Financial Advice

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67834/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In it’s latest report, the Australian Securities &amp; Investments Commission (ASIC) found the big four banks sold products to some customers through their adviser network, with a fee for ongoing advice, but the advice was never given. 
None of this came to light until the banks were asked by ASIC to look at adviser compensation, following the introduction of the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) legislation in 2013. 
No wonder the banks were wary of their practices being investigated. Not only has it come to light that many customers (176,000 at the last count) were being charged for services they were not receiving but, in many cases, the banks didn’t have the data they needed to find out whether customers had been dudded or not. 
And ASIC is pretty sure why such systemic issues emerge at regular intervals, stating:
Cultural factors in the banking and financial services institutions covered by this report may have contributed to the systemic failures we observed. 
The ASIC report details the reason for the cultural failings it observed in the wealth management businesses of the major banks:
Some advice licensees prioritised advice revenue and fee generation over ensuring that they delivered the required services.
ASIC found that the IT systems in wealth management in the major banks were stone-aged at best. The banks appear to have no idea what they don’t know, but are all working to identify how many more customers need to be compensated. 
ASIC also found that some banks failed to keep complete or accurate records to enable compliance to be analysed. And in some cases, authorised representatives had taken customers’ files with them when they left the firms, making it impossible to check whether or not advice was given.
It appears that every time a question is asked of the big banks, another example of bad behaviour is unearthed.
In the recent questioning of bank CEOs by the House Economics Committee, questions were raised with all CEOs about systemic issues. The answers were generally evasive and short on specifics. 
For example, when talking about a different but related, financial planning scandal, Andrew Thorburn, NAB CEO, said:
“We did a review and we had an independent party come and do that review with us, and we concluded and we stand by that, that it was not a systemic issue.”
What Mr Thorburn and other CEOs neglected to mention was that the banks had, as revealed in ASIC’s report, all already been in the middle of deep discussions about so-called “fee-for-services failures” . The regulator wrote:
Of particular concern is that many of the banking and financial services institutions covered by this review publicly state that their core values include being customer focused, “doing what is right” for customers, and acting with integrity. We encourage the institutions reviewed in this report to consider how their culture may have supported these systemic failures, and why their stated commitment to providing excellent service to customers is not translating into good outcomes for customers in the many instances we identified in this report.
At long last, ASIC has highlighted cultural issues across the industry that the boards and management of the largest banks have long refused to acknowledge. 
The regulator has done its job and found compelling evidence that the culture of the banks is rotten. 
It’s over to the politicians now.
Pat McConnell is honorary fellow, Macquarie University Applied Finance Centre, Macquarie University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/pat-mcconnell-13137" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

ASIC report highlights a deep culture problem in Australia’s banks

<html><body>
Financial adviser Noel Whittaker says headlines about property booms can lure inexperienced buyers into traps.
He also wrote recently that headlines with doom and gloom scenarios can scare people from making a good decision to buy.
"So, if you are serious about investing in property, stop reading the headlines and set yourself a specific plan," advised Noel Whittaker, the author of Making Money Made Simple and numerous other books on personal finance.
"One day we are told that real estate is booming, the next day people like Steve Keen and Harry Dent are predicting falls of up to 40%.
"When a boom is on we are even subjected to articles telling us how much our home is increasing each day, often accompanied by comments that it’s a tax-free gain and worth more than we are earning.
"Of course, it’s all nonsense – capital gain is not something that is happening, it is something that has happened.
"And the sad reality is that a big capital gain last year is a red flag that next year may be very different."
Whittaker noted the principal is called regression to the mean.
"I am not at all troubled by the usual negative comments about property that are circulating at the moment. 
"Australia’s population is on track to reach 40 million within 35 years – this has to be positive for anybody who buys well-located, quality real estate today and hangs on to it for the long term."
He advised there is no such a thing as a single property market – not for Australia, not even for a single capital city – there are myriad property markets all doing their own thing.
"How can you compare a townhouse in Cairns with a mansion in Point Piper?
"All over Australia some markets may be rising, other markets may be falling, and some may be flat."
He also noted real estate figures are notoriously unreliable because they take no account of improvements by owners,
Whittaker advised the first task for prospective investors was to find out exactly what they could afford, which means talking to a lender or mortgage broker, and laying all your cards on the table.
"Then, having worked out your price bracket, you need to research areas where you can buy a property you like for the price you’re able to pay.
"Once you have established that you are in the running, take the time to research the market thoroughly so that you become an expert on the area.
"You do this by going to open houses, befriending local real estate agents, and reading everything you can about your preferred location.
"Then when you come across a genuine bargain you will know that you have struck a winner.
"Always keep in mind that the secret of success in real estate is to buy well, and then add value." 
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Noel Whittaker says if you want to invest in property, stop reading the news

