      +1

      ALP would fight against that to the last bullet!

  • CalmLemons on 05/02/2019 - 21:37
    +1

    …driving up the prices of loans and making houses that much more affordable one step at a time…

    The low income earners will end up paying for this one way or another.

    When the brokers disappear and everyone then tries to get their loan advice from their bank manager…..

  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 23:01

    Suppose you are currently a mortgage broker, self employed and with a family, how would you be feeling right now. This is the reality for thousands of brokers who will face certain unemployment come July 2020, all the while the big 4 ramp up profits and the coalition wonders why they are going to lose in a landslide come the Federal Election in May. Above all, this used to be the lucky country. It's got one of the highest GDP per capita ratings in the world. But when you have two realistic options for government, neither of which are remotely competent, it's hard to not worry about Australia's future.
    The richer get richer and the poorer never win.

    • DiscoJango on 07/02/2019 - 09:02

      Change is inevitable. Either adapt or die.

  • afah0447 on 06/02/2019 - 09:03

    The RC won't change a thing. In five years time this will all be forgotten about and the banks will go back to their old ways. Just look at where the US financial system (and law) is heading at the moment. Trump wants to rollback all the safeguards implemented after the GFC. Hayne was right…its all about GREED.

    People don't realise the capital system is setup so one set of people can profit off the back of another due to asymmetry of power.

    • HighAndDry on 06/02/2019 - 10:38
      +5

      This takes away too much blame from just individuals being greedy. One witness to the RC was basically complaining because as a young adult, she borrowed money to go to Europe and is blaming the banks for agreeing to lend her money. Who requested the loan? She did. Who wanted to go to Europe on borrowed money? She did. Who actually spent the money? She did. And yet she's the one complaining that it was the bank which did something wrong.

      Absolute lack of accountability for financial irresponsibility and a slap in the face to everyone else who actually saves and spends responsibly.

      • caramellokoala on 06/02/2019 - 15:44
        +2

        Very true. Our society is moving to a blame-less society where everyone thinks they're being hard done by and nothing is their fault. Eventually we are all going to suffer for it.

      • 2ndeffort on 06/02/2019 - 15:55
        +1

        Totally agree, you shouldn't need a bank to tell you that it is irresponsible to borrow $20K that you cant pay back to go on a European holiday.

      • Ghost47 on 06/02/2019 - 21:55

        Not everyone has the sensibility to understand the value of money though. That person sounds exactly like the type of people who borrow into the millions to buy a house and then they default on it or struggle with payments because wow, a million dollars isn't actually a trivial amount of money. Yes these people are essentially quite idiotic but that doesn't mean the banks are blameless.

        The banks are responsible for doing their due diligence to ensure that the loans they make out can be repaid. I believe it was evident from the RC that some banks (such as ANZ) did not double check application details provided to them from mortgage brokers. Mortgage brokers were partly responsible for ensuring that applicants could service their loans, but the banks need to double check that kind of thing especially when there are people out there who do lie about how much they earn or their personal expenses to get bigger loans, which then screws them over once they realise they can't pay back the loan. You put a huge pile of money in front of some moron who doesn't realise the value of it or how much work it'll take to pay it off and they will gladly take it. Essentially the banks are there to prevent idiots from hurting themselves.

        Sure the new laws will hurt me, and I've never taken out a loan before and will probably not be able to borrow as much because of the RC, but that's what this country needs.

        • HighAndDry on 07/02/2019 - 02:39

          Yes these people are essentially quite idiotic but that doesn't mean the banks are blameless.

          I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think anyone else should carry any blame for a person's idiocy. That, to me at least, is on that person and that person alone.

          The banks are responsible for doing their due diligence to ensure that the loans they make out can be repaid.

          Imo, that responsibility is only owed to their shareholders, not to the public or to the borrower - who, let's not forget, is an adult with adult rights and adult powers. With those come responsibility.

          Essentially the banks are there to prevent idiots from hurting themselves.

          Again I couldn't agree less. Supermarkets check ID of people who buy knives to ensure that a child isn't buying it because they might cut themselves. They're not responsible for stopping an adult from buying knives on the off chance the adult is an idiot and might cut themselves.

          Likewise here. People are either adults or not. You're proposing we treat all adults like children because some adults are idiots. No thanks - if you want to do that, be blunt about it and just label those particular people mentally retarded, supervise them like children, and let the rest of us adults continue to live like adults.

          • Ghost47 on 07/02/2019 - 15:10

            @HighAndDry: Fair enough, just going to agree to disagree to save ourselves both some time then.