<html><body>
Landlords and real estate agents could face court, and prison or penalties up to $1.3 million, if they advice renters to use their superannuation to cover their rental payment during the coronavirus crisis.
In a note sent by ASIC's financial services enforcement group director Tim Mullally to the Real Estate Institute of Australia, Mullally said it could breach financial advice laws.
“ASIC is aware that some real estate agents are advising tenants who are unable to pay their rent, or who may find themselves in such a situation in future, to consider applying for early release of their superannuation," the letter read.
“Recent media reports and social media commentary outlining this conduct by some real estate agents is of significant concern to ASIC and, we would hope, you."
“ASIC intends to monitor this situation closely, and if contraventions of the licensing requirements of the Corporations Act are found, ASIC will not hesitate to act swiftly to protect vulnerable consumers,” Mullaly said.
The letter comes after workers who have been laid off due to COVID-19 were given permission to access up to $20,000 worth of superannuation over the next two years.
Mullaly continued stating that financial advice must only be provided by qualified and licensed financial advisers, not by real estate agents.
Individuals can be fined up to $126,000 and up to five years in jail for providing unlicensed financial advice. Corporations can be slapped with fines up to $1.26 million.
<div>
“Tenants facing financial difficulty need sound financial guidance and potentially debt counselling. Specifically pointing them to and recommending them to consider the specific possibility of accessing superannuation is, again, likely to amount to a breach of the Act,” Mullaly said.
 
</div>
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Landlords and real estate agents could face five years in prison by telling tenants to pay rent with their superannuation

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A damaging admission by the Commonwealth Bank will boost concern about the government’s plan to weaken protections for consumers seeking financial advice and throw into doubt its timetable for announcing changes.
The bank’s earlier failure to provide a parliamentary inquiry with full information about its handling of the aftermath of financial advisers' misconduct has forced a last-minute delay to a Senate report into the affair.
The bank now admits not all the relevant clients were contacted and offered the promised $5,000 to help them get fresh advice. More than 4000 cases are now to be dealt with.
Full information was apparently withheld by the bank for some time from the inquiry and from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
The government’s proposed changes to Labor’s Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) law would advantage the banks. They would apply the ban that exists on “conflicted renumeration” only to the provision of personal advice - exempting general advice provided by employees of banks and product manufacturing institutions.
The controversial package was put on hold for further inquiry and consultations. Seniors groups have been particularly critical.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann is anxious to finalise the measures quickly and does not want to revise them substantially.
But what the Senate economics references committee on Wednesday described as “surprise developments” – the production of new information from ASIC and the bank - will increase suspicion.
The committee, investigating the performance of ASIC, had been due on Friday to present a report expected to be very critical of the bank.
One of the committee’s main concerns has been the misconduct of some financial advisers in Commonwealth Financial Planning Ltd (CFP), part of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Group, and ASIC’s response to allegations of wrongdoing.
The committee said in an interim report on Wednesday that it was particularly interested in the adequacy and integrity of the ASIC-approved compensation arrangements for affected clients.
It had been well advanced in preparing its report when on May 16 ASIC and the CBA advised there were inconsistencies in the way in which the compensation arrangements had been applied.
“This revelation suggested that, for some time, the CBA had not kept either the committee or ASIC full informed about the compensation process for clients affected by serious misconduct within CBA’s businesses,” the interim report said.
Although ASIC and the CBA had attempted to correct the record, the committee said the evidence provided was “sketchy” and many questions were left unanswered.
Committee chairman, Labor’s Mark Bishop, said these included how many affected clients were “kept in the dark by the CFP, for how long, and the number who missed out on the offer of $5000 to help them pay for an expert assessor to assist their claim”.
Concerned it might still not have a full understanding of what had happened, the committee has asked for more information from ASIC and the bank.
Bishop tweeted that he was alarmed that “ASIC says over 4000 clients affected by inconsistent approach CBA applied to compensation measures. Maybe ten of thousands”. The latter number is a reference to possible unidentified clients.
The committee’s final reporting date has been delayed to no later than June 26.
The Senate economics legislation committee, with substantially overlapping membership with the ASIC inquiry, is examining the proposed FoFA changes.
It will report on June 16 and Cormann has planned to announce the government’s position immediately after that.
But the government could expose itself to more criticism if it did not wait until the report dealing with the Commonwealth Bank.
Chairman of the Financial Planning Association Matthew Rowe told The Conversation one would expect the latest development would push out the timetable for the government’s announcement.
His organisation, a professional body representing financial planners, has written to Cormann with its concerns about the reintroduction of commissions. It says the selling of products should be clearly separated from providing professional advice.
“Consumers are becoming increasingly suspicious of the behaviour of some of our major institutions,” Rowe said.
“The government needs to take great care with the arguments of those with significant vested interests where there is a real and significant public interest at stake.”
On FoFA the government is trapped in the triangle of what it wants to do, what politically it should do, and what the Senate will allow it to do.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/27285/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Michelle Grattan is one of Australia's most respected and awarded political journalists. Michelle currently has a dual role with an academic position at the University of Canberra and as associate editor (politics) and chief political correspondent at The Conversation.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. 
</body></html>

jake-cSmGT7VXVf

Commonwealth Bank behaviour sends more warning signals about Liberals' financial advice changes

<html><body>
People who commit white collar crime in Australia are getting off lightly compared with those found guilty of similar offenses in other countries, a report has found.
Thousands of Australians have lost millions of dollars or been put at risk by the actions of financial planners and credit brokers who have committed fraud, provided inappropriate advice and operated without an appropriate license.
A report by the Australia Securities and Investments Commission has found the penalties that can be imposed for such offenses in Australia are limited in some cases compared with those available to regulators in other jurisdictions.
For example, people who provide financial services without a license in Australia can only be fined up to $34,000. In contrast, the report found that people guilty of the same offenses in the US face maximum fines of $5.6 million. In the UK, the maximum fine is unlimited.
The maximum civil penalty in Australia for giving inappropriate advice is $200,000, while in the UK the maximum is unlimited, and in Hong Kong it is the greater of $1.4 million or three times the benefit gained by the wrongdoer. 
Individuals who broke corporate rules in the US could be sentenced to prison terms of up to 20 years. In Australia, and most other jurisdictions studied, the maximum prison term was 10 years for criminal penalties such as fraud and insider trading. The maximum prison term for providing financial services without a license in Australia is just two years.
The report compared maximum penalties in Australia to penalties imposed for similar offenses in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canadian province, Ontario.
It found that regulators elsewhere could, in addition to imposing fines and prison terms, remove financial benefits that wrongdoers had obtained through illegal profits or avoided losses. ASIC does not have that power, although it can ask other agencies to bring an action to confiscate the proceeds of crime.
The relatively low fixed fines that ASIC can impose and the fact that it cannot remove the proceeds of crime itself meant that wrongdoers may still profit from their conduct and not be deterred by the penalties, the report warned.
“The maximum fine that may be imposed may be substantially lower than the financial benefit obtained as a result of the wrongdoing,” it said.
The report also found inconsistencies between penalties that could apply to similar offenses under different pieces of legislation within Australia. For instance, offering a financial service without a license attracted a criminal penalty under the Corporations Act with individuals fined up to $34,000, while someone giving unlicensed credit advice could be subject to the same criminal penalty, or a civil penalty of up to $340,000.
Civil penalties in the Corporations Act have been eroded by inflation as they have not increased since they were set in 1992 for individuals and 2004 for corporations. In 2007, it was suggested that the penalties should be lifted following a Treasury review, although no increases were made.
The report is the first of its kind in over a decade and ASIC has recommended further work be done.
Its findings will be fed into ASIC’s submission to the Financial System Inquiry, which closes for comment on Friday, March 28.
</body></html>

zfielding-GvX3Uq9KTa

Australia's white collar crime penalties pale in comparison to other jurisdictions