            • HighAndDry on 07/02/2019 - 17:15

              @Ghost47: Yeah that's fine. For what it's worth, more of society (and people in general) agree with you than with me.

        • outlander on 07/02/2019 - 18:11

          Essentially the banks are there to prevent idiots from hurting themselves.

          The banks have all sorts of additional powers they can use to get their money back. If I, as a regular joe, lend money to someone recklessly and they don't pay it back, there's not a whole lot I can do. I can try and persue it through small claims, but thats a lot of hassle, and the odds of winning are small. With the banks its a whole different game.

          Extra powers, extra responsibilities. They go hand in hand.

          • HighAndDry on 08/02/2019 - 12:09

            @outlander: Banks have exactly the same access to the court system as you do. In fact - even as a private lender you can ask for loans to be secured by mortgages over property and then engage in mortgagee sales should the borrower default. Banks know more but to say that that exposes them to higher responsibility would be to punish intelligence.

            • outlander on 08/02/2019 - 13:07

              @HighAndDry: With any task, doing it the first time is harder than the 1000th time. There's a whole set of one-off costs that are incurred as you learn to do it, but usually once you know how its done, you can do it again much cheaper the second time, and the more you expect to do it, the more you can specialize, and invest in ways to reduce the ongoing costs. Our whole economy is based on this.

              Banks deal with defaults everyday. They have centuries of data, and whole departments specialized in perusing debts. So no, banks do not have the same access as me. Its like I'm playing chess, except I only just learned the rules, and they have a computer advising them of what moves to make. Its not the same at all. If there data says 'this person will almost certainly fail to pay a load back', and they stupidly go ahead and make a loan anyway, then they get what they deserve, don't they. They took the risk, they should deal with the consequences.

              would be to punish intelligence.

              This says a lot about you. Your living in a world where there are parents in charge, and they make rules for you and your siblings, and then when you come up with clever ways of getting around those rules they seem to come up new rules that arbitrarily target you.It feels unfair. It feels like your being punished for being smart. But Highanddry, baby, you have to see; the parents are dead. It's just us.

              • HighAndDry on 08/02/2019 - 13:19

                @outlander:

                This says a lot about you. Your living in a world where

                I'd like to point out that in a semi-rant where you imply I'm a kid living with my parents, you're unable to use "your/you're" correctly.

                In any case it doesn't change my argument. You're saying the banks should have more responsibility because they're better at doing something. That's punishing competence. And the worst thing is, not only do banks have the same access to the court system as you do, practically speaking if you're a self-represented litigant, the courts will be far more lenient towards you than they would be towards the banks.

                Under your logic - should bigger companies be placed under some form of artificial competitive disadvantage because they can take advantage of economies of scale?

                • outlander on 08/02/2019 - 14:21

                  @HighAndDry: No, I saw that mistake.. I just didn't care enough to correct it. I do that occasionally. It works as a sort of trap, to let me know what state of mind an opponent is in. If they have a strong, rational argument, they skip over it because its beneath them. If they're reaching, well.. it gives them something to grab hold of.

                  imply I'm a kid living with my parents

                  Its not about where you live, its about the mindset you use to process the world. Talking about punishments and rewards, points to a belief in some supreme authority who has the right to judge. For most of us that comes from childhood, where for the first 18 years your subject to the seemingly arbitrary rules of someone bigger and more powerful than you. Its fairly natural that it would carry on past childhood, and many people share that viewpoint. They think of the government as some kind of father figure, simultaneously a being that will protect them and rescue them if they run into trouble (Too many people are dying on the roads! The gubbiment needs to do something!') and a being that lords over them (Damn gubbiment! Look at all this money taken from me in tax! The Gubbiment is punishing me for being successful!)

                  practically speaking if you're a self-represented litigant, the courts will be far more lenient towards you than they would be towards the banks.

                  This is a bit of fantasy. Most judges are former lawyers. They are well versed in 'the game'. Ever tried to play a game with your friends, but one of them is a complete newb? You don't give them extra leniency. You more or less ignore them, because they disrupt the flow of the game and make it harder to have fun. Courts don't like self represent litigants, because they slow things down.

                  Under your logic - should bigger companies be placed under some form of artificial competitive disadvantage because they can take advantage of economies of scale?

                  They should be held to higher standards, yes, because it improves the health of the group as a whole. Which is why rules exist in the first place. It's not like they're suffering; the banks have been making record profits year after year.

                  Whats your goal, to allow the the wealthy to trap the poor and the stupid into indentured servitude, turning them basically into slaves? What does that achieve?