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Following last week’s public hearing, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee is preparing to report on its <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/FOFA" target="_blank">inquiry</a> into a government bill that would significantly water down the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) legislation.
The legislation banned “conflicted remuneration” - commissions provided to advisers and financial planners by the producers of financial investment products such as banks and wealth management firms. FOFA also required bi-annual renewal of any ongoing fee agreements between investors and their planners on an “opt in” basis, and made it the duty of financial services providers to advise and act in the “best interests” of their clients.
The government argues the “streamlining” of FOFA will help to “cut red tape” and reduce costs to consumer investors. Unfortunately, while there is always room for fine-tuning new legislation to “streamline” it, the government’s proposals do far more. They seriously undermine the consumer protections in the FOFA legislation and, in some ways, take investors back to the pre-FOFA position.
Banks win under a ‘streamlined’ FOFA
While not attempting to reinstate product-based commissions for personal advice, the government’s bill does propose to allow them for “general advice”.
Bankers, planners and lawyers may understand the difference between “personal advice” and “general advice”, but the subtleties of this distinction may be lost on consumers in real-life situations. A bank employee may say to a consumer, “This product is very good for people (in general) of your age with your income/asset position,” without considering the consumer’s particular needs, objectives and financial situation. This is “general advice” only but under the current legislation, the employee still may not receive a commission if the consumer invests in the product as this would be “conflicted remuneration”.
The government proposes to exempt such “general advice” from the ban on commissions. Further, there will be almost no restrictions on commissions when the result of the conversation between the bank employee and the customer results in a basic banking product, general insurance or life insurance. Not surprisingly, this is one area where consumer groups agree with the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) as the latter is concerned at the decline of properly remunerated personal advice and the total domination of a “sales culture” built on commission-driven “general advice”.
Where the consumer groups and the FPA part ways, however, is on the issue of bi-annual renewals. Currently, under FOFA, a planner or adviser who is receiving ongoing commissions, either from product issuers for old pre-FOFA investments, or directly from the client, must notify the client every two years and allow them 30 days to “opt in” and renew the ongoing fee arrangement.
Best practice for all
The government proposes removing this requirement and returning to the old pre-FOFA “opt out” situation. This is despite strong evidence, from many sources including ASIC itself, that large numbers of consumer investors are “inactive” and that many planners and advisers receiving commissions from these consumers or their investments don’t bother regularly contacting them to review them. Of course, “best practice” in the financial planning industry is to conduct such reviews, annually or bi-annually. FPA members who abide by its Code of Practice would do so.
It is surprising, therefore, for the FPA to oppose this requirement and to support the government’s attempt to “streamline” it away. Other financial services products, like house and car insurance, are renewed annually and consumers are given notice and opportunity to consider the product and shop around. Why not investments? Informed and updated consumers regularly considering their investment performance and their fee arrangements with their planners and advisers makes for a better-performing investment industry and confident consumers.
FOFA also repealed the requirement for advisers to have a “reasonable basis” for their advice and replaced it with the obligation to act and advise in the “best interests” of the client. This duty, however, can be satisfied if the adviser can prove they complied with a “checklist” of quite specific obligations followed by the general requirement to consider “any other step” that was in the client’s best interest. This last requirement is the only item in the relevant sub-section that actually mentions “best interest”. The government is proposing to remove this last “catch all” provision, saying it is too open-ended and “creates uncertainty”.
Most professionals have open-ended obligations which require the exercise of professional judgement. While their insurers produce checklists to help manage risks, these are no defence to a claim of professional negligence. Indeed, the principles of the law of negligence itself, which apply to everybody, not just professionals, are expressed in general terms such as “reasonable foreseeability”.
If financial planners and advisers want to be seen as a profession and to charge accordingly, they need to accept that not all their obligations can be neatly spelt out for them in a legislative checklist.
Paul O'Shea is senior lecturer, TC Beirne School of Law at University of Queensland.
Paul O'Shea was commissioned to write an analysis for National Seniors Australia on the potential consumer detriments of the Commonwealth government's proposals to "streamline" the Future of Financial Advice reforms. He is affiliated with Queensland Consumers and is a "Friend" (Honorary Life Member) of the Financial Counselling Association of Queensland. He is a member of the Investment, Life Insurance and Stockbroking Panel of the Financial Ombudsman's Service. His private legal practice advises both consumers and financial services providers. 
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Financial advisers must accept that their obligations can't be spelt out in an easy checklist

<html><body>
A Melbourne man who claimed to be a financial planner faced the Magistrates’ Court this week, charged over his involvement in a <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/42108-business-group-swindled-out-of-800-000-through-fraud" target="_blank">fraud</a> scheme said to be worth $100 million over 10 years.
<a href="https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/poker-pro-faces-142-charges-over-100m-fraud-20140528-394ev" target="_blank">Fairfax reports</a> Bill Jordanou, 55, faces 142 charges relating to 40 incidents between 2004 and 2013, including more than 100 charges of “obtaining a financial advantage”, often in the form of home loans and electronic transfers into home loan accounts.
Jordanou is also facing charges related to obtaining property by deception, conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ Bank, Bankwest, Bank of Melbourne and Bank of Queensland, conspiring to pervert the course of justice, and the theft of a Mercedes-Benz.
Prosecutor Luke Excell told Fairfax Jordanou is “alleged to have drawn funds using false client approvals and invoices … then used it across various property developments as well as maintaining a lifestyle.”
Excell said Victoria Police became aware of Jordanou’s activities, and those of his associates, when the Commonwealth Bank discovered a number of loan applications lodged on behalf of Jordanou’s clients were supported by false documents, including ATO documents, letters of employment and financial statements.
The bank lodged complaints against accounting firm Zaia Arthur &amp; Associates, where Jordanou was working as a “financial adviser” at the time.
SmartCompany attempted to contact Zaia Arthur &amp; Associates this morning but the phone number listed for the firm has been disconnected.
Jordanou’s lawyer, George Defteros, told Fairfax his client has “been waiting for these charges for two-and-a-half years … and we welcome these charges because Mr Jordanou wants to get on with his life”.
Mark Rantall, chief executive of the Financial Planning Association of Australia told SmartCompany there are a number of rules individual investors and small business owners should follow to safeguard themselves against unsound financial advice.
Rantall says the "golden rule" is to always check the qualifications of the person giving the advice and to make sure they are a member of the FPA, which is the national professional association for financial planners.
“The second golden rule is that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is,” says Rantall. “If you are being offered a get-rich-quick scheme, the risk associated with that scheme will be extraordinarily high.”
“The third rule is that your financial planner should spend more time talking about you and your investments, than themselves and the products they may be offering,” says Rantall.
Rantall says it is also important to make sure your financial plan matches your own personal risk profile, and that your investments are diversified across different products and different asset categories.
“The final thing would be to make sure you keep you to date with your portfolio and that you always feel comfortable with the investments being recommended,” says Rantall. 
A spokesperson for the FPA told SmartCompany individuals and business owners who are concerned about receiving sound financial advice can use the <a href="https://fpa.com.au/find-a-planner" target="_blank">“Find a Financial Planner” function</a> of the FPA’s website to find an expert, as FPA members are held to higher professional standards. 
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