                  • HighAndDry on 08/02/2019 - 14:24

                    @outlander:

                    Talking about punishments and rewards, points to a belief in some supreme authority who has the right to judge.

                    Or just talking about the legal system, which has a punitive component.

                    They think of the government as some kind of father figure, simultaneously a being that will protect them and rescue them if they run into trouble

                    I'm expressly taking the opposite view, that the government should not protect and rescue them if they run into trouble - that in fact, individuals should be left to bear the consequences of their irresponsible financial decisions.

                    You realise that banking regulations are in fact government interference, and "responsible lending requirements" are the government protecting individuals like parents protecting children, correct?

                    Whats your goal, to allow the the wealthy to trap the poor and the stupid into indentured servitude, turning them basically into slaves? What does that achieve?

                    I don't work from a goal backwards. I like to work from consistent principles - one of which is that everyone should be treated equally and subject to the same laws. You are the one saying banks should be subject to a different set of laws than others (and indeed that people and companies should be treated differently based on competence, size, resources, etc).

                    • outlander on 09/02/2019 - 19:55

                      @HighAndDry:

                      I don't work from a goal backwards

                      Yeah see I don't do that. I ask myself what sort of world I want to live in, and then try and figure out what consistent principles would create that. To me, principles of truth, justice and hard work don't matter if the world they produce is full of liars, thieves and fat people.

                      I like to work from consistent principles

                      Where do you get these principles from?

  • negger on 06/02/2019 - 19:19

    Time to get rid off "Royal" and call it something sensible such as Judicial perhaps. I didn't find anything sort of not known already but this enquiry hopefully will introduce some positive changes.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/02/2019 - 15:00

      @negger

      Sensible??? Royal Commission is a fine and adequate name

      Royal Commissions is information gathering and investigative not a place to determine guilt or innocence

      Judicial is applying the laws, court enforcement of orders;

      The Royal Commission can investigate even when the Judicial system is what failed

      Royal Commission: has considerable powers, generally greater even than those of a judge but restricted to the terms of reference of the commission. they are not judicial; they bring down no verdicts.
      hence the Referrals to prosecution.

      Judicial: of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice, or the judiciary
      Definition of judiciary
      1a : a system of courts of law
      b : the judges of these courts

      • negger on 07/02/2019 - 17:29

        I just don't like the monarchy reference,that's all. That's for another day. Fine with the definition of what a Royal commision does and it's powers.

        • HighAndDry on 08/02/2019 - 12:10

          I think if you didn't have Royal Commissions, you'd just call them Parliamentary Inquiries (the same as Congressional Inquiries in the US).

        • [Deactivated] on 08/02/2019 - 13:51

          what about
          Choc Royal
          Royal Flush (this is an Ace)

          I just see Royal as an adjective word meaning Above all else.
          it can be used as an adjective to describe highest quality, more expensive, highest level detail

          (Late ME) royal, of a king,
          (Late ME) kinglike, reminiscent of a king
          (Late ME) majestic, appropriate for a king, kingly
          (Late ME) opulent, expensive, fine
          (Late ME) noble, princely

          Monarchy

          the Royal Family is not appropriate usage of Royal and most common in the simpleton tabloids

          the Queen and her family are monarchy,
          They consume possess and own items Fit for a King (Royal) items above all else

  • techno2000 on 07/02/2019 - 08:55
    +1

    Does anybody really think the Fat Cats will be punished?Nothing will happen.The so called law enforcers will huff and puff a lot and then let out a small fart in the end.

    • DiscoJango on 07/02/2019 - 09:03

      Did you expect anything different. Banks and politicians go hand in hand.

  • pformag on 07/02/2019 - 12:32

    What is with all the off topic collapses. Every point is on topic? Mods?

  • paulf on 07/02/2019 - 12:46

    And the winners are?
    The banks.
    Simple really, raise int rates over next 12 months to recoup whatever is paid in fines etc.
    Sacrifice a few execs.
    Be good for next 3 years or so.
    No competition with demise of brokers - so do what you want.
    Ignore the RBA as usual.

    • edgar28 on 07/02/2019 - 17:53

      need bank rate regulation

      similar to John Howard time

      • edgar28 on 07/02/2019 - 18:00

        20 years ago, highest bank discount rate was 0.6%, now the discount rate as high as 2.2%?

        bank rate regulation - home loan was around 2% higher than RBA rate. now the RBA rate is 1.5%, official home loan rate around 6.2%, after discounted rate at 4%.
        yes…. GREED from the bank

        RBA hs no control on bank rate = paper bullet than silver bullet

        • od810 on 07/02/2019 - 18:07
          +1

          Rba rate has little to do with commercial bank rate. Most of the funding is from the overseas market. You can't ask the bank go below certain % when US 5 treasury is almost 3%. The capital market would see no point of lending to Aussie lenders when they have similar yield with virtually no risk.

  • mychips on 07/02/2019 - 15:01
    +1

    If the government enact and make brokers charge fee for services, its estimated that brokers will charge anywhere around $3-5k per loan which most customers won't accept. This recommendation, if enacted upon will reduce competition and drive up rates due to the big 4 banks controlling so much market share already.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/02/2019 - 15:21

      A convenience store sells an item $5
      Supermarket $1

      but people will pay $4 more for Access, Location, Prestige, Packaging,
      'Convenience'

      People still pour money into travel agents 'Brokers' for their knowledge, 'Convenience', trust

      Banks fail at this selling only 3 loans A B C but all are still with Bank A.

      The Mortgage and Finance 'Broker' should be a 'Broker' making 9 products Loans A B & C from Bank A B & C available and equally considered.

      Many brokers have been behaving badly to consumers unfairly demanding consumer select Loan B Bank B because they the broker get a bigger commission.

      Those brokers that was offering quality service that benefited consumers with 'Convenience' 'Value' 'Confidence' 'Variety' 'Integrity' will continue.

      Absolutely people will pay a 3-5k pittance on advice could often will earn of save that per year

      Those 'excessive' number of brokers that opened up in the last decades with a bad business model of poor product matching & outright selling; will disappear and they deserve it!!

      That is capitalism

    • edgar28 on 07/02/2019 - 17:55
      -1

      recommendation is 2k fixed rate. (should be paid by bank, and bank will charge the customer ultimately)

      i.e. a high school student who study broker course (2.2k and 3 months) would earn 8k (4 cases per month) will earn $76k per year

      • HighAndDry on 08/02/2019 - 12:12
        -1

        Sure. Why not have the government set prices for everything else too like toilet paper and haircuts?

        • RecklessMonkeys on 11/02/2019 - 16:26

          Because they are not the single biggest investment that the average person makes in their lifetime.

          • HighAndDry on 11/02/2019 - 16:28
            -1

            @RecklessMonkeys: We're talking about broker fees, not housing prices. You want the government to start setting property prices…?

            • RecklessMonkeys on 11/02/2019 - 17:03
              -1

              @HighAndDry: I want banks and brokers brought to heel.
              High house prices have come about because of loose lending practices.
              Brokerage is a component of those prices, both directly and indirectly.
              They deserve the absolute minimum.

              If you have a concern about dodgy toilet paper recommendations, I suggest you give the ACCC a call.

              • HighAndDry on 11/02/2019 - 17:07
                +1

                @RecklessMonkeys: I honestly am not sure you understand the issue, much less what you're actually asking for.

                1. What exactly does "brought to heel" mean, in your opinion?

                2. Do you think property is not affordable enough or too affordable?

                3. Do you think the government should be involved in setting prices for non-essential services?

                Just to pre-empt potential answers:

                • The current Royal Commission, as it dealt with lending, concluded that banks were lending out money too easily, not that they charged too high or too low prices.

                • From the above, it meant that people were getting financing easier than they should have, meaning properties were actually more affordable (if you can't borrow money, things become less affordable).

                • Broker fees aren't even essential - nothings stops anyone from directly dealing with a bank for a home loan, or any kind of loan.

                • RecklessMonkeys on 11/02/2019 - 19:01

                  @HighAndDry:

                  1. Including, but not limited to – the prosecution of fraud, the limitation of rent-seeking, and the severing of the banks' tentacles into our financial and political systems.

                  2. I never mentioned 'affordability' – that's a red herring. I am aware, though, of the specious arguments similar to those just articulated. You seem to be struggling with the apparent contradictions – or are you just bored and looking for a debate? I'm talking about loose credit, to which you correctly referred in the RC's conclusion. Hayne also makes mention of the conflicts of mortgage brokers; ie Who do they serve – the customer or the bank? Hint – the banks own them.

                  3. I expect leadership in averting an economic crisis, such as a housing bubble, the underlying credit bubble and it's subsequent crash.

                  I get the impression you're a laissez-faire kinda guy, in which case I have a question for you :
                  How many economic crises is it going to take before you acknowledge that regulation has a role to play in 'free' markets?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join