ekeating-PWvazjYE25

Melbourne financial planner faces court over $100 million fraud charge

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The government today is set to bow to public and industry pressure to ensure that commissions remain outlawed under its controversial financial advice legislation.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann is expected to announce that a rewrite of the legislation proposed by a Senate inquiry will be undertaken.
The government has faced a storm of protest over its plans to water down Labor’s Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) law, weakening consumer protection and benefiting the banks by permitting the payment of commissions for “general advice” given by bank employees that dealt with bank products.
The government members of the Senate inquiry say in their report, tabled last night, that the legislation’s explanatory memorandum should make it clear “that it is not the government’s intention to reintroduce commissions”.
The provisions governing “conflicted remuneration” should be redrafted to make them clearer, the report says.
The distinctions between the terms “information”, “general advice” and “personal advice” should be made “much sharper and applicable in the practical sense” in relation to allowing exemptions from conflicted remuneration.
Bank employees would still be able to receive bonuses and incentives but not commissions related to products.
The report says a number of submissions strongly objected to the amendment broadening the exemptions from conflicted remuneration. They came not only from consumer groups but from a range of industry groups.
The bill’s intention is to enable a business, under certain circumstances, to give general advice to retail clients on its own products, the report says. The present law needs to be changed to remove “unnecessary complications” around the provision of general advice. But the committee is concerned about the confusion surrounding the proposed changes “and the fear that they have the potential to reopen the door to commissions”.
The committee also notes the concerns about the possible misuse or misunderstanding of the term “general advice”.
Labor and the Greens put in dissenting reports opposing the government’s legislation.
Cormann took over carriage of the legislation from Arthur Sinodinos, who had to stand aside as Assistant Treasurer when called as a witness before the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Sinodinos was seen as very sympathetic to the banks' demands.
The pressure on the government to alter its legislation intensified because of the revelations about fraud by the financial planning business of the Commonwealth Bank, followed by the Bank’s bad handing of the scandal. The Bank has paid out $52 million in compensation to about 1100 customers but now could be forced to pay hundred of millions of dollars more.
The concessions on the financial advice legislation comes as today’s Newspoll shows the Coalition trailing Labor on the two party vote 47-53% The Coalition’s primary vote rose one point to 37% and Labor dropped one to 36%, in the past fortnight. Support for independents and micro parties has climbed to a record high of 17%.
Michelle Grattan is one of Australia's most respected and awarded political journalists. Michelle currently has a dual role with an academic position at the University of Canberra and as associate editor (politics) and chief political correspondent at The Conversation.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. 
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Government to tighten its financial advice changes to rule out commissions

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The decision by the Coalition government in Canberra to push forward with plans to reform the regulatory regime around the provision of financial advice has received strong opposition from a number of quarters.
The Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) was originally the product of a Labor government seeking to address the consequences of high-profile corporate scandals and now their appropriateness and effectiveness is being called in to question.
In addition to a number of tweaks to provisions addressing conflicts and fees, perhaps most controversial is the government’s proposal to eliminate the catch-all requirement, included alongside a laundry-list of detailed prohibitions and mandates, that an adviser always act in the ‘best interest” of his or her client. There would seem to be nothing objectionable to that in principle and most clients would be shocked to have an adviser look them in the eye and say quite frankly that the advice they were providing was not in their best interest.
What is important to keep in mind, though, is the purpose of financial regulation and what the impact of open-ended, catch-all provisions is on how business is actually done day-to-day. A regulatory regime is a specially-crafted set of rules and procedures for a particular industry – in this case, financial services – that sits on top of the older and broader legal system which is of general application to the sum total of human activity. Where the statutes and judicial decisions that demarcate the boundaries of common law and equity are general in scope and to a large extent backwards looking, financial regulation is highly specific and meant to map very closely what is done in the industry currently and in the foreseeable future.
The difficulty with broad, vaguely drafted catch-all provisions becomes clear when you understand how they will be applied in practice. Imagine a rule with 17 specific requirements and prohibitions. The firm or individual seeking to comply with that rule proceeds to ensure that they are on the right side of each element. Sometime later, a regulator looks at their actions and determines that, even though fully compliant with the 17 explicit provisions, there is still for some reason something wrong in hindsight with what has occurred. But if the point of a financial regulatory regime is to be as specific as possible, what purpose does such a catch-all provision serve, especially considering that there are well-developed bodies of law, including the laws of fraud and misrepresentation, which already exists and can be relied on whenever needed?
In that light, such vague provisions can be seen as simply a “do-over” for regulators unable or unwilling to build out their case under the more explicit and detailed sections of the rulebook.
It is easy to confuse “more regulation” with “better regulation.” With every financial crisis there is the battle cry for more rules! What is actually needed in many cases is simply rules that more correctly reflect the actual problems and inefficiencies and pitfalls that have developed in the market recently. The sheer number of pages in the rule will tell you very little about how effective oversight will be.
Opponents of the Coalition’s reform proposals will say that their goal is iron-clad protection for consumers. Clearly, an admirable aspiration, when taken by itself. However, let’s not forget that the purpose of a financial regulatory regime is not to bring the level of risk down to nil. Of course, it is possible to do this, but then the volume of transactions will decline sharply and the vast financial machine of investment and savings would sputter to a halt. Instead, the goal is to maintain a level of investor protection that is acceptable while fostering a financial system that provides the economic goals, such as growth, that have been deemed essential for national prosperity.
I often give as an example a referee who is in charge of overseeing a soccer game. Too little involvement, and the game will degenerate into violence. Too much involvement, and the game will be a cacophony of whistles and flashing yellow and red cards. In either respect, the game being played will not be a game of soccer.
Where specific changes to specific rules are needed, then this can be made discreetly and with great effect. Vague catch-all provisions that in effect give regulators after-the-fact a second bite at the apple to focus on actions not previously identified as problematic merely serve to place clouds over firms and individuals that impede decision-making and create uncertainty for little clear purpose.
Timothy Spangler is adjunct professor at <a href="https://www.ucla.edu/" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">University of California, Los Angeles</a>.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Understanding the limits of financial regulation

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The wealth profile of Australian households has changed phenomenally over the past 25 years, according to a <a href="https://www.fundingaustraliasfuture.com/sites/fundingaustraliasfuture.com/files/papers/Australian_Household_Sector_Finances.pdf" target="_blank">recent paper</a> from the Australian Centre for Financial Studies. Thanks to increases in asset prices and the introduction of compulsory superannuation in 1992, most households are much wealthier than those of previous generations. Total household wealth in 2013 reached $6,689 billion, six and a half times the level of household wealth in 1988.
From an aggregate point of view, as RBA data shows below, the net wealth trend line has been positive and increasing with one noticeable blip – the global financial crisis in 2007-08.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/56576/area14mp/t9y8ht9g-1408070072.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/56576/width668/t9y8ht9g-1408070072.png" alt=""></a>
Source: Author provided
As of the end of 2013, dwellings comprise more than half the value of household assets (54%); superannuation and life policies account for a further 25%; with consumer durables (such as motor vehicles and household furnishings) at 3%. This provides an interesting contrast with 1988, where again dwellings accounted for around half the value of household assets (51%); superannuation and life policies 17%; and consumer durables 10%.
While the value of assets has gone up, so too has household debt. In 2013, total household liabilities, mostly debt, stand at around half (49%) of the value of household financial assets, or around one-fifth (21%) of total assets. So, for every dollar in debt, households have, on average, about $2 in financial assets and around $5 in total assets.
This compares to the situation in 1988, when total household liabilities stood at around one-third (33%) of the value of household financial assets, or around one-eighth (13%) of total assets. In 1988, for every dollar in debt, households had, on average, about $3 in financial assets and around $8 in total assets.
By age and income
While overall household wealth is increasing, there are some very marked variations when the data is segmented by age and income levels.
An examination of net wealth by age group reveals a lifecycle pattern to consumption. This is well expressed by the figure below, which provides an excellent stylised view of the use of financial assets as a means of smoothing consumption through the lifecycle.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/56577/area14mp/kt925q5k-1408070132.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/56577/width668/kt925q5k-1408070132.png" alt=""></a>
Source: Corrigan and Matterson (2009), Author provided
Assets are accumulated through the use of human capital from the beginning of a working life. Debt is used to supplement income to further finance assets, which is then paid down pre-retirement. Net wealth is then expended in retirement.
In retirement, the capacity for an individual to support oneself through human capital is much reduced. Therefore, households need to ensure sufficient financial resources have been accumulated for consumption for discretionary purposes – especially in the more active early retirement phase – and to cover the potential increase in health-care costs in the later stages of retirement.
Just as Australians have been consolidating their wealth, a second major trend has been the rise in longevity. Life expectancy for men has risen from around 65 in the early 1900s to around 85 today. While increased wealth bodes well for financial well-being in retirement, steps must be taken to preserve and protect retirement savings to last for what can be around 20 years on average, after the completion of working life.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/56578/area14mp/f7csvq86-1408070203.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/56578/width668/f7csvq86-1408070203.png" alt=""></a>
Household net worth by age profile ($’000, mean value, Australia, 2011-12). Source: Reserve Bank of Australia, 2013, Author provided
Article continues on the next page. Please click below. 
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
A skewed distribution of net wealth
Within a defined contribution superannuation system, the need for both advice and products to assist consumers to manage investment and longevity risk to ensure a comfortable and self-reliant retirement is a priority.
However, for some households, managing wealth is not an issue. Australia, as in many OECD countries, has a skewed distribution of net wealth, with the bulk being held by a relatively small number of households. The wealthiest 20% of households hold around 61% of total household net worth, averaging $2.2 million per household.
On the other hand, the poorest 20% of households account for just 1% of total household net worth in Australia, with an average of about $31,000 per household. Mean household net worth in Australia for the period 2011-12 was around $728,000 (consisting of $858,000 assets and $130,000 of liabilities).
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/56581/area14mp/7kj39ynk-1408076145.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/56581/width668/7kj39ynk-1408076145.png" alt=""></a>
Source: ABS, 2013
So not everyone in Australia is getting wealthier. Many households face financial exclusion where: "Individuals lack access to appropriate and affordable financial services and products - the key services and products are a transaction account, general insurance and a moderate amount of credit."
A 2013 Australian <a href="https://www.financialliteracy.gov.au/media/465159/nab_csi_measuring_financial_exclusion_in_australia_2013.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> found that 18% of the adult population were either fully excluded or severely excluded from financial services in 2012. Just over 1% of adults were fully excluded – they had no financial services products – and almost 17% of adults were severely excluded in that they only had one financial services product.
In all, this means more than three million Australians are either partly or fully financially excluded.
What do Australians need from financial services?
Despite the fact that Australians are getting wealthier, financial literacy is not increasing at the same rate. There is a gulf between what households actually do and what may be in their best interests to do. The complexity of the problem means that households need assistance in making these decisions.
The need for guidance is so critical that it must be available in multiple forms. In addition to traditional financial advice, embedded product and/or technology-based guidance may help nudge households toward better decisions.
Households are also exposed to a multitude of financial-related risks – market inflation, longevity, health, leverage and climate risks to name a few – which are simultaneously dynamic, complex and can manifest over different time horizons. In addition to improved guidance, households need a more complete menu of solutions to help manage these risks.
To make this guidance and risk management as effective as possible for households, they require a complete set of financial “building blocks”. Without these, some household risks loom large: for example, longevity risk remains a real consideration for households, increasingly so as the population ages.
Furthermore, there is an implicit assumption that all Australians have equal access to, and benefit equally from, the financial system. This is not the case. Large segments of the population suffer from financial exclusion: they have either limited or incomplete engagement with critical channels of the system. Measures specifically targeted at closing these gaps should be a priority.
Finally, to facilitate the innovation required to meet these challenges, regulation must be flexible, responsive and oriented towards meeting the needs of households. One immediate reform would be to promote further innovation in the area of retirement income products.
Building a financial system that serves Australian households requires a range of approaches if we are to build an inclusive and more equitable society.
Deborah Ralston is professor of finance and director at <a href="https://www.australiancentre.com.au/" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Australian Centre for Financial Studies</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Financial Advice

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Financial Advice

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News